Google Updates Algorithm To Punish Websites With Excessive Ads 321
hypnosec writes "Google has decided to take punitive actions against those websites that flood the top of their web pages with ads due to which the visitors have to scroll down to finally view the relevant contents on the page. According to Google, this type of layouts annoys the users and thus the web search company will be penalizing those websites through search results. The company disclosed this on its blog. According to Google over the top ads is not good for user experience and thus such websites might not get high ranking on Google web search."
except google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:except google (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably not punishing google ads(ducks)
Google ads aren't generally splashed over the entire top of the intial screen loaded page. While I don't want to sound like a google shill here, I really don't get how they make their money - aren't google ads generally little text areas with "Advertisement" written above them? I am not one to click on ads, but I know that I have clicked on a few by mistake - but never Google ones that I knew of - they really seem to make their ads be known as ads.
Re:except google (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's little text-only ads are the only ones I (and many others) find acceptable. They tend to be relevant, are easily ignored, and don't detract from the aesthetics of the page. For those reasons, I generally don't block Google's ads and have once or twice clicked on them because they really were relevant.
The ones I really hate are the ones that come up over the content and you have to search for a way to close it... especially the ads that do this behavior when you accidentally move the mouse over the ad.
Re:except google (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually some websites actually manage to make Google ads very unpleasant by putting so many of them on the top of the page, in the middle of the content etc.
This probably leads to people clicking on them by mistake which from the advertiser's perspective is bad. The advertisers are likely to complain to Google and any ad agency or even to ask Google for refunds for such clicks.
So a page full of ads is not just bad for the user, it's bad for targeted advertising which is what Google does.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, somebody involved really has to exercise some common sense and you can be sure that it's not going to be the advertisers.
I don't mind viewing reasonable text ads and sometimes I even click on them, it's the annoying flash ad crashes and millions of javascripts that have to load and the ones that turn words into links or otherwise make it a pain to view the page that I block with extreme prejudice. If they want me to view the ads then they need to make it a somewhat reasonable proposition. I hate cli
Re: (Score:2)
The ones I really hate are the ones that come up over the content and you have to search for a way to close it
I'm looking at you Wired...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:except google (Score:4, Insightful)
No need to duck. You are likely correct.
I personally expect every kind of ad save Google Adwords and other Google-based ads to be equally punished after awhile. Google makes their money primarily from advertising. Why in the world would they help people who buy from their competitors? Makes perfect sense.
Oh, and before anyone gets all upset, this isn't "monopoly behavior" This is just smart business. You don't help your competitor advertise, particularly on your own network. When was the last time you saw an ad for the CBS evening lineup on ABC or NBC? (Hint: Never)
If you are uncomfortable with this arrangement, may I suggest Bing or Ask as alternative search engines?
Re:except google (Score:5, Insightful)
It would open them up to anti-trust lawsuit since they're using their majority market share in the search business to hurt competitors in the advertising market.
Re: (Score:2)
It would open them up to anti-trust lawsuit since they're using their majority market share in the search business to hurt competitors in the advertising market.
No google just has to bribe the campaigns of Bush #2 (Obama) and Bush #3 (Romney), so they will continue to Not prosecute that particular law. Lobbyists use politicians in order to gain monopolistic protection and punish any new upstarts/competitors (like isohunt search).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-trust laws don't apply to you solely because you are a majority. It requires you are a monopoly.
No, thats the exact opposite of the anti-trust laws. It doesnt even require a majority share of the market to be applied to you.
Now stop talking when you don't know what you are talking about.
Re:except google (Score:5, Interesting)
You are likely correct.
Based on what? They did punish their own browser due to the sponsored results, so they obviously care about been seen as impartial (regardless of what actually motivates that desire).
Re: (Score:2)
You are likely correct.
Oh no, that's the worst kind of correct!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of ducks... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've developed a habit of using duckduckgo for most routine searches.
I find the thumbnails of neckbeards in Google to be extremely irritating, while duckduckgo shows favicons which can occasionally be useful visual clues.
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably not punishing google ads
(ducks)
I think you might be wrong. If you have a website that has multiple Google ads on top, and you find this website via Google search, you probably click away. Promoting websites like this is shortsided, even if it means that they will earn a little more money. In the long run the user starts to distrust Google and will try something else. So it is in Google's interest to do this for all sites, no matter if they have Google ads or not.
Re: (Score:2)
In the future, Google may have to prove in front of a court that the algorithm is fair - maybe having experts from external companies doing the audit, taking the risk to give away the most protected program at Google: the heart of the algorithm.
I don't believe (Score:2)
Re:I don't believe (Score:5, Insightful)
you're supposed to stop buying your ads through the obnoxious ad network that does these ads and buy through google to come up in google search
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I don't believe (Score:5, Insightful)
that Google does this for altruistic reasons. Where is the snake under the grass ?
Profit. They don't want to be known as the search provider to be avoided because they point to link farmers / aggregators / web spammers.
If 90% of power users actively decide to block site X because it completely sucks when logged in using
http://www.google.com/reviews/t?hl=en [google.com]
Then they may as well block that site for everybody.
Re:I don't believe (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet they let experts-exchange get away with their faking out google, despite the fact that it's well-known that they do it AND google has said that's explicitly a no-no...
Scholarly cloaking (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Firstly, the results only show up if you're coming FROM google. If you're coming from another search engine that reads google (DuckDuckGo or Qrobe, e.g. I prefer the latter), you get the standard content free crap.
Plus, I've never found information on experts exchange that wasn't better answered on StackOverflow (or another appropriate stack exchange site)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that Google does this for altruistic reasons. Where is the snake under the grass ?
Perhaps they don't, but page ranking is supposed to indicate the usefulness of a page as a result to a query. If a page does not allow you to quickly get to what you're looking for due to an obnoxious flood of ads, it seems safe to assume that the page deserves a certain penalty.
Although, I'd personally implement a penalty for Comic Sans as the page font or pink as background or foreground color, and a double penalty for both on the same page.
Re:I don't believe (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it's not entirely altruistic, but it's still beneficial.
The problem is sites like Expert Exchange, any IT person will have searched for an IT problem and got an Experts Exchange link only to click it and find nothing but ads - so many professional IT workers don't realise that the content is actually hidden away at the bottom, after pages of fake blocking content trying to convince you to subscribe such that many go to the page, scroll down a bit, see nothing but ads, then leave the page and try a different link.
If this happens too often people wont get fed up with those sites, they'll get fed up of Google not returning nice results and Google risks losing them to the likes of Bing and Yahoo.
So sure it's not altruistic, it's about keeping users on board by providing the most pleasing results to users as it can, but it's still a good thing IMO.
Many people today probably don't even remember the pre-Google search engines, where you'd far more frequently have to click well past the 1st page of results to find what you want, and had to click into and exit out of far more results because they weren't what you wanted.
The fact is, if Google first searches based on relevance of content, and then given roughly equally content relevance to the search query then starts ranking those pages based on how pleasant they are to use then that makes searching a much less stressful endeavour. As a search engine, the user experience of a search engine is somewhat linked to the user experience of the results it returns - if two search engines return the same results equally ordered by relevance, but then one of them ranks the most pleasant to use sites first where relevance is pretty much identical, which are you going to use? The one where you have to deal with annoying sites to find your answer, or the one where you don't?
Pre-google search engines? (Score:2)
You mean like Gopher?
measurement (Score:5, Interesting)
So, is there a place where we can measure how well our websites conform to google's ideas of user-friendliness?
Or do we have to find out the hard way?
Re: (Score:2)
Your needs will be taken care of by the emerging SEA industry.
Search Engine Appeasement.
Re: (Score:3)
For a starter, don't run a link farm?
Re: (Score:2)
Or just use bing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are human testers involved. I did this for a while. Basically you get thrown 10 pages that are mostly all alike and you have to pick the best one. So the page with fewer ads and the same content will be marked as better by the testers. This will then push that page higher in the algorithm. Other test include visiting 10 sites for a search query and marking which ones display the data, which ones are virus filled, which ones have too many ads etc. There is a review process as well. I also vaguely remember doing a test where a previous tester said these things about a page, are they correct? It's subjective, but you definitely can tell a good page from a bad page quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is like an evil Mr. Rogers (Score:4, Insightful)
and that good for you mayor villain from Demolition Man. They try to say it's good for you when all they are doing is trying to lock out the competition
Re:Google is like an evil Mr. Rogers (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard to jump on the Anti-Google bandwagon on a move like this. Google's ads have historically been unobtrusive and don't break the flow of a page. Some of the "competition" on the other hand is the very reason adblockers exist.
Having once seen a full page advert that had a broken close function and actually outright prevented me from getting to the content I want I for one welcome this move.
Google, please don't... (Score:4, Interesting)
All things considered, if a site scores high in search results because it has the most relevant results, I'm okay with scrolling down past the ads that I ignore. If I'm searching for something in a content search engine, it's because I want relevant content; the fluff surrounding that content doesn't really matter to me.
It's all very nice that Google in their infinite wisdom wants to protect me from those harmful ads that I can ignore, but to make the search results less useful is not what I consider an overall positive outcome.
(Mind you, I use Yahoo, so Google needn't listen to me too much.)
Re:Google, please don't... (Score:5, Insightful)
it will probably make it more useful
every time i search for SQL related info i get crap from exchange-admins or some site like that where a forum question is on top and the rest of the page is ads and a link to make me sign up and pay for the rest of the posts. why can't google link to free info first?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Mind you, I use Yahoo, so Google needn't listen to me too much.)
Holy crap, I knew someone out there had to be using Yahoo search but I didn't think I'd ever find them - and I knew they wouldn't have a hope of finding me...
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they're making them more useful, as sites with advertisements like that are invariably written by morons for morons and are noise in the search results.
Fuck, I've been trolled.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been trolled
I can't tell if you're trying to be funny. My homepage is set to my.yahoo.com and I've been using Yahoo Mail for something like 15 years now. I won't go into all the reasons why I like Yahoo and especially Yahoo Mail; if you are interested, I've posted about this several times on Slashdot.
But it boils down to (i) I like Yahoo, and (ii) I don't like Google. I am nowhere near as paranoid/conspiracy minded as the average Slashdot reader, but Google's data collection and data mining is far too pervasive for my
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if you're trying to be funny. My homepage is set to my.yahoo.com and I've been using Yahoo Mail for something like 15 years now. I won't go into all the reasons why I like Yahoo and especially Yahoo Mail; if you are interested, I've posted about this several times on Slashdot.
The reason is that you're insane. Yahoo is just like Google but inferior and their spying now goes to Microsoft because they're powered by Bing. You're not using Yahoo, you're using Microsoft! Nothing you can say will justify that decision.
I am nowhere near as paranoid/conspiracy minded as the average Slashdot reader, but Google's data collection and data mining is far too pervasive for my liking.
You really have no idea what you are talking about: Yahoo does all the same stuff, but they're just less competent. So what you're saying here is "I would rather use the service that tries to track me and fails incompetently at that and at everything else including a dece
Re: (Score:2)
All things considered, if a site scores high in search results because it has the most relevant results, I'm okay with scrolling down past the ads that I ignore.
But that's the point. All else is not equal. If the only site the algorithm thinks is at all relevant to your query is full of ads, I expect it will still be on the first page of results. But if there are ten sites that are all about equally relevant, and half of them are full of spam, wouldn't you prefer the spam-free ones to be first?
Plus, if the spammers get pushed down in the rankings then with any luck they'll stop spamming and thereby go back to where they were before in the rankings, resulting solely
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't Google's customer, the companies that buy adwords are.
Stripping those sites out of the results helps by getting the high-revenue sites up higher in the results list. That's good for Google and their actual customers.
Shouldn't be surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
In the war for eyeballs, a search engine needs to produce the "best" results for your query, and provide meaningful, useful pages at the top of the list. If your searches on a given provider just bring up link farms or pages which are so strewn with ads that its hard to find the content, you're going to try another search engine. Google makes its money by getting people to search using their engine, and by delivering relevant ads.
I'm a bit surprised they haven't been more aggressive at weeding out crap pages. Or it could just be that they're losing market share, and they looked into why people were going elsewhere.
Does it take into account onload? (Score:3)
Good. The thumbnail sized content will be at the top. Bad. The page will reset to the bottom after the onload image refresh script runs.
onload='fuxWithGoogle(evt)'
function fuxWithGoogle(evt) { window.scrollBy(0,100); }
Re: (Score:2)
What about multi-page 'stories' (Score:3)
What about sites where people have to wade through pages of ads and links to get the actual content they were after, including news that is clipped into small pieces, and spread over a lot of pages, all with lots of ads?
Like Slashdot (Score:2)
Amusingly enough, when I loaded /. today there was a banner ad across the top of the homepage (at work, so can't install ABP here).
Right move for the wrong reason (Score:2)
The correct reason to punish those sites is that there is a very high correlation between excessive ads and crap content (or good content that has been copied illegaly from other sites that will now get a better rating.)
Considering the alternatives... (Score:3)
there are a lot of sites meant to display as much ads as they can, with some copied content from somewhere else and every trick in the SEO books to attrack traffic. And how you decide that a site is doing that, like specifically tricking the search engine to think it is normal? Their next move should be to lower the amount of ads, and then the users, if well will keep falling there, at least won't load as much ads as usual.
About "normal" sites, with original content, and lots of ads to make them profitable, probably other factors could keep ranking them higher, and if the line they put between normal use of ads and abusive is high enough could end not hurting a lot and forcing the sites that abuse to give a better end user experience.
Editing (Score:5, Interesting)
From the "Good god, would it kill you to edit submissions for basic grammar" department.
According to Google over the top ads is not good for user experience and thus such websites might not get high ranking on Google web search
Is barely a coherent sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that bad. It really should say "are" instead of "is" but otherwise it's okay.
Re: (Score:2)
But, again, the grammar actually isn't that bad. It's redundant, yes, but grammatically the errors are minor compared to the number of sins I've seen committed on here.
The original post was complaining that the summary wasn't readable. Aside from is/are and an extraneous 's', it's perfectly readable. Nobody said it was *interesting*, though.
Re: (Score:3)
The trick is to only read the headlines and then troll about how Google hates freedom. When employing this method it's very important to inform people to vote for Ron Paul.
Reading the summary . . . pfft, that's almost as quaint as reading the article.
Yay, but what about Wikipedia Content Scrapers? (Score:5, Interesting)
My pet peeve with google searches is when I get page after page of pages which have just stolen the text from Wikipedia and placed it on their site with ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh...
First, you cannot steal text without carrying off a book. To steal, you must deprive the other party of exactly the item you gain.
Second, Wikipedia is licensed under the GPL. It is not illegal in the slightest to copy it.
Whether or not these sites belong in the top Google rankings is not my point. If Wikipedia has the original information, it probably belongs at the top; but I primarily use DuckDuckGo, which often places Wikipedia at the top. What bothers m
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious: Do you prefer the word "poaching" in the following sense: âoetake or acquire in an unfair or clandestine wayâ to describe those in a parasitic relationship with Wikipedia (i.e. those who take its content to create link-farms)?
What annoys me... the "+" modifier (Score:5, Informative)
What annoys me is when I search for a particular word or phrase, and Google takes me to a page which lacks that word.
I used to be able to type "+blankie" and google would show only those pages that had the word blankie in them. No longer. It just says that + is no longer supported, and takes me to a load of pages without that word.
Re:What annoys me... the "+" modifier (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks, seems like you have to add &tbs=li:1& to your URL to turn this verbatim thing on.
So now my "do what you're fucking told to" string is:
&safe=off&nfpr=1&tbs=li:1&
I've also more or less given up search from any google page because of this crap called "instant search", it's far too slow to keep up with my typing and usually buggers up and loses part of the string (especially when I try to go back and fix a typo)
Should not index the ads (Score:2)
Also it would be nice if Google did not index the content of the ads. On numerous occasions I have found that the only occurence of my search is in an ad on the page.
Sounds great (Score:2)
Sounds like a great idea. What they really need to is delist companies that crap flood their results with dozens of websites which really only have one back end. An easy example of this is to find is done by plugging in a phone number. You will find dozens of web sites that crap flood the first several pages of Google result's and are obviously all for the same site.
AdBlockPlus (Score:3)
What is this "ads" are you talking about? I am actually surprised that given recent wave of crackdown on users by content monopolies, AdBlockPlus is not getting any attention from similarly formidable advertising behemots.
I think people underestimate gigantic influence of AdBlockPlus on the whole generation. I am getting my content exclusively from the Internet and after several years of using it I only can realize how massive this impact is by accidentally getting myself into AdBlockPlus-less situations. In each such case (occaisional glance at the television set while waiting for your oil change in the dealership, friend's computer, etc) I am astonished by the sheer amount of annoying garbage, which modern ads are.
plenty of competition (Score:2)
Google is not the only search engine in town, it's not a monopoly, and besides, if you feel it's bad value - you can start your own and make a ton of money. Do you think people will go to your own search engine if you do not 'punish websites with excessive ads' as opposed to using Google?
There are no acceptable ads. (Score:5, Interesting)
Any ad which uses Javascript has a performance hit, which lets face it is ALL ads. And it's noticeable since all ad serving "platforms" are old-skool, chain-loading, document.writing, bloated piles of shit.
Check the waterfall diagram for a simple adsense text unit. Yep, that's what I'm talking about.
Re:There are no acceptable ads. (Score:5, Informative)
Even worse are the flash ads, with sound, and flash is so bugged that put 2-3 of them in a single page and you have a 70% chance of crashing.
Re:There are no acceptable ads. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even much worse...
The upcoming HTML5 ads which will be as invasive as Flash and just a resource hogging. But have NO ability to disable to turn off. ;-)
Welcome to the world you requested.
Noscript (Score:5, Insightful)
Except those ads will have the same Achilles heel of all ads; they're served from a relatively small number of large companies, and so can be taken out with noscript.
If a site served an ad from their own domain, it would waltz straight though my defences, but I can sleep soundly knowing that will never happen.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but more likely they have an ad provider that would want to serve the ads so they automatically have verification of the number of impressions. If they're served from the same server as the content, the ad provider basically has to rely on the content provider's numbers, which they're not about to do.
Re: (Score:3)
It's possible to turn-off embedded [image] loading, so you should be able to turn==off embedded [video] too. It's just a matter of picking a browser that has the option to load or not load images/videos, like Opera (located in the bottom right corner).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed. Adblock Pro, plus NoScript, plus RemoveItPermanently make my web browsing experience a lot more stable and secure.
In fact, I won't run a browser without them anymore.
Re:There are no acceptable ads. (Score:4, Informative)
You could just buy a router, flash it with Tomato (I use Toastman's USB version) then enable a script on the router to block advertising domains. My script updates itself every four days, so it's always current.
Not only do I block all those annoying ads on my own computer, but the wife and kids computers too. The improvement in bandwidth is dramatic. You lucky people with real broadband may not appreciate how much bandwidth is lost to advertising. Those of us with 1 MB or less bandwidth notice!
Re:Some people don't need this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some people don't need this (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with that. Google grew to be the most popular search engine by understanding and implementing what is most acceptable to users of a search page.
Applying the same sort of rating when ranking results is a logical extension and only makes Google more attractive to users.
Next step: deprecate Flash.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
LOL "deprecate Flash" you do understand Flash is ONLY viable application/game platform on WEB currently?
(Silver-light never really took off unfortunately) and HTML 5 is a JOKE every browser has different implementation, and if you decide to make site that will work/is compatible with only 1 browser good luck if you want to reach over 95% users since no browser currently has 95% of market ( Flash has 97%-98% )
if you want to write plain old website HTML is OK but if you want something more modern/dynamic/some
Re: (Score:2)
Java dude
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with that. Google grew to be the most popular search engine by understanding and implementing what is most acceptable to users of a search page.
The same way they understood that I wanted to see cluttered Google+ results in a sidebar for all my searches! :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a matter of time until Youtube goes fully HTML-5. They already reject Flash video uploads. (I get an "unsupported format" error.)
Two more years (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd really prefer that google Not be ranking websites because of content
Ahhhh, you want the Schrodinger algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd really prefer that google Not be ranking websites because of content.
Wut
Re: (Score:2)
I do not disagree but I do think that there is a big difference between content and advertisements. Maybe that is an unAmerican attitude, though?
If you don't like Google, walk your feet to Blekko (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want a "user experience" with someone second-guessing you and tossing extra keywords into every search, pfft, google it.
I occasionally try new search engines ( Google remained my favorite ) yet recently switched, due to proof that one is better... for me. I'm a scientist. I was convinced by the results of the game, Three Engine Monte, over at http://blekko.com/ [blekko.com]
" search term /monte "
I was impressed by how often I picked the Blekko search results link. Most often, the more relevant listing was unearthed by Blekko. I found better information with Blekko. I was mightily impressed, and switched. Unless you want local listings every search on a movie title, (which still seems intrusive to me), in which case stick with the big brother who gives you priority paid listings.
Grasshopper, if you are not trying new search engines, regularly, you are <strike>eating search results pablum</strike> missing out on some awesome information.
Re:Some people don't need this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"It's not about what people want, it's about what Google wants" I think you are missing a genuine happenstance in this case.
Re:Some people don't need this (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a simpler answer is that blocking "ad farm" type pages will simply improve the relevance of search results - no matter where the ads are coming from.
Re:Some people don't need this (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think parent post has it right.
Google is now feeling pressure from Bing (why do feel the urge to write that as 'Bling'?) and this is an excellent move in differentiating its main product from competitors. It is now offering something a large segment of the market is going to appreciate rather than attempting to be everything to all customers.
I may be mistaken, but I do not believe any other search engine has the resources and sophistication to do the kind of analysis that this approach requires on the kind of scale involved. It looks like an excellent way for Google to leverage its strengths in differentiating its product from the competition.
I use Adblockplus, Noscript, and Betterprivacy so on first approximation what Google has done would not seem to affect my browsing habits much: I generally do not see the ads in question anyway. But on looking more closely at what is going on, this move by Google is likely to cause a lot of marginally useful web designers to start using better practices, and that will tend to make everyone's web experience somewhat better, including my own.
And if I use the new Google, which I probably will, I will be less apt to spend my time on shoddy web sites.
Re: (Score:3)
This won't differentiate google though unless you're already wearing google glasses. If someone can afford better content because they're monetizing it more efficiently - or differently than google THINKS they should, then google is playing a dangerous game of feeling conceited enough that it knows best.
Competition is a good thing. I love it. I'm glad BING is still in the game.. Live.com was a terrible joke. I just think its a dangerious slope for google to follow especially since there is no standard to
Manage blocked sites (Score:2)
Not relevant.
For the longest time, you've been able to block domains in google.
http://www.google.com/reviews/t [google.com] (If logged in)
Re: (Score:3)
2. Click back
3. You will see a link appear offering to "block all expertsexchange.com" links from your search results.
Only works if you are logged in to Google in some way, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering sites with their ads will be removed from the equation
They will? Where did you read that?
Re:I guess Slashdot is screwed (Score:4, Insightful)
The intention as I see it is to "punish" sites where, on common browser window sizes, you need to scroll before you see anything that isn't advertising of site logos.
It could be a pain for sites that use images an other binary objects for what should be textual content, but they need a slap any way.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd solve that problem in a second.
Try an amazing bit of software called "Don'tGoToThatFeckingWebsiteEverAgain".
(sarcasm mode off - seriously, why would you *want* to go to a website that treats its readers like that?)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's attempt to get back true ranking of the website produced by linking by genuine users, not some SEO bots.