Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Chrome Google Technology

Google Goes After Content Farms 345

Posted by Soulskill
from the cleaning-up-the-e-streets dept.
RedEaredSlider writes "Aimed at stripping search results of pages from 'low-quality' sites, a new Google Chrome extension allows users to block specified websites from appearing in search results. The names of these sites are then sent to Google, which will study the collected results and use them to determine future page ranking systems. Google principal engineer Matt Cutts wrote in a post on the Google blog that the company hopes the extension will improve the quality of search results. The company has been the target of criticism in recent months, much of which centered around the effect that content farms were having on searches."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Goes After Content Farms

Comments Filter:
  • by dch24 (904899) on Monday February 14, 2011 @08:57PM (#35205194) Journal
    Dear Google,

    Please port this to Firefox.

    Sincerely,
    The rest of the browser market
    • by nicedream (4923) <brian@nopan[ ]org ['ts.' in gap]> on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:04PM (#35205230) Homepage

      Dear dch24,

      Try this [userscripts.org] script for Greasemonkey.

      Sincerely,
      nicedream

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:10PM (#35205294)

        perhaps the description for that script is lacking...BUT it doesn't report the sites you block back to google--which is the best frickin point of this extension!!!

      • by dch24 (904899)
        Seems pretty good. (And Greasemonkey is great.)

        Have you had any back-and-forth with Google? You know, the bane of google add-ons: google makes changes to their internals. Since 2008, how has the ride been?
        • by nicedream (4923)

          I haven't had any back and forth with google....It's not my script. I'm just a happy user :)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by multisync (218450)

      Dear Slashdot

      Please give us a plug-in we can use to report moderation abuse.

      Missing the old meta-mod system,
      A concerned Slashdotter

      • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday February 14, 2011 @10:14PM (#35205670)

        You mean this one [slashdot.org] that is still there and happily waiting for you to metamod in?

        • by Thing 1 (178996)

          You mean this one [slashdot.org] that is still there and happily waiting for you to metamod in?

          Hmm. I think it is fearfully waiting. At least, after last time.

        • by multisync (218450) on Monday February 14, 2011 @11:27PM (#35206086) Journal

          That [slashdot.org] is not a meta-mod system. It is a comment popularity system.

          It is useful as well. It is comment-centric, and gives site administrators a very high level snapshot of what users think about the current state of the user generated content.

          The old meta-moderation system oth tasked the meta-moderator with judging whether a specific moderation a comment received was fair. It wasn't a perfect system, but it provided just the smallest possibility that there may be consequences for abuse of moderation privileges.

        • by Dhalka226 (559740)
          That's not the old metamod system. The old system was essentially an agree/disagree with the moderation that was given to a post. This system basically asks you to moderate the posts yourself and, presumably, tries to see how many metamodders arrive at different conclusions than the moderators did.
        • by Kalriath (849904)

          No, that's the new shitty meta-mod system.

          The old one allowed you to essentially undo moderation by presenting moderations and asking if you thought they were fair or unfair.

        • by hedwards (940851)

          The old version was better. I haven't bothered to meta mod since they took away the up or down vote on it.

      • by dudpixel (1429789)

        exactly.

        My first thought was "i hope they dont let this be used by botnets"...

    • Darn right! I HATE those content farms.
    • by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @04:35AM (#35207476)

      Dear Google,

      Please stop fucking with my search results. When I type something in the search box I want you to search for exactly that and suggest possible typos. I don't want you to search for what I DIDN'T type, I don't want you to combine it with my previous results, I don't want you to assume I must have meant something else and search for some other word entirely because you THINK it's the same thing.

      Sincerely,
      Everyone who's sick of searching for one thing and having something totally different returned.

  • by Zilvreen (1335163) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:00PM (#35205214)
    I can't begin to express how aggravating it is to google a programming issue, and have the top five results all link to the same page with the same paywalled answers.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by h4rr4r (612664)

      Just scroll down to the bottom. The answer is always there.

      • by WoodstockJeff (568111) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:08PM (#35205270) Homepage
        Well, more correctly, AN answer is there... May not be correct or even relevant to the question, but there will be an answer. I used to have my Google preferences to exclude Expert Sex Change from results, but that setting keeps getting reset...
        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          Very true, but that is what you get with Experts Exchange.

        • Well, more correctly, AN answer is there... May not be correct or even relevant to the question, but there will be an answer. I used to have my Google preferences to exclude Expert Sex Change from results, but that setting keeps getting reset...

          You need to choose the 'cached' version for EE and then scroll all the way to the bottom. You'll find the answers there, though recently they screwed with the stylesheet so it doesn't always look right on the cached version (but the answers are still very easy to read).

      • I'm genuinely POed at myself for not figuring this out. It could have save me countless hours of frustration.
      • Just scroll down to the bottom. The answer is always there.

        Jesus, I didn't know that!

        I still wish they would die, I hate what they do. They're not trying to be helpful first and make money second, its the other way around with them. Or being helpful might be 3rd or 4th on their list.

        • by h4rr4r (612664) on Monday February 14, 2011 @10:03PM (#35205616)

          My name is not Jesus, most people stopped getting confused about that when I cut my hair.

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          Actually you better check more than one source for the information anyway because as others have pointed out just because they give AN answer does mean you get the RIGHT answer.

          I had a customer ask advice on one of the eAnswers style sites before he brought it to me and the advice he was given was like some sort of WinXP urban legends handbook or something. They had him throw out all the Windows prefetch files "to speed things up", set prefetch to 4, make a separate partition for the page file, just total B

    • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:04PM (#35205234)
      You're talking about "Expert Exchange".

      I've never used them, paying for Internet based programming help defeats the purpose of the Internet. If that's what I wanted, I'd hire a contractor.
      • or Expert Sexchange as they are really known
      • by e4g4 (533831)
        I've never payed a dime to expert sexchange, but I have, on occasion, gotten good answers (they're batting about .133, for me) from their site. You don't have to pay to view the answers (as long as your referrer header is google.com) you just have to scroll all the way down.
      • by IICV (652597) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @03:29AM (#35207276)

        They occasionally have actual answers. The thing is, Google won't give you any credit for answers browsers can't see - which would mean the paywall would knock your page rank to shit.

        How does Expert Sex Change get around this? They pretend that the answer is behind a paywall, when in fact the answer is actually all the way at the bottom of the page. The Google search bot is much more patient than you are, and will not care about the pretend-paywall.

        So yeah. Whenever it looks like Expert Sex Change has your answer, just follow the link and scroll all the way down.

    • by Melibeus (94008)

      That was one of the first sites I thought of when I saw this post.
      It looks like you can set your own block list up. So I'm going to be happy never to see Experts Exchange again.

    • by Korin43 (881732) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:16PM (#35205340) Homepage

      Solution: Add "stackoverflow" to the end of every programming-related question. It saves a lot of time.

    • by SkyDude (919251)

      I can't begin to express how aggravating it is to google a programming issue, and have the top five results all link to the same page with the same paywalled answers.

      Amen brother, amen.

    • by Greyfox (87712)
      I haven't noticed that as much lately. These days you get stack overflow and much higher quality answers without all the crap. I don't even remember the last time Experts Exchange popped up in a search for me.
    • http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/9462

      There are at least a dozen others as well.
    • by EdIII (1114411)

      LOL!

      Yes. I knew I could not be the first person to post Expert Exchange. It was the *very* first thing I thought of, and then some of the more annoying driver sites that popup when you do searches for various printer and hardware drivers.

      I love this idea too, but honestly wonder just what Google will do the results. I can see abused like Astroturfing to influence a competitors ranking in the search results.

      That being said, just being able to block Expert Exchange is priceless to me. I hate those bastards

      • by Thing 1 (178996)

        That being said, just being able to block Expert Exchange is priceless to me. I hate those bastards.

        /etc/hosts, or, c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts. Apparently (from ping) they're at 208.87.33.150.

        • by EdIII (1114411)

          Heh

          I know about the hosts file :)

          How does that block it from appearing in the search results for Google? I know Google ain't pure as the driven snow, but they ain't checking my hosts file on disk either before they return search results :)

      • by BillGod (639198) on Monday February 14, 2011 @11:24PM (#35206064)
        YES the freakin driver sites are getting ridiculous. Every time I look for a driver the first 2 pages are some crap site that just pops you around from page to page only to try and install their crappy software to "give" you the driver for a small fee! If their site was not there the driver would be easy to find. With all these sites it makes the driver impossible to find.. therefore you need these sites to find them.. AHHH gonna throw up now.. then download this bad boy.
    • by Skal Tura (595728)

      Really hoping for that too. Many times i stop looking when i accidentally to get to spam shit fucked up crap like that.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:01PM (#35205220) Journal
    Frankly, no browser extension will be suitable to the task of going after link farmers until Lethal Force over IP is developed and widely adopted; but, in the absence of robust LF/IP implementations, I suppose hitting them in the wallet will have to do....
    • The laws of unintended consequences suggest that this will have the exact opposite of the desired effects as the same people who run the content farms use this extension to report legitimate sites and get them removed or have their ranks lowered, further increasing the prominence of content farm placement in Google's search results. Shortly thereafter Bing's results will also go to hell since it's been implied that they're taking results from Google. Search as we know it will be set back by over a decade! A
    • by Dachannien (617929) on Monday February 14, 2011 @10:37PM (#35205786)

      Frankly, no browser extension will be suitable to the task of going after link farmers until Lethal Force over IP is developed and widely adopted; but, in the absence of robust LF/IP implementations, I suppose hitting them in the wallet will have to do....

      As I understand it, there are concerns of collateral damage because of all the hosts behind Network Assassination Translation firewalls.

    • by c0lo (1497653)
      Ahhh... the good old times... used to be so easy [wikipedia.org]
  • by kabloom (755503) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:03PM (#35205224) Homepage

    Isn't this similar to the "Search Wiki" feature of Google that's available in every browser? Why didn't they just use that instead?

    • by game kid (805301)

      Pretty much; I can't blame them for seeking marketshare, though.

      For a somewhat short while, Google search results each had squares with "X"es in them that would take them off the list when clicked (explained further in this post on BlogsDNA [blogsdna.com]). I kinda wish they stayed so I could nuke the spammier results I find, but we all know downvotes are just as exploitable as raves and I have a feeling this Chrome thing will get used more nefariously than not.

      • I don't know, I think there are a lot more people annoyed with link farmers and ad sites than there are link farmers. Filtering complaints by IP should winnow out the majority of sabateurs. What's the deal with chrome anyway, is Google feuding with firefox that they won't port it or something?

  • by ZackSchil (560462) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:03PM (#35205226)

    Users who run into paywalls are going to pretty quickly add these sites to the filters, since the results are technically useless even if the content locked away is high-quality. This does not bode well for sites like Experts-Exchange or America's Test Kitchen.

    • It says Google will manually check sites once enough data is gathered by users. They may just white-list EE since they are somewhat useful.

      Which leads me to the following question: why is everyone here against EE? Is it because they attempt to charge you for the answer?

      Has anyone ever scrolled down the page to see the answers? I'm not trolling. I've never paid a dime and always got an answer... irrelevant to whether it was right or wrong.

      • by dch24 (904899)
        Because they don't produce original information, they just link-farm it.

        There are plenty of good sites out there who aren't gaming the system.
        • by wmbetts (1306001)

          Yes, EE does produce original content and lots of it.

        • by Kalriath (849904)

          They don't link farm. Like StackOverflow, they actually have contributors who answer questions submitted by real people. The problem they have is their UI sucks and their advertising is abominable.

      • by kasperd (592156) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @12:16AM (#35206430) Homepage Journal

        why is everyone here against EE? Is it because they attempt to charge you for the answer?

        I'll tell you what I don't like about it. I don't mind them charging for an answer when both the person who asked the question, and the person who gave the answer is ok with that. On the other hand, I am not an ExpertsExchange user, and I do not think that it is ok that they charge for access to answers that I wrote.

        I know there are ways to get to see the answer without paying, and that is why I know that some of the answers are nothing but a link to a webpage where I provided the answer to the question (before it was even asked on ExpertSexchange). So far I haven't decided what to do about this. I could direct the users who access my site by using a link from ExpertsExchange through an interstitial page, but that would seem like punishing the users instead. But maybe if I used the page not just to point out my opinion about that site, but to also mention free alternatives, then it may be ok. I have also considered telling ExpertsExchange to make all pages with links to my pages freely available. (If newspapers can claim it is a copyright violation to link to their news, then I should be able to make similar requirements to ExpertsExchange. But it does feel going a bit against my principles because I think linking directly to pages with relevant information is what the web is all about).

        But what I dislike even more than sites charging for access to answers, that are little more than a link to my site, is those fake forums that pretend I am a user of their site. But in reality the entire content of that forum site is a ripoff of a selection of usenet groups. I'd feel much better about claiming copyright violation against such sites because they actually have copied content copyrighted by me. On the other hand, it seems a bit futile to try to go against all of those sites that way. And it may be difficult to draw a line between a legitimate webinterface for usenet, and a blatant ripoff. However, one distinguishing feature is whether the site makes it clear that it is a webinterface for usenet, or whether it pretends to be a amazingly popular webforum. Another distinguishing feature is whether it focuses on a (small) group of users that use it as their way to access usenet, or if the site simply try to attract all kinds of users from every searchengine out there, and just throw tons of ads at the users (with a little bit of copied content in between).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mouldy (1322581)
      A trick I learnt with experts exchange is that the posts are actually accessible. You just have to scroll past the "GIMMER ALL YER MONEY" messages and you get to the original text. Experts Exchange's paywall is a simple example, but if Google's indexer can read past the paywall, there's no reason why you can't. Sometimes, if a site serves different content to people than to spiders, you can just click on the "cached" link in Google's results page to see the version that Google indexed.
      • by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:42PM (#35205500)

        if a site serves different content to people than to spiders

        If a site does that, why should it be listed at all? That's straight down the line spammery, as far as I can see.

        • by dgatwood (11270)

          There are actually valid reasons for doing that.

          The classic example is JavaScript-rendered dynamic content. This tends not to work so well when you're dealing with search engines. However, if you can serve them a static page that contains the text of the page minus all the rendering, then it can index the content without choking on the JavaScript. I'm not sure how important this is these days, but it certainly was a problem at one time.

          It's also useful to serve modified versions for search engines so tha

          • Isn't serving different content to spiders and to people, for whatever reason, explicitly against Google's rules though? For the first point, I think Google can digest JavaScript alright these days, even some flash. For the second, that's dodgy, if you want those terms indexed include them in your article. The third, it would seem you're still serving the same content just in a slightly different format.

          • by trawg (308495)

            It's actually part of Google's webmaster guidelines [google.com] that you don't do this. I am not sure if it is grounds for removal though:

            # Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don't deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as "cloaking."

          • by e4g4 (533831)
            I was under the impression that, for a while, expert sexchange was allowing the google bot to crawl their whole site, but not allowing users who came from google to actually view the answers. My understanding was that google removed them from their indexer for that, and that they then allowed people who clicked on the link from google (getting the google.com referrer headers) to see the results by scrolling all the way down. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], however, is saying that as of Dec. 18, 2010 this is no longer the case
          • by TubeSteak (669689)

            There are actually valid reasons for doing that.

            Are there valid reasons for serving up content to Google's Bots and a login page to my referrer?
            Because that's what I assume the GP was talking about and that's something I come across more than I like.

            Changing my referer string to Google's should not give me access to something that a chrome/firefox/internet explorer/other referer doesn't get to see. I always felt it was shady, but since Google doesn't seem to care, all I can do is keep refspoof handy.

          • There are actually valid reasons for doing that.

            No there aren't. In fact Google explicitly states not to, and that those found to be doing so may have their pagerank reduced or be entirely eliminated from the index.

            The classic example is JavaScript-rendered dynamic content. This tends not to work so well when you're dealing with search engines. However, if you can serve them a static page that contains the text of the page minus all the rendering, then it can index the content without choking on the JavaScript. I'm not sure how important this is these days, but it certainly was a problem at one time.

            If this happens, you did it wrong to begin with. If you're publishing any content where you'd ever care about whether it's searchable, it should always degrade cleanly when features are missing or disabled in a user's browser. The blind, users on less powerful mobile platforms, and those who just disable JS for security or privacy reasons w

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Sounds like it is working then. Content the user cannot get to from google directly should not be distracting the user. Experts-Exchange answers are at the bottom of the page so they should be ok, but probably filtered anyway as they are often more wrong than not.

    • If a zillion other users block something like EE then block EE. Where this is going to get messy is over issues where people disagree. Abortion and whatnot. All I can say is Good luck google.
  • by Uloi (1996356) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:06PM (#35205256)
    Here is the solution to your coding problem.. Oh wait no, give us money first.
  • i have never installed an extension faster.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I'm surprised it took them this long to do this. It seems like a pretty good way to leverage the fact that they've got their own software running on the client side too.

  • by Fear the Clam (230933) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:12PM (#35205312)

    I hope that site and its squads of web-shitting bastards all get kicked off google's search results.

    Then, if they could boot the fake review sites and the domain squatters ("AnalRape.com: What you want, when you want it.") the web might be worthwhile again.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:17PM (#35205350)

    I wish it was available for Firefox. I really get of having to look at the domain name of each returned search result before clicking on it. The so-called "experts exchange" would be first on my blocked list.

  • They maybe I can disable the messy greasemonkey script that adds -site:wn.com -site:eggheadcafe.com etc to all my queries.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Google already "charges" for increased search "relevancy" and gives massive discounts to large bulk buyers (think Amazon, Ebay, etc)... What happens when my legit sites start getting pruned for lack of payment... er... relevancy? Google already sticks it to small businesses with Adwords rates that are uncompetitive when compared to huge advertisers, so what would stop them from not doing the same in this realm? Don't be evil? right...
  • by skomes (868255) on Monday February 14, 2011 @09:47PM (#35205532)
    What really pisses me off is that google already had this feature. Personalized search results used to let you relegate some websites to the bottom and mark some results and sites as being more important. It was incredibly useful when filtering out garbage spam sites. Google also said were would be able to share these in some way to improve search results. Then for no reason they removed that feature and replaced it with the ability to put a gold star on some results. Of course the benefit of the feature was in relegating spam up the bottom of the page and you could no longer do that. When they removed they feature I stopped using the feature entirely. Now google is backtracking by introducing this extension. What was entre point of removing the original feature which worked on all browsers?
    • by ogl_codemonkey (706920) on Monday February 14, 2011 @10:16PM (#35205684)

      I suspect this is related to some overall plan for adding value to the Chrome platform.

      • by Thing 1 (178996)

        I suspect this is related to some overall plan for adding value to the Chrome platform.

        Or not pissing off "customers."

    • I blocked the crap out of some sites using this old tool but due to the billion page nature of these sites they just kept coming up anyway.
      This crowd sourced feature will only sort of work if you do something like google and have random moderators with a vested interest in their reputations. Even here on slashdot you can't vary too far from the demographic before you will get your comments moderated out of existence. Try saying something favorable about Microsoft or going all right wing and you are a gone
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Why not make this a part of Google search itself, like the report spam buttons in Gmail?

  • I'd be happy if Google let me filter my stuff through OpenDNS. If I have blocked there, I don't want to hit it in my searches.

  • A few sites are using these spam farms to sell blender using misleading advertising (including copyright violation I believe).

    ie illusionmage.com - search 'create 3d animation'
    and 3dmagixpro.com - search '3d animation software'

    illusionmage.com is also using spamming via twitter and i think facebook as well.

    If anyone has twitter and facebook contacts who might help us get rid of these spammers would be appreciated.

    Email at LetterRip AT gmail Dot com

    • What's wrong with distributing copies of GNU/Linux for a fee (e.g. Red Hat)? And what's wrong with distributing copies of Blender + video tutorials + clip art + other non-free goodies for a fee? I thought including value-added non-free components was the entire point of a free software business model. What specifically is IllusionMage.com doing wrong?
  • Whats a 'low-quality' site? A blog/forum/site that a large well connected party political flash mob sends to Google?
    If Google takes time to get the code/human effort working well, good sites will be airbrushed from the 'google' web.
  • The first thing that comes to mind is, how will they prevent this from being abused by the very people who are farming in the first place?

    It could just spark yet another scriptwar.

    I've run into a lot of duplicate content out there. Obviously, somebody is the originator of the content. It ought to be possible to filter out the dupes.

    For link farms, It should also be possible to characterize the signal:noise ratio of a website somehow, and to offer an SNR choice in the advanced search options.

    I'm not sure h

  • For my own sake, I just throw the junk into /etc/hosts so I don't make the mistake twice. Still shows up in search results and Google doesn't hear about it, but at least I get the satisfaction of not sending any traffic their way. answers.yahoo.com, telegraph.co.uk, pcmag.com, foxnews.com... The list goes on and on.
  • This will work until the scumbuckets learn to game it. Such as a bot that automatically negatively rates all your competition. I can see overseas services where their bot-like employees will just all check block on selected websites.

    And the bot-nets can't help but have a crack at this one.

    So a tool that should block experts-exchange will end up blocking stack overflow.
  • Will this mean the death of Ebaumsworld? The YTMND community rejoices!

  • by clintp (5169) on Monday February 14, 2011 @11:53PM (#35206256)

    Dear Google,

    Screw the plugin.

        1. Give me a "search preference" where I can say "never this site in my results." You track my "safe search" and other preferences, just add this one.
        2. Along with the star, preview, cached, etc... buttons in the results, give me a "this site's results are shit" button. A turd icon would do nicely.
        3. Extend your search keywords to add "nosite". i.e. nosite:experts-exchange.com

    All of these you could track and adjust your algorithms based on trends of "real life" searchers who utilize these features.

    Sincerely,
    Me

  • by 19061969 (939279) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @12:25AM (#35206478)

    When looking for a local business, I often search for the name and town of the company. All well and good. But I often find that the first few links (sometimes even pages) are crammed with business directory sites. I really would prefer to use the proper company's website.

    1) The company's website will have up to date information and more info like opening hours etc
    2) The business directories often have /NO LINK WHATSOEVER/ to the company's site - just a sodding phone number. It's almost like they feel it's against the law to display a link to a company's website.
    3) The business directory sites sometimes have the name and town and nothing else - wow, way to go. Tell me what I just searched for and nothing else. Thanks. Really useful there Einstein.
    4) Using these directories, I would be using a search engine to go to - a search engine! (or as near as). Yeah - maybe if these directories could chain up and I could spend all f***ing day going around in circles (note the no hyperinks point above)
    5) These directories are often full of crap - when the page loads, I'll see my own query loaded up in the directory's search box and then a really helpful and information message below "Sorry, we can't find anything that matches your query. Did you mean blah-dee-blah instead?" (poor recall)
    6) Precision of returns is also poor. Lots of irrelevant company's are shown when something does come up for a query. I want local pizza delivery and they recommend car / auto parts. Wow, I was hungry but maybe what I really need are some brake pads?
    7) These bloody things often appear *above* the website of the very company I'm looking for.

    Although they're trying to be useful, they have a crap business model that doesn't nothing but get in my way.

    Another one is review sites. Say you want to buy a camera and you want to read reviews. Yeah, there are pro reviews, but you want reviews by real users. So you type in the word 'review' as well. Up come a ton of returns from the search engine... ...most of which say, "Be the first one to write a review". I have honestly used that phrase as a Boolean NOT just to try and get some useful content.

  • by Magnus Pym (237274) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @08:12AM (#35208196)

    The obvious thing for spammers to do is hire lots of third world labor to start marking legitimate web sites as spam. This will mess up Google's data collection and render this useless.

  • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:44AM (#35209284)

    It's the indiscriminate use of Adwords and the Search-Based Keyword Tool (SBKT) to siphon lots of traffic that really isn't relevant to your goods or services.

    For example, yesterday I was searching for stamp-sized LCD screens to incorporate into some hobby projects of mine. I. could. not. get. anything. but. Amazon.com. They wanted to sell me watches or personal DVD players or anything but what I was looking for. This has been happening with every search for information for the past month.

    Google needs to really tighten up their advertising policies, because their search engine is teetering on the event horizon of uselessness.

"Just Say No." - Nancy Reagan "No." - Ronald Reagan

Working...