Comments on: Google wants to know which sites to search

An experimental search feature allows users to tailor their searches by creating a list of sites they would like to appear most in search results.

[teachtopia]

How is Google going to keep people from tampering with the results this way? If Google uses this data in our search results we are in trouble.
What is too keep a big firm from outsourcing an entire network of people to raise up their results on pages?

[ecotony]

Nothing, but it would be cheaper for that big firm to just pay for Google's AdWords pay per click.

[The_Seo_Wizard]

Great article thanks this is one issue that has huge ramifications for SEO, especially the fact that users preferences will have an effect on search results in general.

I certainly see how this could be misused by the Blackhats in the future

[AmitaiGivertz]

It appears this feature is not available unless you are using Google Wiki and have been selected to participate in the trial.

It's not clear from Google's site how you get in on the trial.

[the_skipster]

I would like to extend this. I would love to have google always ignore sites. For instance, experts-exchangedotcom where you cannot see the page unless you are a member of the site. And yet, they pop up on the search engine all the time. I would love to tell google to never search that site for me.

There are other sites that come back in the search results that I would love to rid my screen of as well...

[triexel]

Funny you should say this. What I have discovered is that if you scroll to the bottom of any experts-exchange page, it actually displays the answer. I'm not sure what they want you to "pay" for. ;)

[EricCharnesky]

When you search, just put this at the end "-site: -expertsexchange.com"

[Innov8torCnet]

I wish Google would allow us to sort results instead of their paid order.
I often look for company web sites and try name in URL and would like sorted by position so the ones at the top of the list have the name at the beginning. Also be able to specify one term in url and another on the page.

[EricCharnesky]

"their paid order"?

You can't pay to get your result in a certain order...

[professionaladventurer]

The issue I see for me is that if i know which sites had what i was looking for, I would look there. Will it be better for me to set this up (once released to lowly losers , I mean "users" like me) to search ebay and amazon or to search ebay or amazon on my own?

Potential, there is a risk (outside of shopping) to narrow the world wide web to the site you already know about.

[rathishg]

The same feature is already there in Google coop ... why they need to tweak the organic results ... If some one needs such sophisticated search ... they just need to setup coop and start hunting ....

Well, I search if I am not able to find anything ... not if I knew its there in that site...

Google is simply making white and black list of sites. New companies will soon pop up which will provide big Google white lists ...

[AppleSuxLeo]

No Google , I don`t want "Palm Press" for my search results...I want "Palm Pre" !

[robertdeitch]

It seems to me that a good idea for google would be to have screens that can either be

1. scrolled down on in the small descriptive space of the site, or that

2. as much of the content of the site be shown as ;possible on full screen, then press next button for the next site.

Alex Markov

[Draq Wraith]

Oh good lets scew up the search results with irrelevant info as well.
Simple proof Try typing 'air power specialty' with quotes and see what comes up.
Anything not relevant is what i get!

Google is getting pretty bad with just adwords now lets see what happends with this idea.
It is almost as bad as trying to use reverse look up on any phone books site.

D~W

[jackdaniels08]

Hear me out guys and just follow the bouncing ball for a moment. Google is 100% right and I support them 100% because this is absolutely a logical and sensible step forwards for Google Search and the democratic nature of what makes up Google and here is why. Even before reading this article I had already surmised and given plenty of thought to the very idea that this democratic wiki digg like feature Google is adding as just one of the numerous components to the many algorithmic components which make up The Algorithm is simillar to the mechanics of the main and well known PageRank component which makes up the backbone of The Algorithm. While PageRank itself is a mathematically objective component which automatically ranks by mathematical formula, Correction: The website is weighted by the PageRank formula by the number of links a particular website is linked and is cited by other websites. The second subcomponent which makes up PageRank is the authority of those websites citing or pointing at the ranked website. Those website links are decided by authors of the websites much like a footnote citation in a book or a scholarly dissertation is decided by the author writing a book and giving credit to sources. So PageRank weights popularity as shown in its first subcomponent much like this new feature Google is introducing in Google Search. LIke PageRank the new component will help to determine a website's ranking through way of popularity.

[AngusGrogan]

pathetic - I for one am sick of Google and it's ridiculous amount of programs that provide barely useful functionality other software has done better for years.

I suggest Google just stick to what it does well and what people like and use (search, mail, earth, maps and sketchup).

Considering you can already search a site in advanced search, it would have made infinitely more sense to be able to filter OUT search results from sites you don't want to see results from... but hey, all the smart people work for Google right, what would I know....

[jackdaniels08]

@ AngusGrogan. Many people would strongly disagree with your stance on Google software. It's a good thing that you stated it as "you for one". Don't blanket your stance on me and many others who enjoy Google innovations. It's most likely that Google has more a clue about the technological future through their research and development and ties with top university labs. With your non-progressive thinking, we would still be in the dark ages. I suppose you think that Nokia known today as a world leading communications company should have stuck with the wood pulp mill industry. Either you come along on the exciting Google rocket ride or you get left behind.

[ChrisLang]

Cnet, you AJAX pop is cute, however it breaks my RoboForm password manager. Is sucks.

Second, to see Google's Wiki just log into your Gmail account. Don't want to see it, log out, no big deal.

Want to see customized results, log in. Want non Wiki results. You guys are making a big deal out of nothing and WebWare, you are six months behind the times again. This has been around for a year.

The Wiki, it's been around since December.

Everybody else, settle down. This is Google stirring the pot just like they always do. This is front page on Digg right now and every other social bookmarking site there is. Or maybe this is just Cnet and WebWare getting a few million page views out of old news.

Either way, take a break and pull you underwear out of your butt. This is marketing nothing more. Even if Google does use customized search results then so what. Just log out of Google, they go away.

Chris Lang
http://googlingsocial.com

[ChrisLang]

Sorry, I can't seem to spell "your"...