Google Should Integrate User Feedback In Search Optimization

Over the last few years, Google (GOOG) has become essential to how I surf the web. Whether it’s its minimalistic advertising or its superior search results, Google has become a daily staple in my internet diet.

Last year, I signed up for Google’s personalized search program and after a year using the program, I’ve got to give it mixed results. This program has been a little bit controversial, because it allows Google to tie your search results to a unique profile.

Overall, I don’t tend to worry too much about Google abusing this power, and having access to filtered personalized search results, along with trend analysis on my queries, more than makes up for the small piece of my privacy that I have to give up.

In looking through my search stats, it wasn’t surprising to see TiVo (TIVO) and Netflix (NFLX) as my top two most requested results, but I was shocked to realize that I’ve searched Google over 22,000 times, in just the last year alone. The bulk of these searches was made during prime time television hours, which I found to be a little bit surprising. I’m not sure what it can tell me about my internet usage, but with 15,000 of my search queries coming during prime time hours, it highlights how much of an impact TiVo and the internet have had on my television watching.

While Google’s personalization technology has largely improved my search experience, there is still quite a bit of room for improvement.

What I like about Google’s recommendations, is that it learns which sites I have a bias towards and will rerank my search results, according to my own personality. The downside to Google’s personalization program is that there is no way to tell Google when it gets a search woefully wrong.

The more powerful that Google has become, the more that people have tried to game the system. Whether it’s blackhat SEO tricks or coordinated Google bomb campaigns, it’s important to remember that Google’s results aren’t always unbiased. It can give a higher weighting to sites that you have already been to, but there is no way to tell it when a site is really search spam.

There are a lot of times that I am searching and an About.com article will pop up near the top. Now I know some people like the site, but I think About.com has to be one of the most worthless places on the net to find information. It is an ad factory that is highly dependent on Google for its profits. Google should give me a nuclear button that I can hit, that would permanently ban About.com listings from any of my future search results. If enough users started banning a site, it could adjust its algorithm to take into account the likelihood that the result was really search spam.

Google’s About.com results are so bad, that someone actually took the time to write a Greasemonkey script, that will strip out the About.com results from Google, at the browser level. While this does offer me a way to remove About.com from my internet life, it’s really not a mass market solution and it doesn’t solve the countless other lame search results that pollute what you’re really looking for.

I’m glad that Google is out there innovating and I see a lot of positive benefits to using its recommendation engine, but Google needs to do a better job of harnessing the power of its readers, to help make our search results even more relevant. Giving users the ability to blacklist a site from Google would be extreme, but with the SEO firms able to automate massive amounts of fake content, it is going to take the help of the masses, if Google wants to take control back.

Comments

[akindman:]

I would love to have a search killfile. That's a great idea.

2007 May 21 08:16 PM

[brianil22:]

Maybe if you took the time to actually read the credentials of the writers at About.com and read the articles you may have a different opinion. The New York Times owns About.com and usually isn't in the business of acquiring ad farms. Getting About.com results is nothing like the garbage that pops up when trying to find the home site of a hotel or a restaurant.

Do a little more homework before you attack sites you obviously know so little about. It makes the rest of your writing suspect.

2007 May 22 05:33 PM

[Davis Freeberg:]

Sorry Brian, but I disagree, I am very aware of the NY Times strategy with about. About.com wasn't as prevalent on Google until the NY Times started deep linking to them. Once they used their killer page rank to boost up their content, it was only a matter of time before they started showing up too much in Google. Corporations use SEO too. It was smart move by the Times, because they were able to generate more visitors with minimal expenses. Some people like the site and that is ok, but when all of my About.com search results featured popups and weak content, it's not the sort of resource for me. Other's may feel differently, but if someone actually took the time to write a Greasemonkey script just to strip out About.com listings from Google, it speaks loudly about how irritating the site can be.

2007 May 22 07:15 PM