Google Fooling Around With Digg Style Voting

Read on both TechCrunch and BlogStorm that Google Labs is experimenting with a new feature that will let users vote search results up or down using a Digg style voting system.

This experiment lets you influence your search experience by adding, moving, and removing search results. When you search for the same keywords again, you’ll continue to see those changes. If you later want to revert your changes, you can undo any modifications you’ve made. Note that this is an experimental feature and may be available for only a few weeks.

The votes only affect the results you see. They do not spread out to the rest of the general search index. If will be very interesting to see if this voting system becomes a normal feature of the Google search engine. On one hand, it would let searchers have a bigger voice on the results they want to see and help clamp down on the search engine spams. Who knows, maybe my name will be voted back to number one! On the other hand, this can also be seen as Google admitting their algo isn’t as mindblowing as people think it is. With all the bitch slapping Google has been handing out, I can see why they want help sorting the mess they created.

digg-google.jpg


55 thoughts on “Google Fooling Around With Digg Style Voting”

  1. bmunch says:

    So is Google search now a social media network?

    1. Steven says:

      I personally think people will exploit this in one way or another. Perhaps clearing cookies and cache, renewing IP, then voting over and over again to get their site up in the rankings. All sorts of things can go wrong with this.

      1. Wayne Liew says:

        Agreed. Google is way too popular among average joe users, bloggers and Internet workers. This voting system will only cause more manipulations that the current algorithm Google is using.

        1. Israel says:

          they will realize this and fix it, or can it. google isnt dumb.

          1. Oh yeah, this might work or might not. I’ve been hearing rumors that Google might go with Stumbleupon…
            This way, instead of creating their own social networking system, they can just integrate with Stumbleupon.
            (Well it is kinda integrated if you install StumbleUpon toolbar and choose to integrate it…)

          2. Steven says:

            Funny, they don’t sound so bright either. This isn’t the first time someone’s exploited Google. One fix leads to another error eventually. Google isn’t perfect.

    2. I don’t understand, they fight spam and than they open a new door for the spammers, oh well whatever makes them feel happy.

    3. facundo says:

      “The votes only affect the results you see. They do not spread out to the rest of the general search index.”

      That’s not social media. Google wouldn’t be that fool.

      1. Yeah, think about GMail. Now people get Spammed for no reason other than some stupid Gmail user marked the site as spam…

    4. Blackysky says:

      Are they crazy ???? This is an open door for more spammy and silly content !!! I imagine you have this huge network of friends !!! thumbs up your link because they like you .. you will be able to manipulate the google search engine … I mean digg find out soon that people were exploiting their system so they find away to block stuff… I’m wondering how all this will come out …. ahahhaha SEO will be a joke if this come out…. more friends more money ahahahah

  2. Ad Tracker says:

    I thought they had solved all of those problems with their New Ranking System 😉

  3. That’s really great. Hopefully allowing users to voice their input will purify things and help to remove sites that are less relevant. At least on an individual scale.

  4. dcr says:

    Google is spreading itself too thin and losing its focus on search. As a result, I think you will see it, more and more, doing wacky things to try to keep up with the competition.

    Stand back, and watch Google implode. It might be fun.

  5. Gyutae Park says:

    It will be interesting to see how the SEO landscape will change when Google actually incorporates this sort of data into their ranking algorithm.

    1. Vlad says:

      That would be bad news. And would redefine what BlackHat SEO actually is.

    2. Well the directory submission serivices will die and the “voting services” will begin. Seems as the right moment to gather some more friends from countries I want to target 😈

      1. Well, I think there will be a whole new definition of White/BlackHat SEO. What used to be BackHat SEO will probably just disappear and there will be whole set of new methods to hack it, meaning it’s 100 times more vulnerable than at-least-it-works-right-now-and-there’s-sorta-spam-blockers algorithm.

  6. Mike Huang says:

    Google just wants everything these days…sheesh

    -Mike

    1. Pachecus says:

      I agree with you. Google wants everything. 😡

      1. Israel says:

        i think its safe to say, they CAN get everything….

        Its like AT&T all over again.

    2. Secure Loan says:

      greedy google… 😛

  7. Jack says:

    I’m not saying Google is great, but the whole social media thing tends to kinda get political- in a junior high kind of way. A lot of things get Buried or Dugg on Digg that probably don’t deserve it. With google being relied on for “quality” results, it seems to me cliques or “big guys” would just manipulate the results in their favor and to punish better results of competitors. I think search should be relevant, to the extent, possible, without being subject to the whims of sheep.

  8. Ah finally! I’m glad Google is finally coming out with something to compete with Digg. Glad they are all competing with one another…lots of slapping around for sure!

    1. Why don’t they just buy digg?

    2. Secure Loan says:

      haha digg now influence the google…

  9. Karol Krizka says:

    I think it’s time to ?google up? johnchow.com up to #1 result for “John Chow”. 😉

  10. Popo says:

    Hey John Chow,

    If you make $180,000 a year on the Internet, how come Quantcast says your site only gets a pathetic 4,800 visitors a month?

    I think I smell bullsh*t

    Peace out

    1. John Chow says:

      Read the fine print, “We do not currently have enough information to profile Johnchow.com. If you are the owner of the site you should Get Quantified.” But it’s on the Internet so it has to be true, right?

      Quantcast say Google does 119 million uniques per month (it actually does 200 million PER DAY). It also says Advertising.com does 153 million uniques per month. You really think Google is smaller? Quantcast is about as good at measuring traffic as you are at making money online.

      1. From one look you can see that john gets way above 4800 vistors per month. If you can’t see this you probably should choose another profession than a webmaster.

        You should invest your time you spend for jealousy in content making for your website and/or making money online

        1. Secure Loan says:

          you can confirm this by alexa….I dont think alexa rank is a bluff… 👿

    2. Blackysky says:

      ahahah that’s funny if this blog make 5K visitors/month I can say I make over 500K / months ahahah I think their stat are stuck in john chow first month ever ahahahhaha
      at least use compete.com

    3. Yeah, go fu** off dude, you got some balls without any proof.
      Why dont u start using Alexa instead some Quantcast or whatever crap u r usin’

  11. Great news for black hats

  12. johnCard says:

    does anybody know if john chow uses a widget at the end of his posts, “If you like this post then please consider subscribing to my full feed RSS. You can also subscribe by Email and have new posts sent directly to your inbox.” or does he do this manually?

    1. John Chow says:

      I just edit my single.php file to add that in.

  13. Mike Goad says:

    This might be an interesting modification to Google search. If it helps reduce the impact of splogs, great!

    Google certainly isn’t done “bitch-slapping” folks though, it seems. It looks like you can’t backlink to your blog when leaving a comment on blogger, unless you have a blogger blog. Try it. I have been for the last several hours after I read a post about it on DCR Blogs.

  14. I think all of you missed the point of this feature. This is not social voting because there is no “social” aspect to this. All it’s doing is allowing the user to sort the search results to their liking. It’s not applied to the general index, but only stored locally.

  15. Shaun Carter says:

    I think Google is starting to lose control of their own search engine and are trying to “patch it up.” There have been apocalyptic predictions of computers taking over the world with the advent of true AI and I’d be willing to bet if it happens it will be at the hands of Google.

  16. Terrence says:

    I’ve actually think that this is something Google should have been doing for a while. there are some searches that people do often, and I should be able to “vote down” sites I wouldn’t go to. I actually think it might be interesting to extend to their normal search, but people might really try to game the system (not like they don’t now)

    1. Wayne Liew says:

      They can game it now but if this is being implemented, black hats will manipulate it more. Votings can be easily manipulated.

      Think of this which has been happening on Digg, Propeller and some other social media. I recruit some members, promising that they will earn $0.20 with a vote, then in another forum, I post a service for those who want to get voted. It is happening, check out Digital Point to know more about these underground business.

      Can you see that the current algorithm that Google use that identifies relevance of links is better?

      1. Etienne Teo says:

        Should ways of earning will soon be discovered by the moderator and get banned.

  17. Dom says:

    “The votes only affect the results you see. They do not spread out to the rest of the general search index.”

    This is the key part. Google would *never* have any kind of social voting system that affects real search results. It would be even more open to gaming than their current index.

  18. If Google uses this to affect the results in the general index I bet we’re going to see a lot more spam.

  19. yav says:

    I think that some day it’s will be in the main page. It’s necesary for google.

  20. Any way I can customize my results is fine with me. :mrgreen:

  21. Keith says:

    Some of you guys are killing me 😆

    Its a custom search. Read the last Q and A:
    Do you have to be signed in?
    Yes. To see your changes next time, you must be signed in to your Google account.

    Googles not the dumb guys come on. Do you really think they would allow search results to be manipulated by the general public? sheez.

  22. Simon says:

    Hehe, shows how little people actually read blogs.

    I think it’s got the potential to be a good idea for those with google accounts. Everyone should realise that no algo is perfect (not to say that Google hasn’t made a mess of their own so far!), and “learning” from a person’s input should help them display more accurate results (for the individual user) over time.

    It’s also an acknowledgement that the concept of search is a subjective one. What I may view as being a relevant result for a particular search, others may not. Whilst redefining your search solves this, it takes longer. Of course, you could always argue why bother to use a voting at all, when search click patterns could be monitored to build a user profile, without interfering with the user experience.

    The Digg-style voting system appeals because of the traffic and exposure benefit, whilst this Google approach is just to help with your own search relevancy – question is, knowing that, would you bother using it at all?

  23. I this one is going to be gr8.
    I will love to see this customization

  24. sports blog says:

    If the keep it for individuals, fine, but they shouldn’t social media it. Social media is enough BS as it is. Why not let us keep exploiting the rankings with paid links instead of exploiting the rankings with paid clicks?

  25. Wow, a very nice idea and a very impressive blog!

  26. J.J. Merrick says:

    I think it is a dumb idea.. google needs to stick to what they do best… search!

  27. Steven says:

    DAM. I had this idea a while back. Problem is that I don’t have enough knowledge.

Comments are closed.