Google has experimented with search features that let users vote on search results, and/or recommend other results than those given, since late 2007. They generally bucket test these features (meaning some small percentage of users, randomly chosen, see them), and if testing goes ok, they move them into the optional experimental area where any user can add them.
One of our readers, Adrian Pike, may be included in a new bucket test that includes a variation of last year’s experiment. The screen shots he’s sent show an up arrow and an X. Clicking on the up arrow turns it green and adds to the total vote count at the end of the search result. The main difference between this and last year is that it looks like users can change their vote. If anyone else sees this, please let us know.
I just started seeing this as well. I’m not sure what they’re going for with the comments feature, I can see that getting pretty messy if they allow anyone to post anything on any result.
Where/How is the Google App Engine?… never heard news about it anymore?!
wasn’t this tried by yahoo long time back with thumbs up and thumbs down. I feel this is really a bad idea and will not make it a permanent feature
They have an explanation here:
http://www.goog...qs/?editresults
I have seen this as well. It’s pretty interesting, but very cool. Here’s my proof: http://skitch.c...b-google-search
I don’t quite get this. Isn’t clicking on a site and not returning to the results essentially an “up arrow” and clicking a site and then returning to the search results essentially a “down arrow”?
Good choice on a Mac browser, MA! Safari > FF3!
If Google starts to actually use this inherently bad idea for search results, that moment will mark the point in time when Google reached the peak in user numbers.
The ‘next google’ will emerge shortly thereafter, with an engine developed out of Google’s old engine.
I agree with you Rodger. I think this would be a terrible move for search results. It would only be a matter of time before scripts and software came out to game the search engines for top rankings. SEO as we know it would be completely dead.
yeah, user-ranked results hold huge potential for manipulation and irrelevance since I may not be searching for the same thing when I type “football” as someone else.
Seems like a good way of tweaking search results. This might be a successful IDEA. If they didn’t try it they wouldn’t know. Think of Edison and his 10,000 failures before creating the incandescent light bulb.
We should all keep trying new stuff. The next big breakthrough could come from you.
A specifically categorized macro library with
detailed descriptions of each macro
(use/function, where applicable, etc.)
is now available in Live Spaces –
http://wsrmacro...paces.live.com/
The group where the macro creation tool
is in pre-beta and where new macros are
created & tested is located at
http://tech.gro...roup/ms-speech/
Bill Burke
http://wsrmacro...paces.live.com/
Dumb feature. Think about the morons that will use this “voting” feature muddle up search results. The algorithm works well and they should lave it that way.
If they really want this digg stuff they should just serve it as another free Google product.
sounds a lot like what I can already do with http://re.searc....com/index.html unlike all the naysayers here i don’t think it’s a bad idea. It could be gamed I suppose, but in some cases would be better than the crap I get now. Also if someone manages it you can control the gaming. So is it available to the general public (obviously not fully)? or only to authenticated users?
There are others options in Google lasb, but this one with voting system it’s not there. It’s welcome.
Blog with news: http://liviux.byethost15.com/
Does Anyone actually know a better page for techcrunch?
@Brig,
This can be taken care of, as an up arrow or down arrow can be evaluated in context of the phrase that the user searched for. So a certain page can be down-arrowed when it appears as a result for search for “A”, while can be up-arrowed when it appears as a result for search for “B”. If the algorithm takes care of this, it can be a useful thing.
I think this is a great way to leverage wisdom of the crowds, give Google’s clout and reach. They just need to perfect how they do it. I am looking forward to it.
-Niraj
Its about time Google. I’m surprised its taken this long to release something even in private testing. Social search is the wave of the future – social recommendations based computing. We are already experiencing it heavily now. Look at this web 3.0 hypothesis… http://www.goth...te.blogspot.com
why don’t they:
- implement a “flag” to send them fake sites, non-existent URLs, URLs that are just link sites and crap like that
- way to turn OFF the local search (easily)
- better semantic suggestions to hone my search so I don’t have to do as much work trying to think HOW to phrase it so i can get my results I need
- allow me to group my searches into bundles rather than one long list
-get their page design out of 1999
stock photo sites do a good job at suggestions, cross filtering etc. They can learn some things from them. Football is a good example. instead of making the user type football -american how about show grouped results and 2nd click leads to 2 groups football (euro/rest of world) soccer (american) rather than keep mixing results?
Arent you all assuming that Google is using it for global relevance. What is the scope of this relevance tweak?
Per user, per state, per country, per continent. Imagine person A typing football in India and person B typing football in US. Now image person A typing football while visiting the US…
Sounds dumb to me.
Google is lame. Let em die by using other sites.
This sounds like a terrible idea. People who know how to work the system will hugely benefit while opening the door for malicious targeting of sites.
If I’m running site A and my site is a good site, superior features, superior user experience, but I’m new. Site B has been in the game forever, has a decent following, but is like an old guard…
With this system, Site B can leverage its userbase to push me out of the index effectively. It would be a game of numbers, anyone with a big base of users can effectively squash up and comers destroying all chance of the site catching on organically…
Regardless of the feature being good/bad:
UI-wise, wouldn’t it make more sense for the Positive arrow (UP) to be located on the RIGHT and not in between the link and the X (making it now kinda … Bullsye to hit + u might misclick).
What do you think?
All they really need is a report spam button like youtube, to filter out the spam that often fills up search results.
Having a voting system will turn it into more of a “whats popular” contest rather than showing useful information.
Digg = Entertainment
Google = Information
Big difference, people don’t go to digg to research an assignment nor do they go to google to see what news is interesting and as such a social system isn’t needed.
STUMBLED!
Thanks for the news, is this something like what Scour.com is?
This is horrible idea, it will lead to corruption of the search results.
People: This only influences your search results, not others.
you need to be logged in with your Google account. I think it is a good idea that you can eliminate sites you don’t like. The big question is: will Google use the thumbs up and thumbs down in the future for the search results of users that do not co-operate; e.g. will Google implement a social component in the search results
Love the knee jerk reactions here. Reading the link from Justin, it is obvious it will only affect your personal search settings, it is not a voting system.
Will be a very interesting feature when finally added to Google.
@steve:
Not according to the “5″ I see next to the up arrow for TechCrunch.
Is this the beginning of the end of digg?
Something very similar to what http://www.get-dugg.com used to do!
I think this would be an awesome optional feature of Google – but it’s not something I would like to see implemented for the general public; the possibility of manipulation would be too great.
However – I think that Google could glean some useful data out of it for their main results even if they didn’t add this feature for their users who weren’t logged in.
Overall I like this idea, though.
why does it says 63 comments but all i see is 34?
@Tim
It counts the pingbacks as comments.
I dont fink is a good ide
i don’t think that this isn’t a good idea to suite with current features
Don’t you think they are trying to following digg(web 2.0) as well as wikia search (web 3.0)?
Blachat SEOs are drooling at the thought of this feature being implemented. You can hear them drooling all over their keyboards as the rest of us quiver in disgust of the exploits that Blachat SEOs will no doubt try and find.
the average user wouldn’t go back to their search results – just to vote on how well relevate the page was