Google rankings are a big money game (not least for Google), and for many businesses the line between success and catastrophic failure can often be fundamentally tied to this principle. So what are we to make of Google's recent announcement that it is to allow a new option to users whereby, after logging in, they can now control (to some extent) the rankings of their results?
The idea is that, just like Wikia search, Mahalo.com, Digg and many others, Google too will offer users the chance to modify their results according to personal preferences. In addition users will be able to provide feedback on certain sites and links, feeding into a 'community' aspect which it is hoped will help to further improve the relevance and quality of search results. Question is; will this also increase Google's workload in combating spam?
Firstly Google have been very emphatic on the point that only the individual user's rankings can be altered, and that ultimately it will be impossible to artificially trick Google into delivering an individual user's ranking preferences to others. Sounds pretty logical so far. Furthermore Google is obviously not abandoning its current search system which delivers rankings based on a series of secretly-guarded search algorithms. It merely intends to add a greater scope for individual personalisation within the framework of what these algorithms produce.
However as with all web 2.0 community initiatives, from the smallest of social networks to Wikipedia or MySpace, there is always the danger of spam, which if not adequately supressed will render the service obsolete and unworkable. In theory, by increasing its level of openness, Google will now be more vulnerable to spammers and perhaps a new range of 'black hat' SEO techniques...
In truth though we all know that Google is not daft - they know that their service must continue to move with the general pace of innovation in order to maintain its market leading (dominating?) position. The addition of a human-powered search feature has been inevitable ever since Wikia search et al launced their services, though it's no coincidence that Google's arrival comes at a time when the viability of the venture has been unquestionably verified (i.e. let the others dip their toe in, and if the results seem ok we'll go charging in after them).
Google can afford to allow the others the headstart for obvious reasons; its financial and operational capacity is such that it can do in a month what others do in 6. Plus, when the endeavour comes to fruition, Google can surely capitalise maximally by virtue of its huge and unrivalled brand potential. For the time being though, they are not the only company working on ways to combat spam in human-powered search, a pretty crucial detail in terms of answering the above question.
We must also remember that just as there will be greater incentives for spammers to abuse the new service, so too there will be a far greater number of genuine users seeking to maintain the functionality of a spam-free tool (the Wikipedia principle). The fact that users must have logged in before having access to user-generated results services should ensure that offenders can easily be investigated and blocked once reported.
In short, Google's timing is no coincidence; rather it represents a capitalisation on a situation whereby an entire online sector is tackling the same problems in developing a new service. Google knows that as long as its offering is at least equal in quality and capability to its competitors, its brand power will do the rest of the work. Whatsmore, with an effective harnessing of the power of the community infrastructure, the whole endeavour has the potential to be largely self-regulating and thereby pretty spam-free. Bad news for the spammers it seems...
Dejan Levi
