• http://www.smallerbox.net Smaller Box

    No discussion of it here, but curious about how Google will handle the possibility of people trying to get competitors de-listed. What about disgruntled employees or customers? It seems like there’s some risk for abuse here.

  • Andrew N

    While it looks like this focuses on personal blacklists, I could hope they would extend this to corporations to cultivate spam lists for its users using Google Apps, but the real question is would they allow people to “subscribe” to blacklists…

    Common in the SPAM filtering market (the DNSBL being the most relevant, but SURBL and Spamhaus being good examples), of how people could select whose filtering system could better results.

    While I probably wouldn’t advocate direct filtering for others (as Smaller Box mentioned, this could lead to abuse), a result will be if people filter a company enough, they simply won’t be clicked in results, leading to less relevance, falling below the coveted top 10 results.

    This could be “gamed” to some degree (as the Digg Patriots did with Digg), but with the overwhelming quantity of googleers, it would be interesting to see if the same results.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/kschachinger Kristine Schachinger

    It depends on what Google does with the data. Since you have to be logged into your Google account to do this my guess is the Google team will use these blacklists to gather data about commonly reported spam sites. If this is the case, then the potential for abuse is VERY HIGH. I can hear my old boss now – all you need to do is hire a team in the Philippines, India, Russia and a few others – disguise their IPS and then let them go… (he was talking about a different situation, but the same thing could work here) the work would be done by real people, in the thousands, over what would look like natural trends.. and for not a lot of cost (we are talking comparatively here)

    So again depends on what Google does with the data, but I can already see the spammers in the highly competitive markets strategizing on how Google might use this data and how they could easily scam it – because anything that uses user input is soooooooooo easy to manipulate – just ask Twitter.

  • http://pageoneseo.ca PageOneSEO

    Gee, this is a great idea. Did Google buy Blekko?

  • http://www.tecmark.co.uk Stacey Cavanagh

    Massive risk for abuse here.

    Rather than letting people just have any old thing they want blacklisted, Google would be as well just making sure they take reports seriously and actually look into them quickly.

    Anything where we let anybody police Google without any type of moderation has major potential consequences.

  • BlahBlah

    I’d like to ban ehow.com and about.com, but somehow I don’t think Google’s going to allow me to ban their proxies sorry cash cows sorry ‘partners’, do you?

    I’d also like to ban Wikipedia, but since that takes up valuable organic SERPS rankings, that’s not going to happen, either.

    Incidentally, here are the top three urls for for the SERPS for the key phrase ‘ice skating rocker’

    figureskating.about.com/od/glossaryletterr …

    gonyc.about.com/od/iceskatinginnyc/ …

    figureskating.about.com/od/figureskatingtechnique …

    Wickipedia is in fourth place
    Ehow is in tenth place

    I remember Google when it used to an honest and upright search engine …

  • netsum

    I created an application that uses Google’s CSE to create your own personal blacklist. You might want to check it out.

    http://blacklist-search.appspot.com/

    There’s a feedback page if you have any ideas on how I could make it better too.

  • Jefferson

    Having Google pre-filter results by domain would be more convenient than self-help solutions. Until then, Firefox + Greasemonkey users can choose from a number of userscripts. For example:

    Google Hit Hider by Domain
    http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/95205

    (compatible with Instant Search; Creative Commons licensed)