Google To Punish No-Good Sites With Revised Search Rankings

Google's method of ranking of search results took a hit last week in a chilling New York Times piece . The article exposed a merchant who gamed Google by bullying his customers: The ruder he was, the more negative reviews he received, and, ironically, the better his website's ranking on Google.

The piece accomplished what no advocacy group or even government has managed: change Google's search algorithm.

Google announced in a blog post posted Wednesday that it would be altering the criteria it uses to rank search results in an effort to combat "disturbing" incidents like the one recounted by the Times.

"In the last few days we developed an algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience," Google wrote.

Not even the Obamas could get Google to bury a bad site. An offensive image of the First Lady that appeared as the first result for "Michelle Obama" elicited only an apology from Google.

Notoriously secretive about the methods it uses to rank search results and wary of users who might game its system, Google would not say more about the new algorithm that it had adopted. "We can say with reasonable confidence that being bad to customers is bad for business on Google," it offered by way of explanation.

And yet there's one word in the statement that no Google user should miss: "Opinion." An unemotional and unbiased bot fetches your search results, but a living, breathing engineer is its puppeteer. While Google maintains that "the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google do not determine or impact our search results," the judgment, life experience, and, yes, opinions by default helps shapes the algorithm Google relies on. Search is subjective and, with nearly 70% of all queries conducted through Google, it bears remembering that what we see isn't always what we can get.

Comments

[noob1]

02:52 PM on 12/08/2010

And what is google's game? eh?

[macracan]

08:20 AM on 12/03/2010

The original article author is mistaken when she says:
"While Google maintains that "the beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google do not determine or impact our search results," the judgment, life experience, and, yes, opinions by default helps shapes the algorithm Google relies on."

What Google says is in fact true. The policy at google is that if you can't measure objectively an advantage, it is not an advantage and the change (to ranking algorithm for example) is not made. Objective measurements mean actual user response. Small (very, very small scale) tests are run for candidate changes, and if objective measurements suggest an advantage, only then the change is rolled out. Even so, new measurements are taken from live system afterwards and compared with historical data. If the change is not proved to be an advantage it is rolled back. So no, no single person can subjectively affect major pieces of the google codebase.

[MorningDelight]

06:58 PM on 12/02/2010

FTC 'do not track' plan would be a Google killer!

The Federal Trade Commission proposed this week that consumers should have a "do not track" option for the Internet, similar to the "do not call" list that exists to block telemarketers.

Sounds great, right? With private data abuses and security lapses constantly popping up in the headlines, the idea of easily taking yourself off the radar might sound appealing.

43

EmailPrintComment
But the FTC's proposal faces fierce opposition, from both the tech industry and many lawmakers. And if it were adopted, it would open a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.

The FTC's plan calls for a universal add-on piece of software that surfers could install on their Internet browsers to notify websites that they do not want any information about them to be collected. The proposal would need congressional approval before it could be enacted as an industry-wide mandate.

On the surface, a "do not track" option sounds like an elegant solution to a growing problem. It's increasingly difficult for consumers to know who is collecting their browsing history and personal information, and what is being done with it. Shifting the privacy-protection burden from consumers to the companies who track information is attractive.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/02/technology/ftc_do_not_track/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

[WhatTheHolyHeck]

02:45 PM on 12/02/2010

From a business standpoint, I'm terrified of this. What if people keen to damage my business (competitors and detractors) will spam review sites with fake bad reviews in order to make our search results go away?

That is SCARY.

[think-it-over]

04:17 PM on 12/02/2010

While Google isn't talking about what they changed, I'm guessing they're trying to evaluate any negative tone. If that's the case, it's simply going to make such things neutral. Remember that Google is ranking popularity, which is easy. It's still up to the individual to determine the validity and usefulness of a page, website, or business.

Among the things that determines a page's ranking is how many other websites refer to it. In the past Google would apparently treat a reference the same, whether the related content said "some_domain.com is a fantastic business", or "some_domain.com is the worst business on the planet." Under that system, 1000 of the latter did more to make your page "popular" than 900 of the former. Under the new system the negative reviews presumably won't count against you, but they also won't count as referrals to a page's popularity.

[WhatTheHolyHeck]

04:27 PM on 12/02/2010

That's an encouraging thought. I hope that is genuinely the case.

[macracan]

08:22 AM on 12/03/2010

Alas, I do want to find negative references to a page. Sometimes those are the ones that tell me most about a potential business partner... Nothing is simple in this world...

[behavingbadly]

02:15 PM on 12/02/2010

google rose from nowhere to total dominance because they ignored profitability and delivered results free of commercial distortion. like previous tweaks to address SEO gaming of the system, the latest changes simply address another attempt to distort results for commercial advantage. that's a GOOD thing and it's why I and most people use google.

plenty of choices out there though ... the market will sort it out.

[jws2346]

01:23 PM on 12/02/2010

Errr..., let me get this straight. I know I've got some loose screws 'cause for a minute there I thought I read where Google had the right to censor the World Wide Web (GUI for the Internet)? With all the browser searchers and OS's out there, is this Google's feeble attempt to hold on to some credibility? Personally I think Linux is the next to watch, NOT Chrome and NOT Googles OS's, I like the Linux Ubuntu, the Mac Lion and M$'s Winders 7 OS's and Bing's search engine. I think Google's time is past as was AOL's in the past. I have always thought highly of AOL, even if I don't use it anymore. I learned a lot about "surfing" and downloading from AOL. Google smoogle, if I could, I'd use good old Webcrawler. (not available here)

[PaiaGirl]

02:24 PM on 12/02/2010

You are mixing up browsers and search engines

[think-it-over]

04:20 PM on 12/02/2010

Not to mention the whole misunderstanding of the difference between censorship, and not improving page rank by counting lots of negative reviews.

[jws2346]

03:27 AM on 12/03/2010

Huh? Nope, what I was trying to say (talk about head aches, face aches and your head hurting from being so brilliant) I was saying I DO NOT GIVE A CHIT WHAT THIS GOOGLE CRAPO WANTS, THINKS OR OTHERWISE SPEWS. Whether it's their ideer of OS's, whether it's their ideer of browsers like the Chrome Chit or whether it's their brilliance ideers on search engines (I like the Google search, but I think it's gone the way of the albatross? To get to the point I'M NOT INTERESTED IN USING A SEARCH ENGINE THAT CAN CENSOR MY SEARCHES ANYWAY THEY FELL LIKE IT (you know like their bogus prioritizing BS, talk aboot headaches?)

[dfranz]

01:17 PM on 12/02/2010

I have long been wondering about Google's search rules. If you think about it, they have every opportunity to censor what they will put up for results. Whether or not it is intentional, there tends to be a bias in the results you get.

[O Dannyboy]

02:16 PM on 12/03/2010

Try not to confuse the term censorship for the term selection.

If your friend asks you what are the three best Chinese Restaurants in town, you select three and in effect de-select all the rest. You aren't censoring the other restaurants. You are selecting the ones you want to feature.

This sort of thing is what search engines do. They make prioritized selections.

As for bias, well yes. That is precisely why you ask a certain source for reccomendations: because you feel they will bias the results in a way that points toward what you would call quality. Otherwise, why ask them?

There is plenty to complain about with Googlecorp. But bias is at the heart of the value any search engine provides.

If you disagree with their *particular* biases, use another engine. But "unbiased search engine results" doesn't make any more sense than "married bachelor".

[signinname]

01:15 PM on 12/02/2010

Ok newsflash- Google is a marketing company. They market for companies that will pay them and to consumers who "want" the companies stuff. If a company is being portrayed as negative by people and Google is placing them high, it's bad for marketing- if company B pays Google a ton but company A, who treats people like junk, gets more negative attention, company B will stop paying Google...meanwhile, company A never paid them a cent. Bad for business. It's not about ranking some sites as "good" some as "bad", it's about making sure that companies that pay Google rise to the top and companies that don't...don't.

I'm not saying this is the correct way to work. In my mind, a search engine should search EVERYTHING, not take donations or payment, but heuristically base my results on what I "want"...but somehow without storing that information. Sound realistic? No? Yeah...that's why it doesn't exist...Sorry folks. Not my preference- it's sad but true.

[discouragerofhesitancy]

12:32 PM on 12/02/2010

In a future not that distant, the only corporation on the planet will be an evil amalgamation of:
information............google
entertainment.........disney
energy..................exxon

There will be no choice.

The Koch Brothers, Murdoch, and their "lick-o-phants" are working hard to make it a reality.
Yes, it is that bad.

[KirkPowers]

12:18 PM on 12/02/2010

Wonder if HP will censor my post.. looks like it.. must ne over their heads.. so they have to ask a supervisor if it is OK.. geeezzz taking a long time to post it too.. No curse words or links.. only factual info..
Yup HP = censorship it seams.. maybe they will correct my spelling for me if they OK it too.. ughhhh

[Whale]

12:16 PM on 12/02/2010

The answer to Google is IXQuick.Com. Fast meta-search and they absolutely do not retain any information about your searches.

[KirkPowers]

12:10 PM on 12/02/2010

Search Google is Spying or google is censorship

[KirkPowers]

12:09 PM on 12/02/2010

Oh so they are now Practicing CENSORSHIP... They heck with Google.
I think they strayed from the actual fact at had to disguise the story..
It must be about talk-show host Alex Jones. He is of course on a mission to expose the NWO. He would ask his millions of listeners to Google a term.. It would put that term to VOLCANIC into the Google search terms. Thus exposing the story and topic for all to see an hopefully read to get the Takeover of our land out to more folks.
I guess the geniuses of Alex has worked. He was able to accomplish wht the president could not.. Keep going and lets fight censorship together with Alex Jones. The neck with Google . There are others. And that don't spy on you either.. search " Google Evil" Of they hate that one. haha

[KirkPowers]

12:21 PM on 12/02/2010

Excuse my spelling... im in a rush...

[goldgoose]

11:47 AM on 12/02/2010

It is disheartening to hear Google ranks web sites "good" or "bad" sources for inclusion in research; we who use the Google research engine know that some sites are reliable and some are not (hence we have Snopes). Now, we know that someone else is deciding which Google sites referenced are reliable or not and we don't know who it is or the criteria. Worse scene scenario could be Google becoming a source like Faux News. Any time that censorship or propaganda comes into play in research, honesty breaks out in a sweat. We had been careful in the past to question every source of google because google did not screen sources; now we must contend with getting only selective sources from google. There is no God!

[onionboy]

01:01 PM on 12/02/2010

Then people should use another search engine. There has always been competition. When Google first went up it wasn't touted as the "the search engine that gives you everything". It was touted as "the engine that gives you the most useful stuff". Now, if they want to decide that vendors with negative reviews are less useful, that's a legit position, whether one overtly agrees with the position or not. I think people need to stop thinking of Google as a papal saint and instead understand that it's just a business.

[WhatTheHolyHeck]

02:43 PM on 12/02/2010

There's actually some pretty good software out there right now that can analyze "tone". Social media monitoring products like those offered by Radian6 and Cision are really getting good at identifying a positive or negative mention, and creating scores for tone.

If Google implements a system like this, it might not be as subjective as we might fear.

[logicanada]

11:21 AM on 12/02/2010

the more negative reviews he received, and, ironically, the better his website's ranking on Google.

Lieberman and Palin are going to be pi**ed.

[WhatTheHolyHeck]

02:41 PM on 12/02/2010

He got more business too! It's crazy.