4 ms·

All sounds well and good, until you realize that a "bad domain" in the Google-verse isn't limited to spammers, but also for instance domains from which somethin

All sounds well and good, until you realize that a "bad domain" in the Google-verse isn't limited to spammers, but also for instance domains from which something was published that the copyright-mafia didn't take kindly to. Or whatever other obscure reasons and methods Google may have to blacklist domains. "Spammy" domains is a a smokescreen. The issue is lack of transparency and accountability of Google when it comes to penalizing domains. We should simple be able to check this, just like with any RBL. It's highly inappropriate to call those who fall victim to this "suckers", but it illustrates once again how Google feels about the little people.

DominikR 14y ago
I agree that there is a lack of transparency regarding penalties for spammy pages, but the copyright stuff (and censorship requests by the government) is clearly forced upon them. At least they release a transparency report about the nature and amount of censorship/copyright removals. (it also shows which party requested the removal, and what exactly was removed) I am not aware of any other search engine that releases this information. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ Edit: Here's a list of all removal requests: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/...
- onemorepassword 14y ago
  Just an example: removing certain sites from their autocomplete feature was not forced upon them. They are not required to do this, and they are not transparent about it. Their transparency is also limited to what is forced upon them, not what they do themselves, quietly and secretly. Also note that other properties, like the massively censored YouTube, are completely omitted from their transparency report (unless it ironically enough involves removing links to YouTube...). The little bit Google is transparent about when it comes to what they omit from "organizing the world's information and make it universally accessible" (Google's mission statement) is only what suits them. It's a marketing tool to sell the message "it's not our fault". Transparency and openness are not part of Google's DNA, that bit is just marketing. It's not the flaws in the system that bother me, this is stuff is hard. It's the marketing-driven pretense of caring and at the same time arrogantly telling us "suckers" to go f* ourselves.
- WalterGR 14y ago
  Here's a list of all removal requests It's not. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/faq/#is_the_data_comprehensive http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/... "...It is a partial historical record that includes more than 95% of the volume of copyright removal requests that we have received for Search since July 2011. It does not include..."
lazyjones 14y ago
> "Spammy" domains is a a smokescreen. The issue is lack of transparency and accountability of Google when it comes to penalizing domains. We should simple be able to check this, just like with any RBL. Completely agree. We bought a domain from a long-time competitor (it was our registered brand name we've had 12 years, but for another TLD) and were unable to check beforehand whether there was a Google penalty associated with it and whether the competitor wanted to part with it because we offered so much money or he had suffered from a penalty and needed to get rid of it. We just had to risk it anyway, for obvious reasons. The way Google keeps its data and methods secret helps it get away with weak heuristics and from many (not all) people gaming them, but it also hurts a lot of people with legitimate concerns.
redthrowaway 14y ago
Why would Google publicize how and which domains are penalized? That's a terrible idea that would simply play into the hands of spammers and make their job easier. At the end of the day, it's not Google's job to make your life easier. Their job is to deliver relevant SERPs and monetize them through ads. The extent to which they'll go out of their way to help you is the extent to which not doing so would hurt the relevance of their SERPs, and ultimately the consumer's trust therein. There seems to be a tendency on HN to think of Google as the Guardian of the Internet, and ascribe powers and responsibilities to them commensurate with that role. They're not said guardians, though: they're a search engine and ad broker. They only protect the Internet out of self-interest, and expecting more of them is unreasonable and unfair for a publicly traded company.
- bad_user 14y ago
  > Why would Google publicize how and which domains are penalized? That's a terrible idea that would simply play into the hands of spammers and make their job easier. If spam detection relies on obscurity of the signals used, then it isn't good spam detection and for every change it's only a matter of time until spammers adapt. If a trained human can recognize spam in its many forms, then it's possible for spam detectors to do the same without relying on obscurity. Speaking on the subject, if a human can recognize that a domain is not owned by the same entity and doesn't have the same content it used to, then I don't see where's the problem in white-listing such a domain. > At the end of the day, it's not Google's job to make your life easier At the end of the day it's not your job to explain their reasoning or apologize for their screw-ups. If you're not a Google employee, then you've got no idea what their internal goals are or what their "job" is. > They only protect the Internet out of self-interest, and expecting more of them is unreasonable and unfair for a publicly traded company What I don't understand is why in the world should a publicly traded company be treated any different from a real person? If somebody behaves like a jackass, do you tolerate that person? If somebody betrays your trust, are you going to give a damn about that person's bottom line? And forget about comparisons to people's interrelationships. Why should publicly traded companies be viewed any differently by consumers and clients? Why would I give a damn if a company is privately owned or public, as long as that doesn't make a difference to my own bottom line?

DominikR 14y ago

I agree that there is a lack of transparency regarding penalties for spammy pages, but the copyright stuff (and censorship requests by the government) is clearly forced upon them. At least they release a transparency report about the nature and amount of censorship/copyright removals. (it also shows which party requested the removal, and what exactly was removed) I am not aware of any other search engine that releases this information. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ Edit: Here's a list of all removal requests: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/...

onemorepassword 14y ago
Just an example: removing certain sites from their autocomplete feature was not forced upon them. They are not required to do this, and they are not transparent about it. Their transparency is also limited to what is forced upon them, not what they do themselves, quietly and secretly. Also note that other properties, like the massively censored YouTube, are completely omitted from their transparency report (unless it ironically enough involves removing links to YouTube...). The little bit Google is transparent about when it comes to what they omit from "organizing the world's information and make it universally accessible" (Google's mission statement) is only what suits them. It's a marketing tool to sell the message "it's not our fault". Transparency and openness are not part of Google's DNA, that bit is just marketing. It's not the flaws in the system that bother me, this is stuff is hard. It's the marketing-driven pretense of caring and at the same time arrogantly telling us "suckers" to go f* ourselves.
WalterGR 14y ago
Here's a list of all removal requests It's not. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/faq/#is_the_data_comprehensive http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/... "...It is a partial historical record that includes more than 95% of the volume of copyright removal requests that we have received for Search since July 2011. It does not include..."

lazyjones 14y ago

> "Spammy" domains is a a smokescreen. The issue is lack of transparency and accountability of Google when it comes to penalizing domains. We should simple be able to check this, just like with any RBL. Completely agree. We bought a domain from a long-time competitor (it was our registered brand name we've had 12 years, but for another TLD) and were unable to check beforehand whether there was a Google penalty associated with it and whether the competitor wanted to part with it because we offered so much money or he had suffered from a penalty and needed to get rid of it. We just had to risk it anyway, for obvious reasons. The way Google keeps its data and methods secret helps it get away with weak heuristics and from many (not all) people gaming them, but it also hurts a lot of people with legitimate concerns.

redthrowaway 14y ago

Why would Google publicize how and which domains are penalized? That's a terrible idea that would simply play into the hands of spammers and make their job easier. At the end of the day, it's not Google's job to make your life easier. Their job is to deliver relevant SERPs and monetize them through ads. The extent to which they'll go out of their way to help you is the extent to which not doing so would hurt the relevance of their SERPs, and ultimately the consumer's trust therein. There seems to be a tendency on HN to think of Google as the Guardian of the Internet, and ascribe powers and responsibilities to them commensurate with that role. They're not said guardians, though: they're a search engine and ad broker. They only protect the Internet out of self-interest, and expecting more of them is unreasonable and unfair for a publicly traded company.

bad_user 14y ago
> Why would Google publicize how and which domains are penalized? That's a terrible idea that would simply play into the hands of spammers and make their job easier. If spam detection relies on obscurity of the signals used, then it isn't good spam detection and for every change it's only a matter of time until spammers adapt. If a trained human can recognize spam in its many forms, then it's possible for spam detectors to do the same without relying on obscurity. Speaking on the subject, if a human can recognize that a domain is not owned by the same entity and doesn't have the same content it used to, then I don't see where's the problem in white-listing such a domain. > At the end of the day, it's not Google's job to make your life easier At the end of the day it's not your job to explain their reasoning or apologize for their screw-ups. If you're not a Google employee, then you've got no idea what their internal goals are or what their "job" is. > They only protect the Internet out of self-interest, and expecting more of them is unreasonable and unfair for a publicly traded company What I don't understand is why in the world should a publicly traded company be treated any different from a real person? If somebody behaves like a jackass, do you tolerate that person? If somebody betrays your trust, are you going to give a damn about that person's bottom line? And forget about comparisons to people's interrelationships. Why should publicly traded companies be viewed any differently by consumers and clients? Why would I give a damn if a company is privately owned or public, as long as that doesn't make a difference to my own bottom line?