Search Engine Censoring (“Banning” and “Penalization”)
Search Engine Honesty (http://www.searchenginehonesty.net/ )
See Impact of Search Engine Editorial Policies on Small Business and Freedom of Information for a newer and more comprehensive treatment of this subject.
The Internet Censoring Problem
It has recently become widely known that Google is censoring search results displayed to their Chinese language users (Google.cn) to conceal the existence of sites that the Chinese government considers objectionable.
It is much less widely known that the major search engines also censor access by their English language users to many web sites. They all have internal organizations responsible for executing the censoring policies of their company. We can be confident that none of these organizations is called the “Censoring Division”. The people in these organizations may also sincerely believe that what they are doing is in the best interests of their users and that every single site that they block is “doing something wrong”.
The problem with Internet censoring is the same as any other form of censoring. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, once you start censoring it is very hard to stop. It is always possible to rationalize that people would be better off if they didn't have access to certain information.
Search engines (especially Yahoo Search) talk about the idea that they are censoring access to improve the “quality” of the “user’s experience”. Just like the Chinese government, search engines say they are censoring to protect their users. However, the user is not given a choice in either case. There is no message on the search results page that says: “We have excluded results from sites that we consider to be of low quality or otherwise objectionable, click here to repeat the search with the censored results included.”
Nobody ever banned or burned a book that they thought other people should be allowed to read.
All the majors (Google, Yahoo Search, MSN Search) admit on "webmaster guidelines" pages to censoring access by their users to sites that employ “deceptive practices” to unfairly increase their search engine exposure. Because, like the Chinese government, search engines take the position that any site that they have deleted “has done something wrong” they prefer the terms “banning” or “penalization” to “censoring”. However, functionally, there is no difference. A site that has been censored (or “banned”, “penalized”, “blackballed”, "blacklisted", “de-listed”, or “removed from our index”) cannot be found no matter how relevant its pages are to a search. Censored sites are manually, on a site by site basis, removed from and barred from a search engine’s index. (Search engines can also use site-unique bias to suppress access to individual web sites.) None of the majors admit to any censoring or banning on pages likely to be seen by their users (people doing searches).
Note carefully that there is a difference between outright censoring, in which all (sometimes all but one) of a site’s pages are removed from the index, and a “rank” problem where it is only less likely that a site will be found. It is easy to determine if a site has been deleted. (See Is Your Site Banned?) It is much harder to detect even gross bias in a search engine’s ranking algorithm or depth-of-crawl algorithm.
Search engines do delete sites for using deceptive practices but they also de-list sites for “inconvenient practices” and may also remove sites for competitive reasons or other editorial reasons. Generally speaking, small sites (less than 100 pages hosted on a domain name) are not banned except for deceptive practices. It is also possible for any site to fail to appear on a search engine because of technical site configuration issues. A very small and insignificant site could conceivably be missed by a major search engine, especially if it had very few incoming links from other sites.
People pick a search engine based on the perceived comprehensiveness of search results (ability to find relevant pages), freshness (how often the search engine visits pages and updates its index to reflect new information), and quality of results (probability that a given result page is useful as opposed to "spam"). A poll conducted by Search Engine Honesty indicates that the last factor is the most important for 60 percent of users. It is therefore no surprise that search engines are trying hard to improve the average quality of their results by suppressing spam sites. They can easily hide suppression of competition and editorial bias in their anti-spam program.
However, nearly 60 percent of poll respondents said that search engines should provide the option of seeing censored results and 90 percent said that search users should at least be advised that some sites had been intentionally deleted.
Deceptive practices involve features of a web site designed to “trick” search engines. Such practices are designed to take advantage of weaknesses in a search engine's system in order to get an unfair advantage in search engine exposure. The following is a list of common deceptive practices:
-Using invisible text (same color as the background) to feed different text to the search engine from that seen by a viewer; using tiny type at the bottom of a page for the same purpose; “stuffing” keywords in “ALT” or “Keywords” tags (usually not seen by viewers); many other similar techniques.
-Programming a web server to detect when it has been accessed by a search engine’s spider and feeding the robot different information than would be received by a viewer ("cloaking").
-Use of multiple “doorway pages” that are each designed to be optimum for a particular search engine.
-Use of “excessive” cross-linking.
-“Link farms” that are for the express purpose of gaming “link popularity”; links in locations or on pages that would seldom or never be seen by human visitors.
- Buying links.
-Duplication of data such as hosting the same site on multiple domain names. (See The Redundancy Explosion.)
Deceptive practices are typically aimed at increasing the search results rank a site would have for particular keywords relative to a "legitimate" site on the same subject. This problem is made more difficult by the fact that search engines are reluctant to define "legitimate" in any detail. "Deceptive" is therefore a "gray area". A second goal may be to increase site traffic generally by using hidden keywords for popular but off-topic subjects. This could be useful if the site is displaying pay-by-impression advertising or advertising a subject of very general interest (e.g. CocaCola).
Search engines may be willing to describe the particular deceptive practice causing censoring if requested by a webmaster. In addition, Google is reported to be testing a system whereby webmasters of sites censored for a deceptive practice would be advised by means of email to firstname.lastname@example.org that their site has been censored and the reason for the action. All the major engines have procedures whereby webmasters that notice that their site has been censored, determine the nature of the deceptive practice, and fix it, can apply for reinstatement.
Our impression is that sanctions for deceptive practices are more or less fairly applied. A large-business, Fortune 500 website engaging in deceptive practices will likely be censored as well as a minor site. A major car manufacturer’s site was recently temporarily censored by Google, apparently for using doorway pages. Reinstatement (Google's term is "reinclusion") is likely to be much slower for a small-business site. Google is widely reported to have "punishment" or "timeout" periods preceding site reinstatement.
Inconvenient practices involve features of web sites which, while not deceptive, nonetheless represent a problem for a search engine. More specifically, the automated, software driven processing at the engine does not handle these features in a way that is satisfactory for the search engine’s management. It is easier to manually delete thousands of entire sites than fix the problems with the software. Notice that in this case the site isn’t “doing anything wrong”; the problem is actually at the search engine. If the search engine design were changed such that another feature became a problem, then sites having that feature would be censored. Sites that have been operating for five years or more have been suddenly banned by search engines. (See Case Studies.)
Censoring for inconvenient practices is much less fairly applied. Banning of large-business sites for inconvenient, competitive, or editorial reasons is rarely, if ever done. If Google censored Amazon for convenience, competitive, or editorial reasons there would be hell to pay. Suits would be filed, Congressional investigations would be held. PR campaigns would be executed. A small-business owner doesn’t have these advantages.
If your site has been censored for an inconvenient practice, it may be very difficult to determine which aspect of the site is causing the problem. Search engines are understandably very reluctant to disclose, especially in writing, that they have suppressed access to an entire site for their own convenience. They are even more reluctant to disclose that a site has been suppressed for criteria that are conspicuously not being applied to other sites.
Here are some potentially inconvenient practices and features:
-Large number of pages – Sites with a large number of pages may be a problem for some search engines. If the engine indexes the entire site, a large amount of search engine resources (disk space, bandwidth) could be consumed by a site that might not be very important. Normally, we would expect the depth-of-crawl algorithm to handle this by indexing a relatively smaller number of pages in sites receiving relatively less traffic or otherwise having less merit. There is increasing evidence that the major search engines do indeed ban small-business sites merely for having a large number of pages. It is also true that all medium and large sites have (by definition) a “large number of pages."
-Links. Sites that have a large number of outgoing links such as directories or sites with a large “links” page may tend to upset the link popularity scheme for some search engines. Sites that have forums, message boards, guestbooks, blogs, or other features that allow users to publish a link may also be seen as interfering with the link popularity concept. Google’s PageRank link popularity algorithm is less susceptible to these problems because it automatically penalizes pages for outgoing links while rewarding them for incoming links. Some site owners claim that their sites have been censored merely for having a links page.
Google says in a form email sent to web sites that inquire why they have been banned: “Certain actions such as buying or selling links to increase a site’s PageRank value or cloaking - writing text in such a way that it can be seen by search engines but not by users - can result in penalization.” The largest single buyer of links is probably Amazon, which has one of the most successful affiliate programs. Needless to say, Google has not “penalized” Amazon. Google reports (3/06) indexing 144 Million pages at Amazon.com! Yahoo sells links from their directory. Google reports indexing 233 Million pages at Yahoo.com. Google runs a copy of the Open Directory on its own site (directory,google.com). Google reports (3/06) they index 12.4 Million pages in their own directory.
Censoring for Competition Suppression and Editorial Reasons
Directories or other collections of links compete directly with search engines. Our case studies do in fact suggest that search engines censor small-business directory sites in order to suppress competition. Check the Case Studies and decide for yourself. Search engines also engage in many other business activities such as selling of things, provision of email, message board, video, photo, and mapping services, etc. As long as it is legal to do so, it is unreasonable to expect that they would not suppress larger competitive small-businesses in search results. Suppressing of other larger small-business sites that compete with a search engine or compete with a business partner of a search engine is also likely. Censoring a single small-business competitor would certainly have no effect on the bottom line of a major search engine. Censoring thousands of such sites would obviously have a beneficial effect.
There is currently no convincing evidence that any of the major search engines ban small sites (less than 100 pages) for editorial or competitive reasons. There are plenty of small "Google sucks" sites out there.
The National Security Argument
There is a National Security Argument that goes to the effect of: “We are punishing you but we can’t say why we are punishing you or give you an opportunity to defend yourself because doing so might disclose information that could be used by the enemy”. Search engine people use a version of this argument to justify their refusal to disclose why a particular site has been censored. The idea is that a spammer might have found and exploited a previously undisclosed weakness in a search engine. If the search engine discloses the reason the site has been banned, it might add some confirmation that the deceptive technique works. The spammer might spread the word or be more likely to use the technique on another site.
This argument may have had some validity ten years ago but is currently ridiculous. Search engines have been around for a long time (by Internet standards). Search technology is well developed. Abuse methods are now well known; you just read about most of them. A spammer that has implausibly found a new weakness has other ways to measure the effectiveness of its method.
A much more plausible explanation is that search engines want to conceal the fact that the site is being banned for a practice that others are being allowed to continue (buying links, duplication of data, directories, links pages, guestbooks, message boards, etc.) or that the site is being censored for competitive or arbitrary editorial reasons. Search engines are using the "national security" argument to conceal their own unfair practices.
Google has announced a plan to notify some webmasters of censored sites (presumably the ones that have been banned for deceptive practices) that their site has been censored and the reason for the action. The notification will be automatic and not at the request of the webmaster. Our understanding is that Google will generally continue to refuse to disclose the reason for censoring to webmasters that do request such notification. This allows Google to disclose that a site has been censored for a deceptive practice while continuing to deny that it is censoring other sites for reasons other than deceptive practices.
The Google Sandbox
Many webmasters report that Google has a "sandbox" in which websites are confined "for being bad" but after they have ceased the "bad" behavior, requested reinstatement, and have been reincluded in Google's index. The site is no longer completely censored and can be found in the index, but has an abnormally low rank, much lower than it had before being banned. New websites are also often sent to the sandbox for some period of time. Google people have generally denied the existence of a sandbox although some agree that there is a "sandbox effect". (Notice an interesting continuation of the parent-child psychology here. Webmasters are often willing to see themselves as children being "punished" for "being bad" by being sent to the "sandbox" for a "timeout". They are very willing to assume that if they are "banned" or "in the sandbox", they are "doing something wrong".)
The sandbox effect could be partly explained by the site popularity factor. A site banned by Google would lose traffic and therefore lose site popularity. When the site was restored to the index, it would still have reduced traffic, and site popularity and therefore poorer rank initially. Gradually, traffic and therefore site popularity and rank would improve. Voila, the sandbox effect. This effect would be much more noticeable with Google than with the other search engines because Google generally contributes more to a site's traffic. Therefore a site banned by Google would lose more traffic and site popularity. If this were the case, we would expect to see at least somewhat proportional reaction from the other major search engines.
However, some webmasters report that their Google referred traffic suddenly dropped drastically and never recovered, and that there was not a great correlation with other search engine traffic. They further report a similar drop in PageRank reported by Google. This suggests that Google is "manually" adjusting PageRank (site-unique bias) for some sites.
Other Censoring Issues
The people in a censoring department, be it in China or at a major search engine, are probably relatively poorly paid. They sit at a monitor all day adding sites to the censored sites list. If they exceed their quota, they might get a bonus. These people may spend time randomly surfing around looking for sites that meet the criteria specified for censoring. However, they are more likely to be reviewing sites that have been nominated for censoring. They are not paid to make subtle value judgments.
All the major search engines have a system where anybody can nominate a site for censoring by filling out an online "spam report" form. People can nominate the sites of their competitors or any site they don't like for any reason. The larger the traffic a site has and the more people that see the site, the more likely it is that someone will nominate it.
Censoring for competitive, or inconvenience reasons is significant to a search engine only if the target site has significant traffic or has a significant number of pages indexed. If the site is "naturally" getting very few referrals (clicks) from the search engine, then the beneficial effect of banning that site would be minor. Many site owners report getting banned only after they achieved considerable popularity.
The search engines also have mechanical means to nominate sites. For example, tracking data and site popularity data can be analyzed in order to produce nominations.
Because censoring can be performed from anywhere, the censoring department is an obvious choice for outsourcing to an offshore location that has lower labor costs.
One problem is that censoring could (obviously) be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes. A censor could decide to rent himself out to the highest bidder. If advertising is going for $5 per click, imagine what it would be worth to censor a competitor's site, even temporarily just before Christmas. Maybe one of the censors just doesn't like Democrats. The possibilities are endless. Even if search engine management has not, at a corporate level, abused its censoring power for such purposes, what steps have they taken to prevent abuse by individual censors or groups of censors? If censoring is done offshore, there are additional concerns.
All of the precautions cost money. Censored sites could be reviewed at a second level but it would cost more. Complaints from sites that happen to notice that they have been censored could be reviewed by people other than the group that did the original censoring, but it would cost more. Since search engines consider all of these practices to be trade secrets, we have no way of knowing what precautions they employ. Since search engines consider that censoring is an exercise of their free speech rights and that they have no obligation to webmasters, it appears unlikely that they would pay for extra precautions to protect web sites. Google has recently changed their policy to re-review and consider reinstating only those sites that stipulate in writing, in advance that they are guilty of a deceptive practice and have discontinued that practice. Google will not consider reinstating a site that has been banned for competitive, editorial, or convenience reasons.
Search Engine Bias and Site-Unique Bias
We have mainly been discussing outright censoring (banning) in which a web site is completely excluded from access by a search engine's users. Outright censoring is easily detected by a site owner. All the major search engines admit to banning on a site-by-site basis. Major search engines will, upon request, generally confirm or deny that a particular site has been censored while concealing the reason for such action.
However, all the majors claim or at least strongly imply that their ranking and depth-of-crawl algorithms are fairly applied equally to everybody. They say that if your site is not censored, any sudden change in rank is due to a change that the search engine made in its algorithm. The same algorithm is applied to all sites handled by that search engine.
The preceding paragraph is true. The algorithms are indeed applied to all sites. However, this does not mean that there cannot be gross bias against particular sites incorporated into an algorithm. For example, a ranking algorithm could easily contain a "rule" that says: "Check if this site is on our 'bad sites list', if so, subtract 264 from its merit ranking value; if it is on our 'good sites list', add 29 to merit." This sort of "site-unique bias" would be more subtle than outright censoring and more difficult for a site owner to prove, even if it was so severe that it was effectively impossible to find the site in a search. Much more complex site-unique bias schemes are obviously possible. We can define site-unique bias as a case where a search engine ranking algorithm or depth-of-crawl algorithm contains or refers to site-unique information such as domain names, words or phrases unique to a particular site, or other information identifying particular sites. Many site owners convincingly claim that their drop in ranking is so catastrophic that it must be the result of site-unique bias. (See Kinderstart Case for an apparent instance of site-unique bias.) Because site-unique bias is more difficult to prove than outright censoring, it represents an opportunity for search engines to avoid some of the hassles surrounding censoring such as the need for "re-review" of complaining censored sites. If the courts confirm search engines as "editorial" entities, and people come to know about and accept explicit bias in search engines (see following sections), we can expect search engines to largely replace outright censoring with site-unique bias.
Search engine bias can also be used against specific ideas as opposed to against specific sites. Most people would consider it reasonable to rank pages and sites containing pornographic words lower than pages not containing pornographic words, especially if the search terms did not contain pornographic words or phrases. Most would also consider it reasonable to rank pages containing phrases such as "site under construction" below otherwise similar pages. Any search algorithm presumably expresses the results of many such judgments. The same technology could also be used to rank pages containing "Democratic candidate" below pages containing "Republican candidate", an action most Democrats would consider "unreasonable". Because algorithms are considered trade secrets, it is difficult (but not impossible) to determine if search engines are employing "unreasonable" bias. As far as we can determine, this sort of bias is not currently illegal.
Anti-Competitive Impact of Censoring on Small Businesses
Search engine censoring departments are careful not to censor or apply major negative site-unique bias to any site that appears to be owned by a relatively large business unless the site employs clearly deceptive practices such as hidden text or doorway pages. Large businesses have lawyers, publicists, and other ways of "pushing back" if their site is censored for the convenience of the search engine or for competitive or editorial reasons and the benefit to the search engine of censoring any one site is generally relatively small. Therefore, essentially all censoring for these purposes is done against small businesses. For example, our studies found no case in which a large business using Open Directory data had been censored by any major search engine while small businesses using Open Directory data or otherwise containing directories are very frequently censored, especially by Google. (See Search Engine Censoring of Sites Using Open Directory Data, The SeekOn Case, and The Kinderstart Case.) Amazon and other large companies are allowed to "buy links" or use "non-original" content where small companies are frequently censored for doing so. Search engine censoring therefore works to suppress small businesses in favor of large businesses. This is especially unfortunate because otherwise the Web represents a major opportunity for smaller businesses.
Search Engine Editorial Policies
Is there really anything legally wrong (or even morally wrong) with a search engine having an editorial policy? Many people would say no. Maybe a search engine has just as much right as a newspaper or magazine to determine what information they pass on to their users. A search engine is investing in its index just as a newspaper or magazine is paying for each square inch of page space. Maybe a search engine should have equally complete control over what they put in their index. We don’t expect to see articles favorable to Newsweek in Time. We don’t even expect that Time would accept ads for Newsweek or any other competitive publication. We expect publications to have an editorial “slant” or bias. There is not even any requirement or expectation that a newspaper or magazine disclose its editorial policies.
It should also be obvious from the discussion of “merit” ranking, algorithm bias, and the existence of censoring departments that search engines have the built-in capability to execute any desired editorial policy. If a search engine decided to be “right-wing” or “left-leaning”, or to suppress certain forms of competition, the necessary infrastructure already exists. There is no technical reason and apparently no legal reason why the merit algorithms couldn’t easily be adjusted to favor sites about Republicans over those about Democrats or institute any other desired point of view.
However, the existence of the capability for search engine editorial policies and strong evidence suggesting that such policies are being implemented is very disturbing for several reasons. In many ways a search engine is not like a newspaper or other publication.
Unaware Audience: Anybody who has been born and raised in a free country knows all about editorial bias in media including newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV. “Filtering truth” when obtaining information from these sources is second nature. However, most people do not think of editorial bias, censoring, or other filtering as applicable to search engines. Search engines are seen as mechanical devices and therefore incapable of bias. A search for a pornographic word or phrase returns millions of hits adding to the false impression that no censorship or editorial policy is in place. Search engines do everything they can to enhance this impression. In our opinion, this is deceptive and dishonest.
Unfulfilled Need: Most people use search engines precisely because they are trying to get access to the largest and most diverse body of information possible with the least amount of editorial filtering possible. If you don’t mind having your information filtered through some editorial filter, there are many much better sources of information. The growth of the Internet itself was largely fueled by the public’s desire for unedited, uncensored information.
Absence of Diversity: In the United States alone, there are quite a few TV networks, radio networks, newspapers, and magazines. Worldwide there are many more. But there are only three major search engines worldwide. A very small group of people is setting the editorial policies for these search engines. This small group is controlling a very important source of information for a very large number of people. (See The Web Czars.) This has important implications for the political process in the United States and elsewhere where elections could be influenced by search engine bias.
Control Without Responsibility: Publishers, while having complete editorial control over their publications, are also responsible for what they publish. If someone libels a person in a newspaper article, that person can sue the newspaper. If the publication contains illegal material such as child pornography, or promotes illegal activity, it can be shut down. Rules for publishers have been developed during a period of more than 500 years.
At the same time it is understood that an organization that merely acts as a conduit for information (Telephone Company, Internet Service Provider (ISP), Post Office) is not responsible for the content of the information they convey. You can’t sue the Post Office because you were taken by mail fraud. You can’t blame the phone company if you get a threatening call. ISPs have (so far) been able to avoid any responsibility for information they convey or store (e.g. child pornography) as long as they do not edit or filter the information.
However, organizations that act as information conduits (connection services) are not allowed to pick and choose the information they carry. The phone company is not allowed to decide, using secret internal criteria, who can have a phone or what they can say on the phone. Any restrictions regarding who can or cannot have or use a phone (or other connection service) must be very well documented, very public, and very fairly enforced. If it were not this way, the phone companies would be running the country.
The major search engines want to have it both ways. They want to be able to editorially and using undisclosed criteria “cherry-pick” the information their users are allowed to see while denying any responsibility for the content of that same information. Will they be able to continue to do this indefinitely or will a court or legislative decision eventually force either more responsibility for content or more fair handling of information providers? We will have to wait and see. Search engines are new technology. Law has not caught up, yet.
Essential Nature of Search: Imagine what would happen to most businesses if their phone service suddenly disappeared. What if the phone company could arbitrarily refuse to reconnect them for no stated reason? Maybe the phone company blackmails the business into buying “advertising” in order to be reconnected. Now imagine that there were only three major phone companies and one of them controlled more than 50 percent of all phone traffic worldwide. The main way for half of the people in the world to reach you is through this company. If Time never publishes a favorable story about a business, they can certainly live with that. For a “brick and mortar” business, being disconnected by the phone company would be a terminal event. For an Internet business, being disconnected by Google is equally terminal.
Many people clearly and increasingly use search as a connection service. Many searches are for company names or other company-unique information. If someone searches for a unique trademarked company name and that company's site does not appear near the top of results the searcher can reasonably conclude that the company has gone out of business. A search for the corner gas station produces a response. Certainly a search for any company that does any significant business would also produce a result.
Private Nature of Communication: Publications are public. However, search engine results are private. Joe Blow presumably does not want the fact that he is searching for "hot sweaty blond chicks" to become public and expects privacy in the same manner that he would expect privacy in a telephone connection or other connection service. People making phone calls expect not only that the content of the conversation is private, but also that the time and date of the call and person or business called is private, unless obtained under court order. People using search services to connect to web sites have the same expectations.
Individual Nature of Communication: Publications are designed for a mass audience. However, like information conveyed in telephone conversations, search engine results are specifically designed for the single individual that conducted the particular search. Search results are a service not a publication.
Source of Information: A telephone company may provide the wires, software, and other infrastructure for processing and handling your voice but you are providing the information content when you talk on the phone. The phone company does not own your communicated information and is not allowed to use it for their own purposes even though it has access and technically could easily eavesdrop or record your conversation. Similarly, search engines don't actually provide content in results data but only mechanically process and handle information provided jointly by web sites and searchers. Web sites and searchers provide this content for the express purpose of obtaining connection. The "publisher" is actually the web site. The search engine is a connection service. If anybody has "free-speech" rights it should be the web site.
So the 64 billion dollar question is this: Is a search engine more like a newspaper or more like a telephone company? Is a search engine providing a publication or a connection service? In minor court cases fought by large-cap search engines against tiny small businesses (e.g. Kinderstart v. Google), search engines have so far been able to maintain the idea that search results are publications and that therefore they have "free-speech editorial rights" over search results. We can expect to see this question argued very extensively in the courts as well as in the court of public opinion in the next few years. For an illustration of search engine censoring issues see The Googlecomm Fable.
Google Defamation Case
PageRank (PR) is Google's merit factor used (along with search term relevance) in determining the ranking of pages in Google search results. Where other search engines internally develop similar merit factors for sites and pages they index, they don't publish the merit factors. Google publishes the PageRank (as a number between zero (minimum page "value") and ten (maximum) with a corresponding length green bar) of sites listed in their Google Web Directory, which is a clone of the Netscape Open Directory. (The only significant difference between Google's directory and the AOL/Netscape Open Directory is the addition of PageRank.)
Users can also download a free Google toolbar that displays PageRank of any page being displayed in the user's browser. Users can use the PageRank to assess the "quality" and "importance" of the site and page they are viewing. Generally, even very low traffic, very minor sites have a PageRank of at least 2. Google's home page has a PageRank of 10. Other very popular sites (Yahoo, MSN, Excite, AOL) have a PageRank of 9.
Internally, Google certainly uses a PageRank numerical value that has more than 11 gradations for ranking search results. The displayed, 0 - 10, PageRank is thought to be a logarithmic representation of the internal PageRank. PageRank is said to be named after Google cofounder Larry Page as opposed to being named for its page ranking function. As described above, PageRank is applied to sites as well as pages.
Google tells their users (Google Technology http://www.google.com/technology/index.html 7/2006):[emphasis added]
"PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves 'important' weigh more heavily and help to make other pages 'important.'
Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query."
"A Google search is an easy, honest and objective way to find high-quality websites with information relevant to your search."
"PageRank is the importance Google assigns to a page based on an automatic calculation of factors such as the link structure of the web." (Google Toolbar Help http://toolbar.google.com/button_help.html 7/2006)
"Importance ranking. The Google Web Directory starts with a collection of websites selected by Open Directory volunteer editors. Google then applies its patented PageRank technology to rank the sites based on their importance. Horizontal bars, which are displayed next to each web page, indicate the importance of the page, as determined by PageRank. This distinctive approach to ranking web sites enables the highest quality pages to appear first as top results for any Google directory category". (Google Web Directory Help http://www.google.com/dirhelp.html 7/2006)
Google's description for their users certainly unequivocally and emphatically states that PageRank is "honest", "objective", and the result of an "automatic calculation", that is completely dependent on external factors such as the "democratic nature of the web" and whether the site is "highly-regarded by others" as indicated by links to the site from other sites. However, as we have seen, there is substantial evidence that Google is using its own, internally determined, subjective, and manually applied site-unique bias to suppress PageRank for individual hand-picked sites.
Also, for pages on sites that are censored (banned) by Google, Google's directory listing and toolbar indicate a PageRank of "zero" (minimum). Google's toolbar indicates "not ranked by Google" as opposed to "zero" on those pages that have not been evaluated by Google's system. A "zero" therefore means to a Google user that the page has been evaluated by Google's automated, honest, and objective technology and found to be meritless and of minimum "importance" and "quality". In actuality, a "zero" in the case of a banned site means that the site has been manually banned by the Google censoring department based on undisclosed subjective criteria and has little or nothing to do with external factors such as how the site is regarded by others or any other objective criteria.
It therefore appears that a "zero" or otherwise artificially depressed PR for pages on a manually censored or biased site, in combination with Google's description of the automated, honest, and objective nature of PageRank, represents a knowingly false derogatory statement (defamation) by Google regarding the suppressed web site. Google is "adding insult to injury".
Kinderstart sued Google, in part, based on the idea that Google is engaging in defamation and libel of web sites that have been banned (e.g. SeekOn) or been subject to "blockage", arbitrary assignment of PR=0, or other arbitrarily imposed reduction in PageRank (e.g. KinderStart).
See the Open Directory Case Study for data showing that Google sets PageRank to zero for sites that have been banned by Google. Google admits to the practice of manually banning sites based on undisclosed criteria.
Google is apparently phasing out their Open Directory clone. It has not been updated since 2005.
Here are some sources for additional help on search engines, especially regarding censoring.
Search Engine Watch (SEW) at http://www.searchenginewatch.com provides excellent and more basic tutorials on how search engines work, statistics about search engines, and pointers on “white hat” techniques for optimizing your site for search engines.
Webmaster Forums -- There are many forums for webmasters. Webmaster World at http://www.webmasterworld.com/ or Webmaster Pro ( http://www.webmasterpro.com/ ) are possibly the best and most popular. The problem with the forums is that only fairly recent posts are easily accessible. The same questions are asked and answered over and over.
Search Engine People – Finding a valid email address or telephone number for a genuine search engine employee knowledgeable about censoring is approximately like getting a permit to enter Fort Knox with a bag. Any such contact point would be immediately clogged by thousands of unhappy webmasters. However, there are search engine employees making (mostly) helpful contributions to the webmaster community. Because of the delicate nature of site censoring, these people represent different levels of “deniability” for search engines and can therefore be more forthright than the search engine’s official guidelines.
Writing to search engines, especially Google, is likely to be futile. Some webmasters report getting no response whatever (not even a "thanks for your comment" postcard) from Google. Some other search engines have been known to respond by email.
Some search engine employees posting under their (apparently) real names (such as Google’s excellent Matt Cutts) provide answers to webmaster questions by means of forums and blogs.
Other folks who say they are employees post anonymously (e.g. “GoogleGuy”). If they feel it necessary, Google could deny that “GoogleGuy” was actually an employee and repudiate any statements made by him.
Finally there are “flacks” who do not admit to being search engine employees but anonymously post cloyingly positive but uninformative “spin control” messages. Unhappy webmaster posts censoring complaint about search engine “X”. Flack immediately posts follow-up message saying he has never had a single bad experience with “X” and that if webmaster’s site has been censored he obviously must have “done something wrong”.
Books on Search
The Search by John Battelle ISBN 1-59184-088-0 2005 is an excellent description of the search industry including the rise of Google as the major player.
Papers on Search
Search Engine Bias and the Demise of Search Engine Utopianism Eric Goldman (March 2006)
This paper puts forth the view that although search engines are biased, such bias is an acceptable and inevitable practice.
Search Engine Honesty (http://www.searchenginehonesty.com/ )
Copyright © 2006 - 2009 Azinet LLC