Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

There are a lot of interesting signals for web spam and poor web content. I don't know if this one is very good. In particular I see this scenario:

1) Google algorithmically genreates take down notices on youtube, they move this over to search results.

2) Algorithms 'err on the side of caution' with regard to fair use.

3) Every page that quotes or excerpts a copyrighted work gets flagged.

4) So Google 'manually' makes exceptions for sites they strongly believe won't engage in poor behavior (NY Times, Techcrunch, whatever)

5) No new web site that reviews products or provides critical analysis ever makes it to Google's front page.

That might be a stretch, the auto-flag stuff on YouTube is out of control, and then trying to use that as a signal in results is just inviting abuse. Black hat SEOs are malicious enough without dealing with 'Copyright joejobs'

[ Full disclosure: I work at a search engine blekko.com ]

View on HN

This has nothing to do with search quality. This is just Google bowing down to big copyright. They have done it before with the autocomplete feature, censoring many suggested terms.

They have been asking for this for a long time now. "De-ranking" is number one on this proposal: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79607883/Proposals-to-Search-Engin...

It seems Google has cushioned this in sweet words, as to not make it blatantly obvious.

These sites were very high on the rankings because people click them (and rarely return to search further). Google simply aligned its search results with peoples needs.

Google is enabling media companies in their delusions, when they could be destroying them. They might end up as a casualty.

Companies are delusional for submitting DMCA takedowns?

They are delusional for thinking strong-arming Google into censoring "pirate sites" and having it operate search dogs that crawl YouTube for anything that reeks of copyright will magically preserve their role as middlemen in a world with internet connectivity and cause customers everywhere to submit CC details to their subpar offerings.

Of course, none of that is going to happen. I'm just complaining that Google feels the need to join the bandwagon when it could be embracing the change.

You actually think Google with all of its resources and money is actually beholden to some always there and invisible bad group representing the music industry set to the destroy the world? I think you are probably mistaken, they are actually doing it to improve legal search results more prominently being displayed. Also there isn't any change to embrace, copyright infringement is still illegal, even if it is easy to get away with.

There is an alternative theory. Google isn't being strongarmed but they also aren't trying to improve search results. Instead they're trying to build moats around products like Youtube. By appeasing the content owners, the favor might be returned with, for example, exclusive content just for Youtube.

Note: I'm not saying this is the case.

I think you and I have different working definitions of 'search quality'. My definition is that the sites you find by searching for something give you the information you want.

I think 'bowing to big copyright' is no different than 'bowing to Chinese censors' or 'bowing to Administration staffers' or 'bowing to conservative thinkers'. All of them affect what results you get vs what you asked for. That those web pages have information that some other folks don't want you to see, is a discussion between page provider and complainer, not a fight the search engine should get into.

Using blekko.com as an example. You could create a slashtag with all the best torrent sites you can find on the web, and then you and anyone else who uses your slashtag could be searching all those sites for what is useful information to them. As a copyright holder they could search those sites too (and presumably they do) and attempt to take action against the sites if they chose to. The search engine is a window between two spaces, and while sure as a choke point it provides an easy target for those would would want to control the greater masses, it doesn't improve the 'quality' of the service when that occurs. It is of demonstrably lower quality so some folks.

I think we have the same definitions. I was just being unclear. My intent was to express that their change was not motivated by improving search quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com