Tell HN: Google should drop Quora from search results

1007 points by babuskov ↗ HN
Finding answers to basically any question is now behind a walled garden that requires that you create an account.

This is the exact thing expertsexchange did before StackOverflow came and ate their lunch.

What do you think about it?

367 comments

[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 229 ms ] thread
Not only that, but the answers on Quora seem to be 80% garbage.
Add on top of that the websites that just repost StackOverflow content.
I think you have it backwards. Tons of "content" on StackOverflow is copy/pasted from another source, often some experts personal blog or a niche site, without sourcing to the original.
I've rarely noticed that. Are you saying someone will copy both the question and the answer from a place like experts exchange or a blog? Do they post them under different accounts to make it seem less obvious? Or do you mean the semi-rare occasion where someone cites a blog post?

I think I've seen an unsourced copy only once, I think it was a new answer where nobody else had seen it yet and I edited in a link to the source. But this is many years ago, I don't remember the situation exactly (and I visit stackexchange sites a lot, more than most people I think, since it's the only social site where I permit myself to go to during work hours).

The only value I get from Quora is in the questions, never the answers. The answers are always advertisements and usually advertisements from third-rate companies who wouldn't be anyone's first or second choice for answering the question.

But plenty of times I see a question on Quora and it sparks an idea or leads to questions of my own that I then seek answers for independently. It's kind of like browsing Pinboard's "recent" section. Lots of noise but once in a while it gives me the spark I need to find, learn, or create something new.

Everything is 80% garbage. That's a law of nature.
At Internet scale, Sturgeon’s law is six-sigma.
I've found a lot of amazing stuff related to some subjects: history, physics, etc. Anything that does not have commercial interest is spam free and really engaging.
q: What is 3+2? a: hello, I am 30 year old guy from india. <insert a story about forced marriage> <some ramblings about caste system> 1500 words later: "and this, in short, how I got my prostate cancer"
It depends what you're looking for. For things that are fact-based or in areas where someone could conceivably sell you something, it's not great.

However, I seek out Quora answers often for questions about people's experiences. I have a long dropdown in my history of searches that start "What is it like..." What is it like to become a parent? What is it like growing up in New York City? Things like I don't know of any better place to find those answers.

I agree completely... sort of on the same topic: It used to be really bad with Pinterest infecting image search. Same problem, almost all hits directing to the Pinterest walled garden. It appears to me that this has gotten better recently, but I don't really know why.
I may be wrong, it I think they made the name of the source more prominent in the preview, and also made cutting and pasting the full quality image straightforward. Just my thoughts, no way to validate.
I don’t know. Google is a search engine for web content. I don’t think it should discriminate based on the content being freely available or not.

Adding a feature for an end user to say restrict a search in some manner might be nice, but the point, at least in my opinion, of a web search engine is to find any and all matching content on the web. If some of that is paid or otherwise blocked content it’s still doing its job properly.

(comment deleted)
I agree with your point, but as a user, I would want Google to rank results lower if the content served to the Googlebot isn't the same as the content served to the general public.

I'd expect this behavior to be a red flag in Google's ranking algorithm. Don't drop Quora, but just let them slide below the fold on results.

Works with the same way with LinkedIn profiles
Yes, that's an unfair practice. Ans they disable Google cache at the same time. Why do I see it in the results when I can't read it without making an account, or worse paying some subscription. It should be hidden then.
Google could allow user to select from which sites they like to see hits in paywalled or otherwise blocked content.
> I don’t think it should discriminate based on the content being freely available or not.

I feel at least a little weird about giving crawlers a carte blanche to paid content. Creating relevant pages, showing them to the crawler to get ranked higher, and then not showing them to the user but requiring something in return first... I don't know.

I do see your point: it would be good to have everything indexed, even paid content or content available only in certain regions or whatever, just so you know what your options are if you're willing to pay for it. But then I think there should be a button to hide those results (either opt-in or opt-out, to show paid content).

As it is, it just weirds me out to show the crawler different content than you show the user and not be seen as fraudulent and get delisted altogether.

No, the point of the search engine is to help the searcher find what they are looking for. It should be easy for Google to figure out that searchers are NOT looking for what Quora and Pinterest are providing.
Uh, Google's main job is to rank results according to what other people find helpful. There is no truly objective way to do this. The closest you can get is to define "objective" the way pollsters do, as a way of understanding average opinions.

What does "average" mean here, though? Do you rank restricted sites higher if more people have accounts?

They could probably do a better job if they knew what you're subscribed to. For example, people with a Quora account or Washington Post subscription should get that ranked higher. But this would mean telling Google more about you, which seems to be unpopular around here?

It's not that complicated. Google indexes webpages. Webpages are identified by a URL. If, for any client, without any context or previous interaction, the URL results in anything other than the indexed content, it should not appear in search results.

If a webpage requires login credentials, which the crawler obviously does not have, the crawler should have received a login page.

Sure, that's basically giving up on indexing anything behind a gateway. Google could do that, but it's not at all clear they should.
Once upon a time, I believe Google had a policy that they would only index content that was actually visible when you went to the URL without cookies. Anything else was deemed improper SEO. In particular, it was not allowed to serve a special version of a page to Google.

This was nondiscriminatory, and I think it was a great policy.

They already did something similar for Experts Exchange a long time ago. They threatened to delist EE because of their deceptive SEO (including answers in search results, but requiring accounts when going to their page from Google). Google insisted the actual answers be listed. Deceptive search results made their service worse. Arguably Quora, Pinterest, et. al. are doing the same.

Maybe a flag for the pages that require accounts would be in order. But for the shills on Quora, well, why would Google show ads for businesses' services as top results for free - especially since that's the vast majority of their revenue?

> but the point, at least in my opinion, of a web search engine is to find any and all matching content on the web

This is where the early search engines started out at. Turns out there is a LOT of content found for many searches, and the real value to most people is in finding _relevant_ content.

The devil is in the detail of how do you define relevance? This is why I think it is so important to have multiple search engine choices, each with their own algorithms and different sets of user options.

Agreed, but Google does have UX Signals. In a perfect world, you'd think Google would be able to identify the "wall" as part of their signals they measure from a site & rank accordingly.
If I create a site that serves a world of unique, useful content to Google, but locks out everyone else completely, do you want that content indexed? Is it really on the web? The search result only serves to annoy you into thinking there's anything to find.
Pinterest results come up in google images and you need an account to see them? Newspaper articles have paywalls? Don’t see the difference
I'm not sure I'd support that, but before they drop Quora they should consider dropping Answers.com. I don't think any reasonable person would argue that site isn't a complete waste of space.
Somehow I still occasionally get Experts Exchange popping up in my Google results. I didn't realize they even still existed.
Me too, it popped up like last week and was the only result I could find (I already moved from DDG to Google because the results were irrelevant with any keyword combination I could make) and the answer was, like on stackoverflow, some "accepted" kind of answer (so marked by the person who asked the question). All posts were readable except that one: for the marked-as-answer post, you had to pay.

They've certainly moved on from scrolling down to see the answer...

I surprisingly frequently find answers to extremely obscure older tech issues on Experts-Exhange.

I avoided them for years, but at least as of a year ago, you don't need to pay to see the answer, just wait 30 seconds.

Answers.com is frequently humorous, which is more than can be said of Quora. Answers.com therefore has much more value to me.
I enjoy a good (bad) wikihow article more than either. Top quality terrible art and hilarious q&a
You can teach them to do it yourself by bouncing back from Quora and going to another result. Perhaps it'll also encourage Quora to remove their paywall from search engine referrers, as many news sites have done.
> You can teach them to do it yourself by bouncing back from Quora and going to another result.

Isn't that what a lot of us are already doing? Quora used to actually be OK, but it's been total trash for the last few years and I can't think of a single time I've found a good answer through that site.

Maybe Google doesn't deindex them because it will seem anti-competitive? After all, they've publicly stated that they're more interested in providing "answers" than being a search engine.

Precisely. I've never had a problem and I only used it for one-off answers, usually to look for links to authoritative content. I don't think I've ever felt the need to click on a link on their site...
Or install uMatrix, by the author of uBlock. It spoofs your referrer all the time, unless you trust a site explicitly.
They didn't do anything about Pinterest, the worst offender to ever exist, so I don't see anything happening.
They should definitely drop Pinterest from Google Image Search results.
Why? The Pinterest UX is god awful, but I often find stuff on there that I can't find elsewhere(easily).

Maybe you can filter out those results by domain? It would be nice if you could just add it as a setting, though.

Maybe they could provide those result for logged in users and leave out pinterest for everyone else.
I can see stuff on Pinterest and have never logged in. I don't think I'd support search engines removing Pinterest merely because it has a nag screen.
It's not the nag screen. I have a pinterest account and want it removed because it's almost always a dead end and it's full of spam.

If you are searching for something and find a link to pinterest and click on it ... then what? You see a bunch of images of the thing you are looking for: no article on bobcats, no way to buy "winter running shoes", no way to buy that book, ...

When you do find it on pinterest it's on a contextless image that links nowhere.

Many times I've been looking for some obscure part that I would like to purchase, only to find search results flooded with pinterest images of it that are utterly useless-- they don't even tell me what the part is called, and certainly don't let me find where the image came from.

If pinterest was using a GAN to generate plausible random images would we even know?

Maybe this is something I've never noticed, or I brushed it off without thinking about it. If that's what Pinterest is doing, then I can see why I'm being downvoted.
Would be nice if you could get the answer to a reasonable question without the down-votes though.
I wonder how much disagreement shows up online because the internet is so different for each of us... from just different interests to search customization.

We could both be completely right about our own experiences.

It makes sense too that if Pinterest is promoted hard enough to get an 'adequate' dosage to everyone, that some people are going to be overdosed really hard even before you begin to factor in differences in tolerance.

I routinely search with site filtering to eliminate it, but every time I forget it's like stubbing my toe and I feel dumb for forgetting the 19 character magic word required to get useful results. Doubly so because I often misspell it.

If the web were my shell I would have punched in "alias gis=..." long ago.

I have had mixed results with that as a user - sometimes I get to see a few pages of scroll before the nag screen to sign up.. sometimes it seemed timed instead, like not even second page scroll.

Other times I was able to scroll through hundred on 'pins' before the sign up screen. I also remember times when I had three seconds to look at a screen and then most visuals are blocked by the sign up screen.

Not sure if they are playing with this on a global scale or if my ublock and similar plugins affect it.

The times when I could not see what I had expected - just an overlay nag screen, I certainly wish they were not in the results. Other times I found the curated visual content of pinterest to be better then google results or google image search.

I had thought the big G algo already punished for showing full content to the crawler but blocked content to average web browser.. however I had the feeling some time ago that some manual tweaking on google's side and perhaps pin's side started affecting how all that was working together or not.

Why? I once found (for purely personal use) a unique picture which was exactly what I needed this way and that played a valuable role in my life. And the preview I could get without having to actually sign-in to Pinterest was sufficient for my purpose.
Because often the image that was indexed was in the related/other area of the page and is not on the page when you click on the link. Ever since Google removed the direct link to image feature from the search results page anything from pinterest.com is basically SEO spam.
> Because often the image that was indexed was in the related/other area of the page and is not on the page when you click on the link.

Every time I've been affected I could find the image in a couple of seconds of scrolling

> Ever since Google removed the direct link to image feature from the search results page

It's easy to add it back. Most of the people here (me included) use ad blockers, downloaders and stuff like probably violating the Google user agreement, they should not have any problem installing a small userscript/extension to forget about this problem as well.

Because instead of a direct link to the creator's accout you get this copy pasta and this bs: https://imgur.com/a/uhrFVvp
They don’t show that pop up anymore in the majority of countries when you come over from a google link.
Well, they show it here in Russia, but even then - you are still landing on a pinterest page instead of the original (say instagram or pixiv, or whatever).

And for the majority of people - this will be the final destination..

Without Pinterest in the image results, you might have instead found that same image on the creators page.
I can’t upvote this enough. It’s deeply spammy.
Pinterest is already deeply demoted. I'm using Pinterest results as a sign that there is literally nothing else that matches my search.
(comment deleted)
Part of search quality is serving nothing when there are no results. Putting a bunch of irrelevant Pinterest pages in the results, just because there are no good results, isn’t good for users.
I don't agree. I may be desperate for a result in some situations. If there's a small chance there's something useful out there, I still want to see it. I get to decide whether it's worth my time to look.
The problem with Pinterest is that often the image looks exactly like what you want - eg search for diy furniture plans and a lot of links are Pinterest. That image came from a source somewhere, but Pinterest has better SEO than the source.
For years now I have used "-pinterest" on every regular search term I utilize (I bake that into any Google bookmark). Would applaud the removal of Pinterest from search results.
This i do too with Quora too. It's too much
-site:pinterest.* (hmm, I have to put something here or else the asterisk disappears.)
This is the better option, since it does not hide sites which simply contain the word "pinterest", but are not pinterest.
(comment deleted)
There's a a chrome extension, from Google, which provide a personal search block list.
There was an extension from Google but they discontinued it. 3rd party alternatives exist though.
Google has given up on improving search, much like Microsoft did with IE6 when it became the dominant player. Only real competition would force them to start improving again.

Here is my own userscript that removes any matching URL portions from Google search. It does it in a fancy way with stylesheets so that you never see the Quora, etc results even temporarily before they're removed. It also fixes Google Images to link directly to images again, removes all the tracking URL obfuscations, and more.

https://code.byuu.org/google

Should be more robust than the other alternatives listed, but if not, let me know. I'm always up for improving it more. Contributions also welcome.

Could you also make it to remove google amp?
I only use the script on my desktop, and so I've never seen an AMP result. I'd need to be able to use the 'inspect element' developer tool on mobile I suppose in order to see how to filter them. Not even sure the script works on mobile though.
(comment deleted)
And instagram, since they require you to log in after like ten seconds.
And Facebook, requires login on scroll like Pinterest
For those who don't know, this is entirely client side. If you want, you can delete the overlay (single div) from the dom and remove an 'overflow: hidden' inline style, and continue to scroll the page and look at pictures without logging in.
Interesting, thanks! Is there an easy way to do that on mobile?
Not that I know. I really miss developer tools on mobile. Developer tools are practically required to be able to use the web these days.
I use this bookmark:

    javascript:(function(){(function () {var i, elements = document.querySelectorAll('body *');for (i = 0; i < elements.length; i++) {if (getComputedStyle(elements[i]).position === 'fixed') {elements[i].parentNode.removeChild(elements[i]);}}})();document.querySelector('body').style.setProperty('overflow','auto','important'); document.querySelector('html').style.setProperty('overflow','auto','important');})()
I do this already for so many sites these days. And it's fairly simple. I wouldn't mind an extension that automated this for me.
I use ublock origin for this. Just use the dropper to pick the element.
how do you update the inline style with ublock? (its something I've been trying to do)
For news sites that do this, you can use textise.net to render a text-only version of the page which will have what you want (the article text).
Indeed. I always swear when I forget to add -Pinterest to my queries.
Yes, dislike that one too, a grid of tiny images which if you click on them are still tiny and try to make you sign up
And many Google hits for Pinterest images land you on pages with dozens or hundreds of images, making it extremely difficult to find the actual image you searched for, and, from there, to find the original source of the image. The whole process seems designed to provide as little attribution to the original author of the image as possible.
This is a much bigger problem than Quora that at least links to the right page.
I would gladly pay Google $x/year for advanced features like weighting of domains, return of "+" (that actually worked), etc.
Would be a great feature to add to Google One? Or a reason to switch search engines, I guess.
Isn't surrounding the term with quotes meant to do the same thing as "+" used to?
Yes, but it is an annoying pita, and the silly reason it was changed, but not changed back when the initiative collapsed, continues to rustle my jimmies.
"I would pay" seems to be the solution to everything on HN. Would you?
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
It's horribly spammy. I just cannot imagine working for a company like Pinterest. If someone here works for Pinterest, I would love to know what it's like.
-
I just checked and there's still a sign up wall. It is not as blatant as it was before, but I can't spend more than 10 seconds or click on anything without getting it. Can't even enlarge the picture or visit the original website.

The spammy results problem is super easy to solve from Pinterest's side. Just make pages full of images non-indexable and provide simple pages with one single image and there will be no more spammy results.

By "easy" I mean technically. Pinterest is a scummy company and I doubt they'd lift a finger to make things better for the web and its users.

>The “spammy” results are when Google indexes a page full of images and picks a “representative” image.

No the spammy results are when I search for something on google, it gives me a Pinterest link that matches my search term exactly, the link has absolutely nothing to do with what I was actually searching for and if you click onto it, you're met with a page full of random Pinterest crap for about 3 seconds before it busts out a signup wall in your face and to top it off it'll take you at least 5 clicks of the back button to actually get off the page. I find it happens a lot searching for tutorials for things.

ETA: to address the original question, I find quora annoying, but a lot less than Pinterest. I actually do get decent results when I can view a page. It just seems to be random whether it throws an account wall up or not. I find copying and pasting a link to a related question into a new tab will sometimes work if I close the original tab first, but not always.

Just add a share=1 to the link and it will work
You are suggesting that Pinterest change the structure of its entire website to cater to Google's search algorithms. Doesn't make much sense to me. Why is it Pinterest's responsibility to change their whole website to cater to Google? Google could fix their search, instead. Pinterest offered to work with Google on this and Google refused.

So on what planet is Pinterest the bad guy, here? Because they didn't completely knee-cap their traffic because Google was too preoccupied to work with them on this issue? No. It's just a popular opinion to hate on Pinterest on HN and people like Google so the facts don't matter.

As far as the signup wall goes, well, that's on Google too. They could stop indexing sites that require registration at any point after clicking through. Goodbye Quora, goodbye Pinterest, goodbye New York Times.

With all due respect that doesn't seem like goggles problem. It's their game. Seo hacking and optimization is a thing and Pinterest has failed so bad at it as to have turned entire classes of potential customers away from their site. Same as quora. If we're, the customers that'd sooner leave a site than capitulate to unreasonable demands, known of and written off then so be it. However it is ignorant verging on dishonest to blame Google for Pinterests inability to optimize their site for Google and all of Pinterests customers.
How is this not a failure on Google’s part? Isn’t it a failure for Google to give me results from an unoptimized website? If I click on a Google search result and it takes me to something irrelevant to me, how has Google not failed?

I am very confused by your argument.

The grandparent post's content was deleted, but it pretty much said that the main reason Pinterest serves "spammy" results (where clicks don't lead to the clicked image) is because Google doesn't send them additional metadata telling which image was clicked.

Instead of fixing the structure of their goddamn website, they wanted Google to give them special treatment.

Btw, I agree with you however that Google serving garbage results was 100% Google's fault, though.

Oh, that makes a lot more sense now. Thanks for the clarification!
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
Quora and Pinterest are the worst parts of Google results. Also Google Images has been ruined. Used to be you could View Image and get the source image but now Google images hijacks that too. I gotta say I hate whoever decided that was ok. Do what I mean. Actually come to think of it I think this was due to copyright infringement case against Google. Stupid.
IIRC this was due to a lost court case:

> Almost two years ago, Getty Images filed antitrust charges against Google in the EU, taking issue with the company's image scraping techniques to display image search results. Earlier this week, Google and Getty Images announced a partnership and Getty withdrew its charges against Google. Changes like the removal of direct image links were apparently part of the agreement.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after...

Meanwhile, the browser feature right click -> "View Image" still works for me on Firefox, as a replacement.

(comment deleted)
That only gets you the scaled down preview image. I have a Firefox extension that restores the "view original" button.
Image search in DDG still has the source images.
Quora and Pinterest are freaking poison, I don't like how often those things show up.

It just wastes my time when I'm looking for something.

Have you tried Bing's image search [1]? It's actually pretty great. Bigger previews, much better similarity navigation, easy access to image link, etc.

[1] https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Vija+Celmins

yandex also seems pretty good.
I second this, especially for similar photos.
DuckDuckGo is what I use for image search, it works about the same as Google did pre-change.
Maybe I am missing something but I can get the image URL by right clicking>open image in new tab. This might not matter much to others but I hated them when they recently removed the option to filter image search results by exact dimensions.
Google images returns relatively in-specific and poor results. I have turned to using Yandex. They seem to be better at training their AI as to what is actualy in the images.
Google has basically given up on their image search product. For that matter, their main search product is getting product long in the tooth. It's in the position Microsoft was in during the old days of IE6. Yandex is a good option. Bing is another. I usually prefix my google searches with a domain these days. Instead of merely subtracting a domain, I fix it to a domain I know is good.

Google's IE6 search product needs its corresponding Firefox to give it a kick in the shorts.

Pinterest should just be blacklisted from Google altogether.
Amen. I miss results that aren’t just SEO optimizations. Sites like this hurt the quality of the web by suppressing results that are what people are searching for.
The most worthless of search results.
I installed a chrome extension called "Unpinterested!" which does just that - removes all pinterest results from image search.

It was one of those cases where I was getting ready to build it, and then I thought "wait, I bet this already exists for free." Sure enough....

Gee the numbers of times I've had to add "-pinterest -quora". I wish there was just a permanent filter I could add in my Google serach settings.
I think google should add a search filter option instead that is by default ignore paywalled/login requiring results, or not ignore them by default, but if the top answer is paywalled/login requiring show an option to do the same search without paywalled/login requiring results
I agree with you. A domain filter would be the best as there are other sites in addition to Quora that provides junk content. For example, for all health type of search theres a website named healthline.com which appears with 2-3 of the top results. I wish I could block it somehow.
This used to be a feature of Google search. They removed it and published a Chrome add-on that does the same, client-side. I have switched back to Firefox and there are similar add-ons there too.
Google already has a browser extension for filtering search results, but you have to configure your own blacklist. It would be cool if there were an extension that was like that but more advanced; I'm thinking the uBlock Origin for filtering search results that could work for both Google and DuckDuckGo based on premade block lists.

EDIT: It looks like Google took down their extension. boo they suck

(comment deleted)
Google does not need to drop Quora from its search results, Quora itself is already on the way to irrelevancy. It used to be a place for thought provoking questions and answers, nowadays it just contains a copy pasted text from the first google search result. A perfect example of a niche but strong product ditching its target audience in order to pursue popularity.
There are a number of sites that are mostly useless in Google results. Perhaps a larger issue is that any company that solicits public data input be required to sign an ironclad agreement with me that my content is under my copyright and if they ever try to monetize my content they share any revenues with me. Otherwise they get class-action sued into oblivion.
Users giving non-exclusive royalty free rights to the content and for the site to use it however they see fit being in the ToS is pretty standard(especially for comment based data)...

Not sure how you are expecting sites that are driven by the userbase to exist since your phrasing sounds like you believe providing all of the infrastructure, management and marketing for information isn't enough to morally receive payment for that information.

The legal situation is rosier than you think. What you demand is already the case: content you create is copyrighted by you and can't be relicensed by anyone else without your permission. All without any agreements at all!

Now, it would be tyrannical not to give you any way to transfer rights to your creative output. So some publishers do allow you to agree to a Terms And Conditions waiving certain of these rights, or transferring them to said publishers. It goes without saying that no one would ever compel you to agree to such conditions, but some publishers might not agree to publish your work without such an agreement.

Can you emulate googles crawler to trick your way around paywalls?
Or google translate to trick your way around IP whitelists? (Or maybe even through a proxy on a Google VPS?)
Setting a Googlebot UA will work for any low tech filter, besides looking at the ASN of the source IP or the javascript engine behavior I'm not sure what else sites could really do to figure it out sans coordinating with Google to define the indexer source(browsing/click pattern maybe).

There's bound to be at least one googler in this thread and since the ASN check would be the hardest to fake and easiest to setup... someone go change their UA and go to nytimes or something from the office and see if it works(bonus points for any SRE who does it from a data center).

Agreed

But should be dropped because it’s straight spam

If you want to ban it because of the paywall too fine

But why wouldn't Google's secret ML sauce gradually learn the right dose of Quora vs Wikipedia to give to the public? That seems more principled (data-driven) than doing a blanket ban on Quora based on gut-level (possibly correct) intuition of search experience.
I thought this is what the -site: operator was supposed to exist for?

Could that perhaps be a solution client/user side?

Yes, but adding a list of sites to remove to every single query you ever type... search engines should just remove bad sites (note: I am actually against removing Quora, this is just about the general case). Also, there is a maximum input length for some reason, so that might not actually work.

("For some reason" -- to prevent monster queries of course, but I mean, removing sites doesn't cost much computational power at all. With some literal quotes and AND/OR operators you can create short queries on which it basically times out after 5 seconds and only returns a few dozen results that it found so far, and when you reload the page, there are suddenly a lot more results. So it shouldn't be limiting input length but complexity, which it already does by timing out.)

Also, there is a maximum input length for some reason, so that might not actually work.

I actually didn’t know that. My first thought was a browser add on that allows the user to blacklist domains they’d rather not see results and construct a query based upon.

Seems like that moot if a sufficiently long list would result in sites being left off and end up in queries anyway.

Thanks

Google itself used to provide a browser extension called "Personal Blocklist" that did this.
Quora is the dumbest shit ever. They send out these readers digest emails with interesting questions and shit and when you click on them they take you the freaking homepage every time. Like wtf is even the point of sending me the email than if you're gonna make it incredible difficult for me to find that particular question that i really need answered now?!
Tip: close the page that opens and click again on the link in digest emails
Quora is far from being the best Q&A system ever (the best was Aardvark, bought and killed by Google) but it provides many interesting clues today. I've found quite a lot of very useful and rather unique information there. It seemed quite dead back in the days I've first tried it (looking for something to replace Aardvark) as nobody would answer my questions but the things seem very different today.
Aah, Aardvark. I answered a few questions on that system, but after a while I felt I was just serving idiots who were too lazy to google the questions.
I enjoyed being one of such idiots and answering other idiots like that. Because I strongly prefer unmoderated, marketing-free opinionated answers based on personal experience/knowledge and expressed in a concise manner to raw web data. I don't even mind googling some details to come up with a clean answer for the others. That's a kind of community I'd love to participate in.

In fact, even when somebody submits a completely just-google-it question you can answer comprehensively by just looking at Wikipedia or the first ling in the search results or something everybody is supposed to know it doesn't irritate me, whenever I can provide a useful answer to somebody's question it floods my brain with dopamine and serotonin so an easy question is just an opportunity to get the reward easily.

Whatever (from a sophisticated scientific question to a rhetoric question/joke) I would ask on Aardvark I would almost immediately receive an interesting answer (better than those you usually find on Quora) to and some more answers during the following hours. That felt so cool. Then my imagination has ran out of questions and then Aardvrk got terminated. Now I know and so much more things and gave so many new questions but there is no Aardvark any more :-(

Lol, that's a pretty good strategy to get people to come back to your site without having to generate new content. Just create(or scrape) some interesting sounding headlines for articles that don't exist and just link to the homepage. ;)

It's a good thing I have a moral compass.

> Lol, that's a pretty good strategy to get people to come back to your site without having to generate new content.

It's a good strategy to make users hate your product. This isn't clever - it's just value extraction from a product people used to find useful.

Lol, not defending Quora, but the articles in your digest are real. Whether their app appropriately redirects when you click them, is another story.
As a non-US based user, I uninstalled Amazon's iOS app yesterday because of this exact behaviour. Often a US-only deal will get posted on a local forum here in New Zealand. The link for the deal will go to the Amazon US store. If you click that link without the app, you are taken straight to the listing where you can review the price, shipping options etc.

However, if you have the iOS app installed, it opens the app when you click the link, loops twice (never loads the listing) and lands you on the Amazon US homepage. I've tried everything to stop this behaviour (changing regions, loading in logged out state etc), but to no avail.

It finally frustrated me so much yesterday (especially in the lead up to black friday) that I outright deleted the app to stop those links being captured by the native application.

It feels so liberating to click a link and get the desired result.

Disclaimer: I work for Amazon, but nowhere near the team that builds the iOS app.

My experience as a user of the Amazon iOS app is that the developers deeply care about these kinds of quality issues. I have seen the looping behavior before in other contexts; I reported it, and it was eventually fixed.

In the app there is a customer service link in the hamburger menu, with a “contact us” option if you’re willing to spend a couple of minutes telling them about your problem.

As someone who never installs apps like this, I'm curious as to why you'd want an app for something like Amazon?
This irritates me to no end, however, the Quora is that one email digest that has an extremely high CTR for me: I often click on 5-7 entries from each digest because they send me stuff I'm actually interested in. No other email digest or newsletter comes even remotely close.

However, that stupid popup of their or suggestion to install an app is beyond bad.

> wtf is even the point of sending me the email than if you're gonna make it incredible difficult for me to find that particular question that i really need answered now?!

"Engagement" - corporate

I actually read their digest on a daily basis, and used to be confused by this as well. My observation is that each link in the digest actually points to an answer of a particular question. When you click on it, it looks like you arrive at the home page, but the page will show "From Your Digest" at the top so you can actually read the answer. You can then click on the question to read all the answers.

It's annoying because if you open a bunch of these links in the background, you would not be happy if your browser crashes, because then you lose all the links.

It's not just Quora, I think about half of notifications, whether by email or on mobile, don't take you to the thing you're being notified of.

Or they insist on sending redundant notifications. Or there's a mysterious number and no way to see that actual notifications. Or the notifications won't go away. Or the notifications go away instantly. Or, naturally, the notifications are abused for spam.

As to why... I think it's one of those features that tends to get neglected, and because users are way too forgiving of broken software.

Not for me. When I click on a link in their digest, it takes me to that question from the digest, with under it a button that expands to the other questions from that digest.

But this is the regular desktop version of their site. Whenever I link of a link in their digest on my phone, their website is a completely unusable piece of crap. None of the buttons work, most of the content is empty.

I think Quora is such total garbage info and unfounded opinion I just add them to pihole blacklist.

Quora actually points to a flaw of algo only search engine rankings - do a lot of people link to it? Is it a lot of keyword intense content? Yep and Yep!

But the important - is it actually useful, relevant information - well that's secondary.

google needs some competition. I think , instead of breaking up google, they should break up Bing away from MS.
Quora is only one of many garbage domains that clutter google results. Pinterest is another big one.

Google needs a "block this domain from my search results"-- they even had it, for a brief period of a few months a number of years ago. (maybe only for some users?)

I'd love to have this feature. Does anyone know if this is somehow possible with ddg?
Yelp is another I’d rather not see since it is crippled on mobile.
I suspect google is already filtering your search results based on your behavior. I have no proof of this - only suspicion. I purposefully don't click on quora or pinterest. Lately I see them much less on my results feed.
I would gladly pay a monthly payment to have this type of feature on my Google searches and more stuff.
Uhm, you can do this simply by appending to your search query:

`-site:quora.com`

That's a hassle to type every time, not to mention the typing itself being a little high on the difficulty scale, what with two shift characters and a left-pinky letter.
The request is for a way to have that automatically added. It gets rather tiring adding -site:pinterest.com to every image search I do.
In some browsers which store search urls as string with a %s qualifier it should be easy I guess.
I've been using a userscript called Googles Hit Hider by Domain from Jefferson Scher that allows you to blacklist sites since Google removed the ability to do it natively (it works with all the major search engines, not just Google as the name implies) : http://www.jeffersonscher.com/gm/google-hit-hider/

[Edit: credit the author of the script]

Thanks for sharing, I found it very useful.
And yelp! Search for "generic food item" and yelp will come up with these auto-generated lists refreshed monthly to catch the attention of the google crawler.

1. top 10 X near you August 2019

2. top 10 X near you July 2019

3. top 10 X near you June 2019

etc.

They're just taking the top 10 reviewed places on yelp that may or may not serve that food item and then publishing these monthly "posts" to be indexed. If I wanted to look on yelp I would search yelp!

I know. It's so frustrating. And it can't be that effective. I mean how many people actually live in an area where "Top 10 Cambodian Restaurants Near You" isn't nonsensical?

Which is what I see anytime I am trying to lookup ideas for some niche restaurant genre.

I decided to try to search for “Sushi” on both Google and DDG. Top results on Google:

  Sushi in Singapore (thehoneycombers.net)
  9 BEST Places To Get Affordable Sushi In Singapore UNDER ... (thefinder.com.sg)
  Sushi (wikipedia.org)
  Best Sushi in Singapore, 2019 (burpple.com)
  The 11 Best Affordable Sushi Bars in Singapore (timeout.com)
  The Best Singapore Sushi (tripadvisor.com.sg)
On DDG:

  Sakae (sakaesushi.com.sg)
  Sushi (wikipedia.org)
  Sushi Tei (sushitei.com)
  Umisushi (umisushi.com.sg)
  Sushi (japan-guide.com)
  Sushi Recipes (sushirecipies.org)
  The Different Kinds of Sushi (delishably.com)
Google displays the spammy list articles you mentioned, while DDG generally lists Sushi chains.

I think I prefer the DDG results, but I guess that depends on the quality of the list links that Google provided. I guess the differences can be explained by Google being much more targeted by SEO tricks.

I entirely agree.

Quora and Pinterest are particularly routine spam sites in my search results.

They rank just below word reference site spam, like dictionaries, thesauruses, or translation dictionaries (sites which I do benefit occasionally from), and below Wikipedia mirrors (which I feel has become so bad that I can't even get legitimate results talking about the problem itself! Try searching something like: search results spam wikipedia mirror "revolvy" "wikiwand").

But for me, the worst (and most obvious!) offenders by far are "pronunciation guide" spam sites. Just a few examples:

  howtopronounce.com
  howtopronounce.co.in
  pronouncekiwi.com
  pronouncenames.com
  pronunciationof.com
  rightpronunciation.com
plus the scourge of 16-second YouTube videos on channels with names like Pronunciation Guide or Emma Saying.

(If you search for something like "Deidesheimer pronunciation" or "pronounce Canynge" on Google, the vast majority of results will be those spam sites, plus maybe an ancient forum thread from 2004 that veered off topic before anyone even tried to give a serious yet uninformed answer.)

These ad-infested spam sites purport to teach you how to pronounce an unfamiliar name or tricky word (an important and underappreciated service that many people use!). But usually they merely contain computer-generated bullshit, as if fed directly into all available text-to-speech algorithms. Even the ostensibly human-generated recordings and sites are often flagrantly wrong, unsourced, and untrustworthy.

There are a few legitimate sites (such as Forvo, Youglish, etc.), but too often they are woefully incomplete (by nature of their being crowdsourced). Forvo even contributes to the spam with "do you know how to pronounce this word?" false positives.

I once blocked all of the spam sites when the domain-blocking feature you mentioned was built into Google Search; then had to do it once again when I needed a browser add-on to replace the removed feature (which naturally only worked on desktop); and recently I was astonished to find that the add-on also stopped working! The spam never ends.

I know, right? How hard would it be for someone to make a wiki-style site with UGC, a reputation system (I speak this language natively and vouch / do not vouch for this content), a tracker for trending words, fun articles for Llanfairpwllgwyngyll and the like? The Web I used to know seems to be gone or at least in steep decline, supplanted by garbage like this.
There are also the White pages duplicates. Search for a phone number or some digits that resemble a phone number and the first 5 pages of results are all autogenerated reverse lookups under various domains catering to the different plausible personas.
Try searching for “1549 USD in EUR”, and you'll find links to sites that auto-generates individual pages for every amount.

One might argue that the SEO garbage here is less bad, since there really isn't any alternative site they're stealing hits from, but it's still a sign that shows just how horrible the web has become.

I can't imagine google adding it, but it would be something which would finally make me move to duckduckgo.
I use DDG and rarely see pinterest or quora results.
Quora tried to grow too fast by generating questions and spamming these to users for them to fill as fast as possible. A pile of garbage growing too fast is going to get caught and punished. I can totally see it being delisted by google and shutting down as a failed experiment that ran its course.
Q&A is the new spam.

Quora is full of it, and so is LinkedIn.

A shill asks "a question," followed by all these "answers," recommending a particular site, product or technique (that has a backer).

I have had to leave quite a number of forums, because they became completely taken over by Asian spammers; doing exactly this. They rendered the groups useless.

TBH: I did fall for it the first time I encountered it. It's a fairly effective technique, if done right.

Cannot agree more.

Though I'll say this -- it's hard to optimize Quora's feed, but once you do that by carefully curating the topics and the people to follow, Quora can be an incredible source of super insightful answers on niche topics. But it does take a lot of work, which is a barrier to many.

Their feed display mechanism needs a lot of work imo.

In my experience it was quite good for a while, then they made a couple of changes and suddenly the feed was rendered absolutely useless. After more than two weeks of the feed showing me the exact same questions and answers every day with only 1-2 new ones inbetween I stopped using it.

And at that point they had changed parts of the site so much I couldn't figure out how to subscribe to new topics because all of them were replaced by user-created topics/groups like on Facebook(at least that's how I understood it).

Strange because I find that it's full of day-0 beginner questions and little of in-depth niche, thought out ones.

Like "Where do I start with machine learning?" often with bad spelling, or "Do you need to be very smart to become a programmer?" etc. By contrast, Reddit, the StackExchange sites and HN are a totally different league.

I used to love browsing Quora, and found a lot of answers fascinating. However, in the past year something seems to have changed. Now I get really spammy suggestions, and there is rarely new content on my feed. I get the same suggestions for days.

I don’t doubt that the good content is there. I think their algorithms just changed and now I don’t see it anymore. Not willing to put in the effort to figure out how to get an interesting feed again.

A lot of Quora spammers will play the long game. Some of them will take the time to get moderately familiar with a subject, write some organic answers, gain some karma on the site, then start shilling. It's an interesting incentive structure, but ultimately most answers on the site end up being the mediocre filler by spammers trying to build their accounts.
Somehow or another, Stack Overflow is able to maintain very high quality threads. I'm not sure if that is because of filtering algorithms, or human moderation (which is more or less crowdsourced).

I have not run into this kind of spam on SO.

There are a lot of "Kool Aid" threads, where folks get heavily invested in a technique or pattern, but those are legit, if somewhat tiresome.

Probably because most SO questions can't be answered with product recommendations.

Also SO is very specific and narrow (programming questions only), while Quora is very broad, so it's probably harder to moderate effectively.

And before someone says 'Stack Exhange is just as broad as Quora' -- all the SE sites I've come across disallow 'product recommendation' questions or whatever similar thing fits their niche.
SO has human moderators and a points system to gate functionality, and those points are earned by being useful.

Quora did have a points/credits system in the beginning but they removed it for some reason, and ever since then participation and edits were open to everyone which let the spam take over. They also have a faceless AI-powered moderation system that's often overbearing and wrong.

A similar link spam happened with comments on Hackerrank
(comment deleted)
Unfortunately, it's like that on Reddit too. I just can't find an unbiased, not trying to shill their product response to just about anything. Fake reviews everywhere, fake gurus on YouTube, Fake answers on Q&A sites. Now I can't even get news without paywalls. Also, Medium is smelly garbage. I hate their popups on every article. The WWW is in a sorry state right now.
This coming from HN that posts 1000 NY Times articles a day.
I hate it equally. What good is knowledge if you cannot reach it. Google organizes something that is useless to me. And I will not enter the social media circus.
I agree but they should only lower the reputation. Most of the answers are obnoxiously misleading and others are basically spam.
Quora reminds me of Yahoo Answers
Indeed, both contain both garbage and useful results. Much like the rest of the internet.
We really need a feature to block websites from Google search. It's impartial and a common thing on Twitter/Facebook/YouTube.

If a Google search engineer reads this, please think about it.

They used to have this feature and removed it. Unlikely they'll bring it back.