Stay organized with collectionsSave and categorize content based on your preferences.
Friday, January 26, 2007
We wanted to give a quick update about "Googlebombs." By improving our analysis of the link
structure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs. Now we will
typically return commentary, discussions, and articles about the Googlebombs instead. The actual
scale of this change is pretty small (there are under a hundred well-known Googlebombs), but if
you'd like to get more details about this topic, read on.
First off, let's back up and give some background. Unless you read all about search engines all
day, you might wonder "What is a Googlebomb?" Technically, a "Googlebomb" (sometimes called a
"linkbomb" since they're not specific to Google) refers to a prank where people attempt to cause
someone else's site to rank for an obscure or meaningless query. Googlebombs very rarely happen
for common queries, because the lack of any relevant results for that phrase is part of why a
Googlebomb can work. One of the earliest Googlebombs was for the phrase "talentless hack," for
example.
People have asked about how we feel about Googlebombs, and we have talked about themin the past.
Because these pranks are normally for phrases that are well off the beaten path, they haven't been
a very high priority for us. But over time, we've seen more people assume that they are Google's
opinion, or that Google has hand-coded the results for these Googlebombed queries. That's not
true, and it seemed like it was worth trying to correct that misperception. So a few of us who
work here got together and came up with an algorithm that minimizes the impact of many
Googlebombs.
The next natural question to ask is "Why doesn't Google just edit these search results by hand?"
To answer that, you need to know a little bit about how Google works. When we're faced with a bad
search result or a relevance problem, our first instinct is to look for an automatic way to solve
the problem instead of trying to fix a particular search by hand. Algorithms are great because
they scale well: computers can process lots of data very fast, and robust algorithms often work
well in many different languages. That's what we did in this case, and the extra effort to find a
good algorithm helps detect Googlebombs in many different languages. We wouldn't claim that this
change handles every prank that someone has attempted. But if you are aware of other potential
Googlebombs, we are happy to hear feedback in ourGoogle Web Search Help Group.
Again, the impact of this new algorithm is very limited in scope and impact, but we hope that the
affected queries are more relevant for searchers.
[[["Easy to understand","easyToUnderstand","thumb-up"],["Solved my problem","solvedMyProblem","thumb-up"],["Other","otherUp","thumb-up"]],[["Missing the information I need","missingTheInformationINeed","thumb-down"],["Too complicated / too many steps","tooComplicatedTooManySteps","thumb-down"],["Out of date","outOfDate","thumb-down"],["Samples / code issue","samplesCodeIssue","thumb-down"],["Other","otherDown","thumb-down"]],[],[[["\u003cp\u003eGoogle has implemented an algorithm to minimize the impact of Googlebombs, often returning commentary and discussions instead of the pranked site.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eGooglebombs are pranks where people manipulate links to make a website rank for an irrelevant search query.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eGoogle's new algorithm aims to correct the misperception that Googlebombs reflect Google's opinion or are manually coded results.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eGoogle prefers automated solutions (algorithms) over manual editing for search result issues due to scalability and language coverage.\u003c/p\u003e\n"]]],["Google improved its web link analysis to minimize the impact of \"Googlebombs,\" pranks manipulating search rankings for obscure terms. This change, affecting under a hundred cases, prioritizes returning discussions about the Googlebombs, not the manipulated results. Instead of manual edits, Google developed an algorithm to address this issue, ensuring scalability and language independence. They encourage users to report potential Googlebombs via the Web Search Help Group.\n"],null,["# A quick word about Googlebombs\n\nFriday, January 26, 2007\n\n\nWe wanted to give a quick update about \"Googlebombs.\" By improving our analysis of the link\nstructure of the web, Google has begun minimizing the impact of many Googlebombs. Now we will\ntypically return commentary, discussions, and articles about the Googlebombs instead. The actual\nscale of this change is pretty small (there are under a hundred well-known Googlebombs), but if\nyou'd like to get more details about this topic, read on.\n\n\nFirst off, let's back up and give some background. Unless you read all about search engines all\nday, you might wonder \"What is a Googlebomb?\" Technically, a \"Googlebomb\" (sometimes called a\n\"linkbomb\" since they're not specific to Google) refers to a prank where people attempt to cause\nsomeone else's site to rank for an obscure or meaningless query. Googlebombs very rarely happen\nfor common queries, because the lack of any relevant results for that phrase is part of why a\nGooglebomb can work. One of the earliest Googlebombs was for the phrase \"talentless hack,\" for\nexample.\n\n\nPeople have asked about how we feel about Googlebombs, and we have talked about them\n[in the past](https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html).\nBecause these pranks are normally for phrases that are well off the beaten path, they haven't been\na very high priority for us. But over time, we've seen more people assume that they are Google's\nopinion, or that Google has hand-coded the results for these Googlebombed queries. That's not\ntrue, and it seemed like it was worth trying to correct that misperception. So a few of us who\nwork here got together and came up with an algorithm that minimizes the impact of many\nGooglebombs.\n\n\nThe next natural question to ask is \"Why doesn't Google just edit these search results by hand?\"\nTo answer that, you need to know a little bit about how Google works. When we're faced with a bad\nsearch result or a relevance problem, our first instinct is to look for an automatic way to solve\nthe problem instead of trying to fix a particular search by hand. Algorithms are great because\nthey scale well: computers can process lots of data very fast, and robust algorithms often work\nwell in many different languages. That's what we did in this case, and the extra effort to find a\ngood algorithm helps detect Googlebombs in many different languages. We wouldn't claim that this\nchange handles every prank that someone has attempted. But if you are aware of other potential\nGooglebombs, we are happy to hear feedback in our\n[Google Web Search Help Group](https://support.google.com/websearch/community).\n\n\nAgain, the impact of this new algorithm is very limited in scope and impact, but we hope that the\naffected queries are more relevant for searchers.\n\nCo-written with Ryan Moulton and Kendra Carattini"]]