Google Outlines the Role of Its Human Evaluators

An anonymous reader writes "For many years, Google, on its Explanation of Our Search Results page, claimed that 'a site's ranking in Google's search results is automatically determined by computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.' Then in May of 2007, that statement changed: 'A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance to a given query.' What happened? Google's core search team explain."

Google is PEOPLE

[Kotoku]

In reality this is why search engines like Wolfram Alpha without the broad research and knowledge of Google in the industry don't stand much of a chance unless Google drops the ball.

Re:Summary, missing from TFS

[Ethanol-fueled]

I think having an indefinite human element would be a good thing for Google. College students are reasonably smart and many of them would enjoy doing such a simple thing to make a few bucks on the side for beer or textbook money. It's a lot like Slashdot's mod system. Hopefully it will drastically reduce spam pages being in the top results.

Re:But for how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, sorry. This might be true if google operated in a static environment, but they are competing. Both against direct competitors, and against people trying to game the system. If they ever came up with a perfect "algorithm" and let it rest, then the SEOs would reverse engineer it, make their useless pages beat every useful page, and then the perfect algorithm would be shit.

Article is somewhat inventive

[jpallas]

That part about "mostly college students" comes from the interviewer, not from Google:

JP: So are these raters college students or random folks responding to a job post? What are the requirements?

SH: It's a pretty wide range of folks. The job requirements are not super-specific. Essentially, we require a basic level of education, mainly because we need them to be able to communicate back and forth with us, give us comments and things like that in writing.

Funny how the introduction restates the interviewer's preconception even though the actual interview implies otherwise.

Re:Summary, missing from TFS

[papershark]

In every SEO conversation i have had, it still interesting how people think it's better to make a page interesting for some unseen calculating computer in Google head office. rather than making a page that is interesting to people and tagging it accurately at straightforwardly.

No matter how limited human review is, I am sure that the notion that real people evaluating a page for relevance is a good thing for all concerned.

In reality I think that most of this review activity will be directed at the 'to good to be true' red flags that are being thrown up by all this blogging that is been done by marketeers with laser beam strategy to capture topical traffic.

Re:Google is PEOPLE

[Rockoon]

Wolfram Alpha isn't a search engine.

Re:Google is PEOPLE

[arotenbe]

Wolfram Alpha isn't a search engine.

Saying Wolfram Alpha isn't a search engine is like saying that Linux should be called GNU/Linux. It might be more technically correct (emphasis on might), but it won't change the public's perception of it.

Re:Fuzzy logic is killing Google

[RJFerret]

Am I the only one who finds Google web search less and less useful? There's no way to really force literal search anymore.

So true and frustrating! I can't tell you how many times recently I've tried searching for something "SPECIFIC" and not been able to at all. :-(

I would love to know of a useful alternative that searches for what *I* want, rather than what some non-intelligence presumes I might want (and just wastes my time and their resources).