digg

Does this mean that spammers could "down-rank" a site if they don't like it? Ahem...Scientology sites.

i get my hopes up every time...but this is probably the zillionth time i've seen that screenshot

Only 35 diggvotes and the site is down already? Mirror someone?

Direct link to info on google: http://www.google.com/experimental/a840e102.html


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.

This would make it difficult for websites that launch after the system has been in place for a long duration. Unfair IMO.

Yes, because digg invented user-contributed promotions.

As long as Google doesn't pull a Microsoft and act like they "invented" an "exciting new technology" that's been around for years then I am basically okay with this in theory. The problem is obviously found with handing the largest search provider in the world over to dilettantes and spammers...

I hope that the reason this is a VERY experimental process is that Google is looking for a way to use the power of all it's users without falling prey to gaming (good luck on that - digg still hasn't quite got it right, but they keep getting closer).
Look at it this way: here on digg, any story with any mention of Ron Paul will never see the front page because of those that autobury based on content. In addition, any story that is 'group dugg' by friend networks can reach the front page, no matter how useless or spameriffic it may be. Now apply this to a search engine. Imagine that every scientologist on the planet is told to 'bury' anti-scientology sites...no more negative information appears when a search for scientology is done.
Social media can be fun and useful, but it's far to easy to game for the biggest/best (arguably) search provider in the world to allow this sort of manipulation.

Porn would top the list for every search result.............

Get ready to see a lot more LOLcats in your search results.

Unfair and unworkable I would think.

I hear they're also using Digg style voting to choose the next President. I don't know what the world would do if digg didn't invent voting.

as long as it would allow me to actually find informational search results instead of 3 pages of people trying to sell me crap, then i'm all for it

yeah because webmasters and bloggers can't make bots to "digg" their site to #1. terrible terrible idea. would only make google even LESS reliable than it already is.

Roaming hordes of idiots will bury anything that doesn't agree with their POV.... Just like Digg! No thank you.

Oh no. Now every search result is going to be a link to a Ron Paul website.

The idea is great in theory, but there are too many flaws with it as a whole for it to work properly.

Hell, I'm willing to bet that companies would start popping up which would get your site ranked first for a certain fee.

Second thought, this could work if it were specific to each user. Think Cookies from Hell!

I hope not. This is an idea that is just begging for abuse.

How many times is this going to be on the front page?

Oh great, give the Digg Elitists another source of Viagra.

Great, now all searches will lead to Anon vs Scientology results.

I thought Google Toolbar vote was used for this...apparently not.

"Voting buttons: If you especially like or dislike a web page you're visiting and want to share your opinion with Google, you can vote thumbs up by clicking the happy face or thumbs down by clicking the unhappy face. These buttons can also be used to report especially useful or unsatisfactory results after searching with Google. Just click the appropriate button while you're still on the results page. This feature is currently in test mode, so you will not notice any immediate effects based on your action, other than experiencing a warm sense of satisfaction from having shared your feelings with people who really do care. "

As long as its optional and off by default, then it may be an interesting way to refine searches. As many have said, the potential for gaming results makes it something I would not want to be on all the time.

This will change the whole way of SEO. I hope Google will think this trough, because as said a website would easily be bury.
But let's just assume that everything will work well, then the search results would be very accurate.

This is now the third time I have seen this same NON-story on this top page with the same exact logical fallacies in its description.
***** you, Diggers.

ok ... so how do i sign up, when i am at http://www.google.com/experimental/ ... the voting experiment isn't an option there

We don’t really know if it’s going to be a good or bad thing if this feature ever gets around to being implemented. They have to experiment with it more to see if it really works well or not. I could imagine the exploiter spammers ruining everything by boosting their site ratings with some new prog. We’ll see if Google can manage to overcome all those thousands of potential threats to the feature’s functionality.

i'm pretty sure the votes only effect YOUR searches, from the way the page reads.

I definitely want to see this implemented on an individual user level. I would love to be able to vote down a site that is essentially spam and not have it show in any future search results. The community vote would have to be an option I could choose to view. It's just too susceptible to spam to allow groups of people to give a site relevance. People good at SEO have already figured out how to game the search engines, this would just make it simpler for them.

I think it's a great idea. Maybe not this exact implementation, but some kind of ranking system would help. I have almost never found any credible links beyond the third or fourth pages in a Google search. NEVER. Quite frankly, coming up with over 50,000+ hits for a particular search term is ridiculous. The Internet is full of information, but it is equally full of misinformation and malicious activities. Go beyond the fourth page at your own risk...

***** buried. Hey you arrogant digg retards, the concept of "voting" on things was not invented by ***** DIGG.COM. People have been upmodding and downmodding things on the internet since Kevin whats his name was still in ***** diapers. Get off your high horse, other sites are going to employ the use of "voting" on things and it wont be "kind of like how digg does it".

Oh Good God NO -- the mob is filled with idiots, and digg is conclusive proof.

this has already been posted

That is no where like Diggs voting.. Everything that has a small icon/arrow beside the article isnt Digg style..

This won't work. Manipulating Google Ads and search traffic is already a full-time job for thousands. When people learn that the search results themselves can be further manipulated, there will be thousands more thinking they can also get a piece of the sad, manipulative action. People are so lazy, and I wouldn't put it past them to press little down or up buttons all day rather than get a real job.

whats amazing to me is that I wrote google a long time ago and suggested this very thing.

Vote Google 08

Something we will never see go live.

Google is smart enough to know that the collective idiocy of teenagers is not going to help improve search.

Read the article. The voting only effects your searches.

buried as inaccurate - voting is nothing like digg at all - google wouldn't be this stupid

This is at least the third time when this story hits the frontpage:
68 days ago - http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Experimenting_Wit ...
16 days ago - http://digg.com/tech_news/Google_Experimental_Sear ...

Goodiggle!

http://digg.com/tech_news/What_s_a_Goodiggle

Considering Google has an individual profile for every unique user that has accessed (directly or not) their site, this would be much more useful for personal search results rather than for everyone. Or make it a social thing, and see results more relevant to you based on your friend circle, location, and other personal data, rather than based on the hundreds (thousands) of people who will undoubtedly abuse the system.

Google has their cross-hairs on Digg, and is not the buy trigger...

If google has it good I'd be forced to be outta here...The commenting system and voting system sucks here. Not enough stats on votes, especially the total amout of people voted. A news/comment could have had 1 digg but if 5000 voted up and 4999 voted down, digg makes it look insignfigant.

that would be sweet, although if they really let the reigns go 100% advertising would be dead. The worst is trying to look up a part or brand name and getting 20 links to BS industry databases that have that keyword but have no content on what you were actually looking for.

digg is 2 weeks ago news, now?

Control spam by validating results by trusted, explicit friends networks that set your influence from only others you allow. No one can make you friend a spammer.

http://web.mac.com/dynamist/iWeb/dynamist/ideas/A0 ...

I'm pretty sure I saw this the first time when it was called Aftervote.com

This is kinda old, but on the bright side, if I missed the first time I'd read this one. Thanks digg.

And Google is saying its Microhoo that will ruin the Internet? Voting is all fine and dandy for a social comment website, but not for web searching. So I am going to have to wade through 100's of artificially promoted open source and Linux and Apple and Nintendo websites in order to find references to Microsoft or Sony because a slew of fanboys are ranking Google searches? Base web searches on the amount of ACTUAL traffic going to a website rather then on fanboy fiction.

I think while they are at it they should throw in slashdot's tagging system
whatcouldpossiblygowrong