Google's introduction of a feature that allows users to block entire domains from the search results Google delivers to them may prove popular but may also invite a visit from the law of unintended consequences.
From a Google blog post yesterday:
We're adding this feature because we believe giving you control over the results you find will provide an even more personalized and enjoyable experience on Google. In addition, while we're not currently using the domains people block as a signal in ranking, we'll look at the data and see whether it would be useful as we continue to evaluate and improve our search results in the future.
Here's hoping they take their time and look very carefully before placing too much stock in "the wisdom of crowds" -- sometimes they're wise; sometimes not so much.
(2011's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries)
Let's start by stipulating that personalization of services such as Google search is a good thing.
If a Google user distrusts Wikipedia or Fox News or The New York Times to such an extent that he or she would rather not see content from these sources in response to any search query, well, it's difficult to argue that Google should give them that content anyway just because Google knows best.
The problem - or at least the potential problem - enters when Google begins aggregating the blocking decisions of its users and applying that "wisdom" to the search results all the rest of us see.
The possibilities for mistakes and monkey business would seem plentiful.
How many users will block an entire domain while believing what they had done is merely block the writer of a single annoying article? (You think everyone understands the difference? Not on my Internet, they don't.)
I don't know if you've heard, but there are lots of people on the Internet who do not care for The New York Times, and another group that does not care for Fox News. And, there are subsets of those groups who would find nothing more amusing than to organize campaigns or write code dedicated to draining the Google juice of their ideological enemy.
Might this feature become, in essence, a political weapon?
Now the sharpies at Google are probably smart enough to protect household media names from such a fate, but what of lesser lights? Will smaller sites that feature particularly controversial writers and deal with particularly controversial subject matter be punished not for lacking quality but for having the temerity to go where others dare not tread?
I'm thinking yes, if Google is not careful.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up. Follow me on Twitter here.
- Tech ‘firsts’ that made a President’s day.
- If you had bought 100 shares of Microsoft 25 years ago …
- 300,000 clients of umbilical cord blood bank at risk of ID theft
- No e-wallet can replace a John Wayne.
- In dog-bites-man news, Bank of America Web site fails again.
- Hollywood has had its fill of Apple brand placements.
- Texas Gov. Rick Perry flunks Twitter 101.
- J.C. Penney caught gaming Google.
- “Confession” app could do so much more it’s a sin.
- No e-wallet will replace the one I’m sitting on.
- Gamers hijacked your server? Might be an inside job.
