I don't entirely understand the outrage at Demand Media. They're not a bastion of quality, but for a lot of searches, there aren't better results. For example, the other day I was making chocolate cream of wheat and I wanted a quick refresher on the proper chocolate:everything else ratio. I opened a bunch of the top links, and the best one for quickly getting the info was eHow. For searches where there are better results, I'm not compelled to click on the one or two from Demand Media.
Experts-exchange is indeed an annoying site, but I'm not sure I'd classify it as a content farm. There is actually a lot of information there not found on other sites.
Then don't add it to your block list... That's the point of customizable block lists. I agree there's a lot of content there not found on other sites, but there's also a lot of content on eHow not found on other sites. The content's junk though, which is the point and is why I blocked both.
I didn't mean to sound ungrateful. I appreciate the list.
I just meant to inform that, by definition, I don't believe e-e is a true content farm. For anyone adding these sites blindly, you may miss out on that obscure answer you've been looking for.
[edit] I don't know how I find myself in the position of defending e-e, but there are lots of SQL Server related answers on e-e that haven't yet been duplicated on Server Fault or other more friendly sites.
No worries. That's why I updated the sub-heading to "and general spammy user generated content sites" because sites like EE aren't classical content farms (they're even smarter by getting people to give them content for free and then selling it to members!).
Hmm. Although this seems like a good idea at first, sometimes I'm searching for something obscure and I actually do find the answer on one of those annoying websites.
I can't help thinking it's probably more useful to see all the results even if I have to wade through the junk, just in case the answer is hidden in there somewhere.
(PS. did you know you can see the answers on experts-exchange.com if you scroll down far enough?)
On SERPs with blocked results there is a note that some results have been blocked and you can click it to reveal the blocked results. So if you don't see what you're looking for you can turn back on the spam and check.
When proposing shared blacklists some kind of distinction between those that produce original (albeit relatively low quality) content and those that simply duplicate the same content available elsewhere would be helpful so people could choose their level of strictness.
I assume that when you block a site, Google are sent the search term as well as the site you blocked.
Assuming that this is the case, it isn't very helpful to search for 'mahalo.com' and then block mahalo.com. What do you think should rank higher than mahalo.com for the term mahalo.com?
A better approach would be to install the extension and continue as normal, and then next time you search for "convert int to string" [0] and eFreedom appears above stackoverflow, you block that. That way you can enjoy the benefits and create valuable data, instead of just doing something you might as well have used a Greasemonkey script for.
Sure, but considering that's the only way to add to the block list I cannot imagine they didn't foresee exactly what we're doing. I'd wager "Let me go find all the sites I hate the most and block them!" is the natural reaction to being given a block list feature.
Maybe it is less helpful for Google if you block it through the explicit search-term for the domain, but it's more useful to do it this way for the end-user; at least for me.
Am I the only one who find w3schools more annoying than expertsexchange? Maybe it's just the searches I perform, but I usually want to see w3.org results, not the often misleading webbed CF results.
i think there are some unintended consequences with blacklist list-sharing:
1) if google ever starts using this data as a signal in their search algorithm, do you really think demand media is going to give up, or do you think they are going to start moving their content on the 500k+ domains they own, effectively making it impossible to deal with the problem.
2) list-sharing seems to be starting an arms race where spammy sites start pushing their own lists that include all of their competitor's sites but not their own. (i am not accusing the OP of doing this, but i think its best for each user to choose individually.
if these sites really have such egregiously bad content, then users should very quickly be able to decide for themselves when a site should be blacklisted.
This will give Google great data on how to detect content farm content, so it will be easier to penalize on long tail domains or syndication deals.
I shared my domains simply to save people time. If you disagree with one of the results, by all means don't add it to your block list. Adblock lists have been similarly helpful--I make some customizations but I don't have to start from scratch.
Point 2 only applies if you blindly apply any blacklist you come across. If people who blindly obey everything they're told are so numerous, this "arms race" should exist just as much with word-of-mouth and blacklists aren't introducing a new problem.
i am sure that hacker-news users are savvy enough to check each site one-by-one, but blacklist-sharing in general can be detrimental if they get distributed to mainstream users.
imagine if these lists get to be 100-domains long... some users are simply going to take the shortcut and apply-all. the due-diligence required to cull a good list takes time. the very fact that this post is getting upvoted is because even hacker-news users are looking for shortcuts.
blacklists introduce a new problem: SEOs distributing such lists that include lots of weak sites (to make the list look credible) along with their competitor's domain snuck in.
word of mouth is typically a one-by-one recommendation, where doing your own research is straightforward and quick. ie, if a friend recommends a movie for you to watch, you might check it out, read the reviews, and then add it to your netflix queue.
with a long list, doing the due diligence becomes orders-of-magnitude more labor intensive, so users are more incented to just copy/paste an entire list. in the case of netflix queues, perhaps there isn't too much at stake... but with a domain blacklist, SEOs and spammers have their entire livelihoods at stake... if this extension takes off, and if google starts using this data, i would expect well-funded SEOs to start heavily promoting their lists (with their sites omitted, and their competitor's sites included).
of course hacker-news users may be immune from such tricks, but we represent just a minority of the data that google will get from this tool... if it goes mainstream, i am sad to admit that my parents are likely fall for "follow these simple steps to dramatically improve your google results"
furthermore, demand media will likely react to any negative implications of this by continuing its partnerships with large existing sites. for example, demand media already creates content for USA today http://www.demandmedia.com/blog/powering-travel-tips-for-usa...
if needed, i am sure demand can cut deals with sites that you probably wouldn't want to blacklist. in the end, search engines are going to have to figure out how to send users to good pages, on a page by page basis.
> do you really think demand media is going to give up, or do you think they are going to start moving their content on the 500k+ domains they own
Google already has a "find pages similar to this" function. So if they look at the stuff you've blocked that would have shown up in your search, then give you the option to block pages similar to that, well, hopefully it will block any copies of that crap, too.
i am not suggesting that they are going to duplicate their content onto other domains, but rather host say a handful of articles with unique content on one domain and a different set of content on a different domain. they dont have to be similar in any way. one will be about grilling lobster tails and the other will be about restringing your tennis racket.
If Google starts incorporating blacklists into their search results, then couldn't groups of people coordinate their black lists to suppress sites they didn't like?
Does Google "beta test" their search results on their employees? I imagine Google could allow their employees to flag bad sites and search results to improve their search algorithms. Google can't trust anonymous internet users, but they can presumably trust (to some degree) their 24,000 employees's real-world feedback to improve their search algorithms.
Their search engine is being constantly improved every day by people using it. Every search result you click on is recorded, along with no doubt the time elapsed before you clicked another result and so on until you found what you were looking for. Google is a gigantic statistics engine with a growing data set.
And in terms of Google employees testing their search results - 1) their employees aren't exactly the average Google user demographic 2) their emplyees is way to small a number to draw any conclusions about how useful/accurate their search results are. They can only figure that out by trialing new algos on a fraction of users. If successful, they push to all.
there is no such a thing as "right" or "wrong" answer in contextual targeting, at least not anymore. Other targeting strategies kick in; even if the text of the page is accurately categorized, you could still be hit with ads targeted at you by profile, or someone is doing category runs (GroupOn ads supersede all others for me) or the site is under review or its content unanalyzed (charity hell), or you're in an experiment, etc.
As I wrote on the other thread, markmail is the best site for searching through Apache mailing lists that I've seen. Many of the Apache project websites link to markmail for their archives. Why are people wanting to block it?
It is not different that mail-archive at all. You bashed mail-archive in your comments because it doesn't provide an added value. markmail doesn't provide an added value either.
user> mail-archive? are you crazy? that site has been around forever & I’ve found more answers there than I can count.
you> What mailing lists are you finding useful on mail-archive that aren’t available elsewhere? Do you ever visit mail-archive directly? I’ve only seen mail-archive clutter up SERP pages, often with the question I have going unanswered. I see no point in duplicating content on Google Groups, only with a significantly worse UI.
The point is, they are all doing the same. mail-archive, osdir, markmail archive mail, place ads next to them. Some provide more features on top but the main idea is archive public content and make money out of it.
You can always use gmane to search apache archives, at least it is ad free.
I have not noticed ads on markmail. I was mostly surprised people are advocating blocking markmail because I've seen it linked to often by the Apache project sites:
