As you may remember, Google replaced SearchWiki with starring results back in March 2010, about 16-months after Google launched SearchWiki. Now that Google has re-introduced a way to block sites in Google, Google has determined you no longer need to star search results from the search results page.

This does not mean that you can no longer see stars in your Google search results. It does however mean that you will no longer be able to star results directly from the search results. Instead, you now need to go Google Bookmarks and add a bookmark there for a star to show up in your search results.

Here is a picture of Search Engine Land as a starred result in Google’s search results. The only reason it shows a star is because I manually added it to my Google Bookmarks.

As stated at Google Operating System and Search Engine Roundtable, a Google employee named Laudy explained in two Google Web Search Help threads that the starring results were removed but does not explain why.

Postscript: A Google spokesperson sent us a statement:

Results you’ve already starred or bookmarked will continue to appear with stars in your search results. You can also still bookmark pages using the Google Toolbar or by visiting google.com/bookmarks. However, we are in the process of updating our bookmarking features so the ability to star new sites on the results page is currently unavailable.

Related Stories:

• New: Google Lets You Block Any Site From Search Results
• Google Kills SearchWiki, Replaces It With Starred Results
• Google SearchWiki Launches, Lets You Build Your Own Search Results Page
• Google SearchWiki 101: An Illustrated Guide
• Google SearchWiki To Get Off Button, Might Get Used As Ranking Signal
• Blekko Bans Content Farms From Its Index
• Demand Media & Being “The Best Click” On Google

In the discussion, Hacker News user “bradly” asks if Google would consider letting searchers remove domains from search results themselves. Cutts replies, “we’ve definitely discussed this,” and seems to hint that some kind of announcement may be on the way:

Matt,

Can you speak about the possibility for personal domain blacklists for Google accounts? I know giving users the option to remove sites from their own search results is talked about a lot in these HN threads. Is there any talk internally about implementing something like this?

[Matt's reply] We’ve definitely discussed this. Our policy in search quality is not to pre-announce things before they launch. If we offer an experiment along those lines, I’ll be among the first to show up here and let people know about it. :)

Google’s SearchWiki feature previously allowed users to do something similar, but SearchWiki edits were done at the page and keyword level; you could remove individual pages from the search results for certain keywords. Even though Google shut down SearchWiki last March, any results you removed while it was active are still preserved to this day in your Google account.

But the conversation above sounds more comprehensive than what SearchWiki offered. The question — and Cutts’ reply — suggests that users could make domain blacklists that apply across-the-board to any keyword.

The Hacker News thread also includes a couple other possibly newsworthy items, with Cutts saying that Google is working on algorithmic solutions to fight Amazon Web Services clones and Stack Overflow clones.

According to today’s announcement, the Stars feature will allow users to bookmark preferred pages so that those pages will show up when similar searches are done in the future. Google’s example is a search for “nfl”:

Starred results will appear above and separate from Google’s algorithmic results; using this feature won’t change the traditional 10 results that Google returns in reply to a search. The new feature is also integrated with Google Bookmarks and the Google Toolbar for quicker access to starred items. Starred results also works across Google properties, so if you star a result in Google Maps, for example, it may also appear as a starred result the next time you search on Google.com.

Stars are already appearing for some users, and Google says it will be available globally for all signed-in users in “the next couple days.”

As for SearchWiki, at the time of its launch, Google told Search Engine Land:

Before we launched SearchWiki, hundreds of thousands of people tested it and the feedback was positive.

But in today’s announcement of the new Stars in Search, Google is sending a somewhat different message:

In our testing, we learned that people really liked the idea of marking a website for future reference, but they didn’t like changing the order of Google’s organic search results.

For those who used SearchWiki, Google also says that all your edits will be preserved in your Google account.

Users can turn SearchWiki off (and on) by clicking on the “Preferences” link next to the Google search box. Down near the bottom of the preferences page, you’ll see a check box that disables SearchWiki.

But all this checkbox does is remove the ability to use SearchWiki; if you’ve voted pages up or down, or left comments in the SearchWiki system, those will still be in effect while you’re logged in. Here’s a screenshot from my Google account:

The two sites I previously voted up remain at the top of the search results with the green up arrow, but the SearchWiki buttons are gone from all the other pages below. A Google spokesperson tells us that this is by design:

“The SearchWiki preferences setting to ‘Hide the ability to share, promote, remove, or add your own results’ does not delete user SearchWiki customizations. We expect that users who do not use the SearchWiki feature may wish to hide the controls, so we provide them with this option. However, if users have already made the effort to promote and comment on pages, we expect those users would like to maintain the benefit of their customizations by default.”

Fair enough. So, if you want to disable SearchWiki and remove all of your previous customizations, you’ll need to turn SearchWiki on, then use the link at the bottom of a search results page that says “See all my SearchWiki notes.”

From there, you can undo what you’ve done before and then go back to the Preferences page to turn SearchWiki off.

History

Almost immediately after SearchWiki launched last year, the cries began from some users who wanted a way to turn it off and avoid the visual clutter it added to the search results page. At first, Google said they had no intention of offering an opt-out mechanism. Here’s a November 2008 quote from SearchWiki product manager Cedric DuPont:

“While users don’t have the option of turning off SearchWiki, they do have the option not to use the feature. By turning off the feature entirely, people will never get used to the new offering or see how it might be useful to them. We encourage people to try it out.”

Public pressure continued, and a couple weeks after that, Google’s Marissa Mayer finally said Google will add a method to disable SearchWiki.

(tip Google Operating System)

(1) Search on the query at Google and the results should show up with a link at the top to “share these notes”:

(2) Click the link and a URL will show up in a text box, copy and paste the link and send it to a friend:

(3) Here is a preview of that result for you to see:

Here is a screen capture of that in action:

I have emailed Google for a statement and I will update this post when I receive one.

If you want to discuss this with other SEMs, just the Sphinn thread.

Postscript: Here is a statement I received from a Google spokesperson:

As part of our ongoing commitment to innovation, we are currently running an experiment in which users can customize the ads that appear in the “Sponsored Links” section of the search results page by deleting ad results. This experimental feature is only visible to a small number of users, and we have no news to announce at this time regarding developments in our AdWords product offering.

If you set cnn.com to be a preferred site and you are logged in to your Google account and conduct a search for space station, Google may bump up a result from CNN to the top of the Google search results. In addition, Google will clearly label why it is the top result, with a “My preferred site” label before the page’s URL. Here is a screen capture:

Google explains that you must be part of the experiment to see this option in your search preferences. Personally, I do not see it. In addition, Google said you can be as specific as a subdomain, so if you want results from CNN, just use cnn.com, but if you want results only from money.cnn.com, you can do that as well.

This does remind me of the Google Coop, but it’s clearly different in that the results are not exactly tailored; they are promoted. In addition, this is an extension of Google’s SearchWiki.

For additional examples and screen captures, see Google Operating System.

But if you watch Michael’s video, using SearchWiki becomes addictive when you hear the sound effects – at least to me. Watch the video:

I can see searchers hear the sound and then be led to remove or promote more results, because it makes it more fun.

However, I think this is a limited test. When I tried on both a PC and a Mac, on both Firefox, IE and Safari, I did not hear any sound effects:

Matt Cutts of Google did comment saying sound is not a new thing. And Matt is right, Philipp Lenssen reported it back when it first launched. So this must be a limited test to some users. I think, if you have SearchWiki on, keep those sound effects. But clearly, adding a way for a searcher to opt out of the SearchWiki feature is a big win for the Google searcher.

After SearchWiki launched, a number of bloggers including TechCrunch were vocal in wanting a way to turn the feature off, since once it is enabled, there is no removing it. However, Google stuck to its guns that an opt-out wouldn’t be offered any time soon. Now that’s changed. Mayer promised to add a way to turn off SearchWiki within the first quarter of next year.

As for ranking, at launch Google said to Search Engine Land and others that SearchWiki might get used to influence rankings in the future, even though it currently is not.

Mayer explained that if “thousands of people” would remove a result from a search results page, then it might make sense to remove the page from everyone’s results. TechCrunch promised to post a video of the interview with Marissa later, so check the site later for her exact words.

I’ve organized this article as a Q&A, though the questions and answers are paraphrased from the conversation I had today with Cedric Dupont, Google’s SearchWiki product manager; Johanna Wright, Director of Product Management at Google and Google software engineer Corin Anderson. Any exact quotes are noted and cited.

SearchWiki should now be showing for everyone who searches at Google and has their language set to English, correct?

Yes. There are a few cases where people are using proxies or older browsers and not seeing SearchWiki. In a very tiny number of cases, some accounts might not have been SearchWiki-enabled. Those still having problems should post a report to the Google Web Search Help Group.

What happened with SearchWiki disappearing during some of this past weekend?

That was a hiccup, and we apologize to those users who couldn’t have their SearchWiki on Saturday afternoon. We restored it so folks could SearchWiki to their heart’s content by Saturday night.

Some people are being quite vocal online about wanting an opt-out from the feature. Once it is enabled, you’re stuck with it. Is an opt-out coming?

Dupont said he’s noted that some people want to turn it off citing “visual clutter” as being a potential problem. However, he said that’s this seems far from a universal complaint:

“Before we launched SearchWiki, hundreds of thousands of people tested it and the feedback was positive. We’ve also used this feedback to improve SearchWiki along the way.”

But why not just let people opt-out if they want to, as they can opt-out from other Google products — or how they can use the search preferences page to control number of results shown, popping-open search listings in their own windows, enabling subscribed links and other options.

“While users don’t have the option of turning off SearchWiki, they do have the option not to use the feature. By turning off the feature entirely, people will never get used to the new offering or see how it might be useful to them. We encourage people to try it out,” Dupont said.

I suppose. To some degree, we saw this after Google Universal Search rolled out last year. Some people kept asking for a way to turn it off. Today, I rarely hear that voiced.

Google personalized search is a better example. Some people — especially search marketers — wanted a way to toggle it on or off. Google didn’t care. At best, it advised a way to hack out the URL as a way to do it. Various third party tools are out there that allow this, as well.

Google recently rolled out search customization notices, which allow you to “toggle off” results when they are tailored to previous queries or geographic data. But when it comes to personalized search — something where some people have been actively requesting a similar on/off toggle — that’s not provided. As I wrote in my story about the search customization notices:

I wish next to the More Details option that Google would have also just placed a “Pause” button, so that personalized results could be paused and “normal” results viewed easily, without requiring a log-out.

I can understand the logic in forcing people to use something rather than letting them immediately opt-out, if you’re convinced it’s better for them. As I joked with Google on the call, it’s the kind of argument I’ll do with my kids when they say they don’t want to go to something like ski school. I send them anyway, despite the complaints, and in the end, they’re glad they know how to ski.

But that’s also the public relations problem Google faces, in not offering an opt-out to those who want it. Google comes across as some type of parent telling its children that it knows best. But its users (mostly) aren’t children, and no one want to be treated like one. Google should offer the opt-out, both to solve the PR issue and because I think it would be the right thing to do for even those few users out there who don’t want this.

All hope isn’t lost. Dupont said that Google will watch usage closely. If they detect many people might want an opt-out option, then it still might come down the line. “Based on a few days of feedback, we don’t want to rush into changing this.”

What type of measurements will indicate this need — a mass increase in people staying signed out of Google? Google simply said it had a wide variety of “user-happiness metrics” that it monitors.

FYI, those who want a third-party solution can use the SearchWiki On/Off Greasemonkey script for Firefox to toggle SearchWiki on and off.

It looks like it would be easy for people to flood a public SearchWiki notes page with submissions of pages all from the same web site. Are you considering clustering results similar to web search, where only one or two listings from the same domain will show?

We’ll take a look at that.

Are you considering a browsable guide to all the SearchWiki notes? Perhaps a way to drill into pages by topic or see the most popular SearchWiki notes by views or save activity?

No “table of contents” style page like that exists today. That sounds like a fun feature to have, but we wanted to focus on getting the core functionality launched. But a “What is the world doing with SearchWiki” page might come in the future.

How come I cannot see all comments that have been made even when clicking on the comments link?

Currently we only show a limited number of comments, and it will take a bit of time before we provide a way to browse all of them.

Is it me, or was the delete comment option not working?

It wasn’t you. It’s working now.

Can you explain more about how the thumb-up / thumb-down icons work with comments?

These are ways to give us feedback about a comment, separately from the extreme option of reporting a comment as inappropriate. Thumbing up doesn’t mean a comment will go to the top of the list for you or anyone; thumbing down doesn’t mean a comment will be removed. However, thumb voting is used as part of many signals in determining the order of comments.

So clicking thumbs down doesn’t report a comment for review?

No, it only makes a separate “Flag as inappropriate comment” link appear. To then report a comment, you have to click on that link and fill in a form.

So what’s considered an inappropriate?

Things might include spam, unauthorized copyrighted content, abusive or objectionable content, illegal content or advocating hate or violence. However, people can also note other reasons. If enough people flag a comment, we may remove it.

What determines the top comment shown? Is it most recent, as it seems to be?

There are many different signals that come into play.

There are already concerns about comments, such as this spam comment that made a TV sex station’s URL that showed up under the TechCrunch listing on the SearchWiki public notes page for TechCrunch. What are you doing about this?

We’re no longer displaying any comments by default, which we think will help.

How about issues where people might pretend to be other people and make recommendations in comments, such as here where it looks like Google’s Matt Cutts is endorsing a particular web site when in reality, it’s just someone with a Google account using his name.

I’d emailed this one to Google after our talk today, and they sent back:

This is a lot like what you see on the web already: anyone can choose to sign a comment “Danny.” It’s up to the reader to decide how to interpret this source.

And as Matt responded to this in the comments section of this specific blog: “That’s pretty funny, but it’s not unique. I’ve also seen fake blog comments, fake MySpace pages, and fake MyBlogLog people where people pretended to be me.”

Note that “Matt Cutts” comments twice in that post. The first one probably is him; the second isn’t. And agreed, it is possible for anyone to imitate anyone else. But then again, Google made an exceptionally large issue in launching Knol that it wanted to help people know the “real” people who stood behind content.

With it now allowing comments to be associated with search listings — on pages that might have more circulation than Knol itself — perhaps its worth a rethink in allowing unverified comments to exist. At the very least, the names of those commenting should be hyperlinked back to the Google user profile pages. At the moment, they are not.

It feels like for all the benefits to SearchWiki, you’ve created something of a new online PR reputation nightmare for people to worry about. Anyone can comment about anything, and there’s no real filtering that seems to go on. Any thoughts, advice or comments to those who are concerned?

This was another one I sent after the initial interview, and Google emailed back:

In terms of advice, the need for websites to be vigilant about what people say about them – and on them – long precedes SearchWiki, and is as old as the web itself.

We’ve always been supportive of tools that allow people to better express themselves online, and SearchWiki is no exception.

At the same time, in cases where people express themselves improperly or illegally against websites, we’ve made simple tools readily available for websites so they can take action appropriately.

Are there plans to make it easier for people to delete items they’ve voted on or commented on in SearchWiki rather than having to individually “restore” or “delete comment” for each item?

We’ll look at actual usage, and if it looks like many people are trying to erase what they’ve done this way, we’ll take action to make it easier.

Right now, you show what someone searched for if they comment on a URL, even if that URL is showing up for a different search. As I wrote, there might be a privacy issue with this. Might this change?

The problem is, in these situations, if we don’t show the original query, the comment might not make sense in context.

What determines the order of how things are listed on public SearchWiki notes pages? It doesn’t appear to be most voted items come first. Instead, it feels more like things are ordered so that the first thing voted on has a better chance to be at the top of the list.

Much like the main search results page, we’re not talking much about how ranking works. However, voting is a key factor. You can see results at the top of these pages are the ones that many people have voted to the top of their own results and those not as high may have been removed.

We’re also still looking at the quality of the signals we use. Over time, we think the results in the public SearchWiki pages will get much cleaner, and quality will improve.

Why not show the names of those voting up certain pages, to help make it clear if there’s vote gaming going on?

It’s an interesting idea, and we thought about that early on. We’ve tried to strike a balance between privacy and sharing. I’m sure we’ll continue to explore the idea.

I appreciate the ability to save items I spot within search results. But why not give me a “Save” feature or make Google Bookmarks enabled in the search listings. It feels weird that I have to make something shoot to the top of the search results when I only really mean to remember it.

We did consider a save feature, and both saving and voting up are valid. We choose to go with the voting up for SearchWiki. But again, we are definitely listening to user feedback to help improve the feature.

How are people using it so far? Are they going to the public SearchWiki notes pages or more using it to keep a personal record?

The overwhelming majority of the use is on the [personal] search results page rather than the “All SearchWiki edits page”.

What’s Google’s goal in offering this?

“It’s a new way to empower users. You can remember answers to repeat queries. It lets you add your personal touch to our algorithms,” Wright said.

How about the community aspect?

We expect to see a few new things happening and some of them may involve communities that could evolve around certain topics or searches. Right now, we’ve given out a tool and are letting people use it in the way that makes the most sense for them,” said Dupont.