HN Explorer

Ask HN: Why do search engines not let you blacklist spam domains?

199 points by pketh ↗ HN
Whenever I'm searching for anything even mildly off the beaten path, it's not uncommon for the top results to be SEO stuffed spam websites, or maybe even real websites that I can't access (like paywalls or requiring adblocker exceptions to proceed). Usually pages from the same domains are top-ranked for other related searches too.

As a user I'd love to be able to tell my search engine to "Never show me results from this domains" (similar to blocking an account on Twitter) – but as far as I can tell there is no way to do this in either Google or DuckDuckGo search.

This seems like such low-hanging fruit to me that I'm wondering if other people have ever wanted this, and if there's actually a reason not to do it.

126 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 186 ms ] thread
elmerfud
It's a simple answer because you don't pay them for that. They run a balancing act of providing you useful results while also surreptitiously shoving trash, that they actually make money off of, at you and hoping you won't notice or complain.
PaulHoule
If the search results were perfect you'd never look at an ad.
lijogdfljk
A good argument for some distributed foss search then i guess. Wonder if it could ever be made to have search results return reasonably fast in a distributed large index?
baremetal
i would wait longer if the results were better.
beamatronic
Sometimes I am searching for information, and I want facts. Sometimes I am researching a purchase, and I want the sellers to compete for my purchase. Perhaps it makes sense to give search engines more context, such as, whether your intent is to spend money or not.
dharmab
Kagi will be paid when it exits beta and has this feature!
jbverschoor
Which means you can never use it in an incognito session without logging in
dharmab
An incognito session provides privacy against other people who have casual access to your computer. It provides no extra security or privacy in the context of search providers.
CWuestefeld
Disagree. When the FBI comes to them asking for a list of everyone who's done a search for "pipe bomb", your anonymity would have been welcome.
dharmab
Kagi doesn't log much identifying information, so the government would have to compel them to change their system with a national security letter LavaBit style.

https://kagi.com/privacy

freediver
While there is certainly possibility of FBI asking for this, I am afraid we couldn't respond to such request. Reason is simply we do not log or associate searches with an account.

Our business model is selling subscriptions, not data.

(Kagi Founder here)

kelnos
I've been using Kagi for the past couple months (and love it so far!), but whenever I open a private browsing window, I revert back to DDG.

Even though you say you don't associate search queries with accounts, it's hard for me to get over the "mental hump" to truly feel that in my bones and feel comfortable entering a "private" query while being signed in. I know it's not entirely rational. I mean, maybe it is a little bit rational: I only have your word (some random person that I don't know) that you don't -- and, critically, will never -- log queries associated with account. But regardless, it's hard to feel private when I'm entering something into a form on a website where I'm signed in as myself.

freediver
Thank you!

Your concern is shared by many users and realistically speaking there is not much we can do, but hope to survive long enough to build trust.

It is somewhat ironic that the only business model that has hope of not being interested in private information, does require an account. While there is nothing inherently bad with accounts, all the other services we are competing with, that have been exploiting user data for years also made accounts have bad reputation.

User choice at this moment is really - use a free service that you know is doing absolutely everything it can to track your behavior (directly or indirectly contributing to ad-tech, even without you logging in), or use a paid service that aligns the incentives with the user (also requiring a leap of faith because other services before it burned the trust bridge).

I hope enough users will make that leap of faith with Kagi.

richardsocher
At you.com we believe in user choice - private mode where we track nothing and personalized mode in an account where you can select your preferred sources like Reddit or Quora, StackOverflow, etc.

For now private mode has no ads, but sadly, it might only be monetizable with private ads in the future, similar to DDG..

jjulius
Hey Richard, it's been pointed out a bunch of times to you on HN over four months that "private mode" is a misnomer; people have pointed out that there are still outgoing requests to third-parties in private mode, who can do whatever they want with the data they get. DDG's private mode lacks these third-party requests.

I really like seeing more competition entering the search space and competing against Google, but it's a huge bummer when someone continually touts their "private" product while routinely ignoring comments asking for clarification around something that suggests it's not actually private.

Can you please shed some light on this?

throwaway684936
I think a big concern is some government agency basically saying "you have to start logging, and you better do it quietly."

I'd suggest a warrant canary. It's better than nothing.

freediver
Our system is not designed with this tying accounts and searches in mind. Doing that change would require a major refactor and probably month or more of work, stopping everything else. I just do not see that happening.
rusk
They meant anonymously
jbverschoor
My problem with it is that it removes all the agility of quickly searching incognito / with a 'fresh "ai"'
rbinv
Google used to have that feature: https://www.ghacks.net/2011/03/10/google-adds-block-all-doma...

In my opinion, back then, they needed the data as a training set for spammy domain detection. Now that SERP spam is no longer a serious issue (in Google's eyes anyway), why bother. Google always knows what's best for you.

Arnavion
>Now that SERP spam is no longer a serious issue (in Google's eyes anyway)

Given the number of clones of StackOverflow and GitHub that show up on the front page, even at the cost of replacing the original SO and GH links that they copied from, I can only assume either Google's eyes are blind or the search engine devs are so good at their job that they never need to Google anything themselves.

tetsusaiga
Another fun one— next time a public figure dies, especially a slightly more obscure one, just google them/their death.

Whole first page is just poorly written fiverr style articles, all by people for whom English is clearly a second language, at best.

Eventually, legit stuff gets on the first page too, but theres a few instances where weeks later the first result is still one of these garbage seo-torture sites.

Has really made me lose my faith in google lately.

ncann
Wow, I'm surprised that I never remembered that feature existed. I wonder why they removed it, just like why they removed the insanely helpful "Cached" feature.
Blackthorn
Cached likely went away for the same reason image search was made to suck, legal issues.
naoqj
Cached still exists, press the 3 points next to the url.
Blackthorn
Still exists in some urls. It used to be virtually universal.
schappim
Yeah, as a webmaster you can opt out of cache.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
naikrovek
don't blame google when robots.txt directives are to blame.
saurik
Notably, only on desktop browsers.
antifa
It's usually missing any time it would have been useful.
poglet
On the topic of image search, duckduckgo links directly to the image file like Google used to do. It's my go to for image search.
DanAtC
Kagi allows you to weigh domains.
dharmab
Including fully blocking them if desired!
qwnp
Also you can completely block domains, and pin to the top of the results.

I just started using Kagi, and they definitely seem to be doing a lot of stuff right.

Gys
I switched to Kagi yesterday and I am so far very impressed.

I did this search to answer another comment and later did the Google one:

https://kagi.com/search?q=What+does+that+site+make+you+drag+...

https://google.com/search?q=What+does+that+site+make+you+dra...

Kagi shows the exact answer in the first result. Google gives no relevant answers on the first five pages (did not go further). Probably because Google focusses on 'highlight' too much. Kagi seems very aware of the context.

KerryJones
Ooh, interesting, how do you get an invite?
theIV
kagi.com has a "sign-up for beta" link. Didn't take long before I received an invite (week or two?).
I_dev_outdoors
I just signed up myself.

I like how they ask you what features you want as you are signing up. I mentioned that I want to be able to vote on results and have my own results prioritized by the votes of me and my peers.

warent
seems cool, thanks. I've applied for the beta
Kye
The pricing (in the FAQ) is a non-starter for me, but there are probably enough people with the money for it to make a nice business out of it. Maybe it'll be enough to apply some competitive pressure to Google.

edit: to be clear, it's not unwillingness, I literally do not have $10-30/month to spare without compromising my progress toward not being perpetually broke. Not everyone here is a well-compensated tech worker.

pcmoney
The quintessential be the customer or the product being sold dilemma...
after_care
The pricing is actually one of Kagi's most interesting features to me. There's an old phrase "If you aren't paying for the service then you're the product". I'd be suspicious of any price too low, as it would indicate they have another revenue stream.
Buttons840
I think that saying was updated to "even if you're paying, you're still probably the product"? No? There's some truth to it, but it's not as simple as these sayings suggest.
dharmab
I'm hoping they figure out an easy way to let users charge this as a business expense (maybe an annual subscription?) For programming it's as valuable to me as a good editor plugin!
freediver
Curious what do you have in mind? Every subscription can be expensed as a business expense, does not need to be annual?
dharmab
My employer provides an annual fund for work related software, books, etc. But each charge requires me to file a form and get a human approval. Doing this once a year would be easier than once a month.
luguenth
Funny side effect of this post: For me the first link in the kagi results is now the link to kagi itself with the same search term.
kelnos
Oof, I feel like Kagi should be filtering out results that reference itself.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
shafyy
I've also switched to Kagi recently and I think I find myself almost never doing !g (compared to DDG). And if I go to Google, it's mostly for hyperlocal results.
Doctor_Fegg
So far I've only found two areas where Google beats Kagi. One is, as you say, local/POI search. The other is deep diving into family history stuff - I've been tracing a 19th century composer and Kagi didn't surface most of the interesting documents. But for pretty much everything else it seems better than Google.
freediver
Thanks for the feedback! (Kagi founder here)

Local results are on our roadmap, we should be launching it within few weeks.

I am wondering if can you report problematic queries to https://kagifeedback.org so we can take a look?

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
notreallyserio
I'm really happy with Kagi. Being able to block and boost results is a killer feature. They're also more willing to show that they couldn't find results for searches. Compare that to Google, whose engineers designed it to (seemingly always) exclude the most specific term in a search to return irrelevant results.
MiddleEndian
Gotta do it on your end. The uBlackList extension works for several search engines in Firefox and Chrome.
krono
uBlock Origin static filters to the rescue!

Block results from specific domains on Google or DDG:

    google.*##.g:has(a[href*="thetopsites.com"])
    duckduckgo.*##.results > div:has(a[href*="thetopsites.com"])
And it's even possible to target element content with regex with the `:has-text(/regex/)` selector.

    google.*##.g:has(*:has-text(/bye topic of noninterest/i))
    duckduckgo.*##.results > div:has(*:has-text(/bye topic of noninterest/i))
Bonus content: Ever tried getting rid of Medium's obnoxious cookie notification? Just nuke it from orbit on all domains:

    *##body>div:has(div:has-text(/To make Medium work.*Privacy Policy.*Cookie Policy/i))
Inviz
well that leaves blanks, right?
krono
No, these completely remove any matched results
smusamashah
If first page is all filtered links, we will get an empty first page.
Kiro
Yes, and creates blanks. Not visually but where it would be 10 results there are now 9.
rg111
I received an ivite withing half an hour.

So, I guess it varies.

samcrawford
Filtering out the spam results is only half the problem. In my experience, a legitimate site's content is cloned by a spam site, and that one appears in a Google search and the legitimate one does not. The example that keeps hitting me is GitHub Issues.

Filtering out the spam only removes the clones; it doesn't get the good results back in.

3np
Host a personal (potentially shared with friends) searx (for multi-engine) or whoogle (google only) instance. Filter out some domains completely, rewrite others. The rewrite part is what allows you to substitute spam clone sites for the real deal. At least searx does dedupe already.

The time spent (including maintenance) will be paid back faster than you might expect.

Optionally rewrite some sites to altfronts like nitter/scribe/piped. If you care about spending time on privacy and decoupling searches from visits, you can set up arbitrary proxying rules.

One benefit among others over browser extensions is that it's a one-time setup for all your devices and clients. All you need to do on reinstall is to change the default search engine.

krono
Sure, but at least it prevents you from accidentally clicking those unwanted results - something I kept doing all the time.

Either way, OP's ask was for a way to blacklist results, and I'm providing a method to accomplish exactly that. Edit: The rest is up to Google.

jccalhoun
it isn't even just 'clones' because so many sites will just summarize an article from somewhere else and give a link to it. Sometimes it is a game of telephone with one site summarizing a 2nd site which is a summary of a 3rd and so on. I want a search engine to show me the original source not the one with the best SEO
james2doyle
Nice! I've used HTML attributes as targets as well. They aren't random so they are also easy to target. I use this one on Twitter:

    twitter.*##div[aria-label="Timeline: Trending now"]
This will hide the trending tweets box. You can see it's targeting the `aria-label` attribute on the `div` element
throw_m239339
Because ultimately there is a conflict of interest between you as a search user, and google actual customers, advertisers who are often spammers themselves. Someone needs to pay for google search and since it isn't you...

Google might have been better in the past, but since there is absolutely no serious competition whatsoever from a market perspective, Google technically doesn't really need to care about the quality of its search results anymore, only maximizing profits.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
shrikant
For the same reason that streaming services don't really give you the ability to filter by cast/crew or hide stuff you've already seen: to gently guide you into avenues that are more profitable for them, regardless of what you say you really want.
btgeekboy
I just tried searching Netflix, HBO, and Prime for Bruce Willis; all showed me his movies. Is that not the filtering you’re expecting?
lostcolony
That's a fuzzy search. If I search on Netflix for "Bruce Willis", the first ten or so items are movies with him. Then there are miscellaneous thrillers and whatnot; unless I look at the details I don't know that they don't have Bruce Willis in them.

A filter gives me a binary outcome; it either has Bruce Willis, or it doesn't.

All of which is sort of the ops point I think; the search engine is fuzzy because it wants to show you many things for profit reasons. I don't think it's geared toward maximizing profitability at the expense of what you're looking for, exactly, so much as engagement as a proxy for profitability. The more you use the service, the stickier you likely are as a paid subscriber, so they'll happily shovel things that don't match the search (but are similar!...and that quickly jump the shark into being quite dissimilar, but hey, maybe!) to try and keep your eyeballs.

A better demonstration of this handling is searching for movie titles they don't have. "The Princess Bride" on Netflix, for instance, doesn't even tell you "We don't have that", but instead "Explore titles related to: The Princess Bride". And while the first suggestion, The Neverending Story, is kinda a fair suggestion, some slightly later ones, like Top Gun and Zoolander, feel like a stretch.

klibertp
I suspect the GP thought about something more complex, like "a movie directed by X or Y between year XXXX and YYYY starring Z but not V in the genre ... with tags ... but excluding ones tagged with ..." You can probably do this on IMDB or something similar, but then you can't watch it there.

I'm largely guessing - I don't watch movies, but I read a lot of manga online, and the only site that allows similar queries and still has UX a bit better than late '90s (ie. mangaupdates.com) is a fan-made (ie. pirated) one with porn/hentai...

Joeri
I’m not convinced they are targeting profitability, because that is hard to connect back to individual user action. They target what is easy to measure at the user level, probably engagement, and operate on the assumption that higher engagement means higher profit.
x3ro
why do you think it’s difficult for google to measure which clicks to what websites are profitable for them? maybe i’m misunderstanding, but I would expect that this would be one of the primary things google tries to infer from you..
rg111
Prime Video has an option where I can hide specific movies and seasons of series.

I use this feature a lot, and it works.

shrikant
Wow TIL -- I'm going to try this out and see how well it works between a browser and my Roku, thanks!
beamatronic
If search is free, then you are the product. Now if there was a paid search engine, and you were the customer, you would expect customer service, customization, no ads, privacy protection, etc.
ncann
No ads/no privacy/no customer service are fair game for a free service, but there's no reason why it should include no customization as well.
g105b
I wish I could do this to tell DDG that I don't want to see any amazon.com products in my listing. I fell out with Amazon years ago and have been shopping independently since, but they have a stronghold over search engines with their out-of-stock listings.
timbit42
Try the uBlacklist plugin mentioned in other comments.
hedora
Actually, blocking any site that links to Amazon would be nice.

Goodbye affiliate spam!

(I wonder why Amazon hasn't killed the affiliate link program yet..m)

birthdaydog
I think people are right that the motivation is profit, but I'm not convinced it's to manipulate you in any way. I don't think driving you towards SEO'd blog spam is really all that profitable to google.

My guess is that it's because it's an abusable feature, and that means hiring human moderators for it.

lprubin
How is it abusable if you're only blocking the domains for yourself?
aaomidi
The second this is added, the spam domains will just multiply. User interventions with spam doesn't work.
Retric
Domains aren’t free the way sending email is. So, forcing more domains would be a significant expense that would seriously discourage these companies. Also, they would be easier to detect.
charcircuit
It practically is. You just add a new record to create a new domain.
ColinHayhurst
Because Google and Bing (therefore Duck) are increasingly answer engines, keeping you on their page, supporting the SEO ecosystem and most importantly their ad revenues and network customers.

We and the other few independent search engines have not made enough dent on the market to suffer SEO spam. We'll have a way to deal with it (watch this space). Right now you'll certainly get results "off the beaten path" and with one click you can try out 8 other search options [0].

[0] https://blog.mojeek.com/2022/02/search-choices-enable-freedo...

mdasen
Not only are they becoming answer engines, in Google's case there's a decent chance that they're making money off the spammy pages.

If the top results are "SEO stuffed spam websites", they're probably also loaded with ads. If they're loaded with ads, there's a good chance that they're using Google's ads.

If the top results are "SEO stuffed spam websites", there's a good chance they're chock-full of affiliate links. If a search for "best baby formula" is going to end up costing Amazon an affiliate fee via an "SEO stuffed spam website", Amazon might as well just buy a Google ad for that keyword and cut out the "SEO stuffed spam website". If the results go to pages that are just going to cost a seller money anyway, it gives the seller more incentive to buy ads since they aren't getting free traffic from the search engine anyway.

While being an answer engine keeps you on their page longer, feeding you SEO spam also keeps you coming back to their page; feeding you SEO spam signals to potential advertisers that they won't be getting free traffic from the search engine so they might as well pay for the traffic via ads.

I'm not suggesting that it's a conspiracy to send you bad results, but it does seem likely that as long as they aren't losing traffic to competitors, it might not be something that becomes a priority.

ColinHayhurst
> If the top results are "SEO stuffed spam websites", they're probably also loaded with ads. If they're loaded with ads, there's a good chance that they're using Google's ads.

Bingo. If you can't get clicks on AdWords get them on AdSense.

csmeder
My go-to test search term is: "grass-fed beef restaurant in sf"

You do much better than Google (Google will always include "Top 10 Best Grass Fed Organic Steak in San Francisco, CA" from Yelp and then link to places that don't have Grass-fed beef options.)

However, currently, your first ranking option is Pinterest spam FYI: https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=grass+fed+beef+restaurant+in... → https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=grass+fed+beef+restaurant+in...

Your second option is the correct kind of result (a blog from a local that actually answers the question): https://www.grassfedgirl.com/paleo-friendly-restaurants-in-s...

Where most of the results on Google are not correct. They are mostly articles about Steaks (and a few actual restaurants that serve grass-fed beef, so that is good). Actually, FYI your results don't include these restaurants. eg. It would be nice if this Google result showed up in your results:

"SF / SOMA - Belcampo We source grass-fed and finished, pasture-raised meats directly from our own climate positive CA farms and seasonal vegetables from local farms."

ColinHayhurst
Thanks. useful feedback.

As you point out #1 organic link on G is Yelp. They currently block all but G, Bing and Yahoo! - we'll get in touch with them again. https://www.yelp.com/robots.txt

Organic link #3 on G is Belcampo; we have some of that indexed so we'll take a look: https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=food+site%3Abelcampo.com

stonemetal12
>we'll get in touch with them again.

Feel free not to. Follow the link, it isn't a quality result.

ColinHayhurst
Fair point. Some other big sites we are blocked from - we don't sweat. It keeps down the noise-to-signal ratio!
layer8
Google in particular doesn’t care about what features the small minority of power users would want. Otherwise they wouldn’t have removed so many over the years.
throwaway158497
Because no product manager has been able to push it through various layers of beauracracy (yet). Plus more customizations means, their ML based personalized SERP page has failed in understanding your intent/needs.
fxtentacle
In my opinion, most mainstream websites are spam by now. I understand why Google won't let me vote on the issue because they'll surely not like the results ;)
rc_mob
kagi does. i love it. whenever they move from beta to paid I'll be a paying customer
ajsnigrutin
...because pinterest would lose all their pageviews.
guelo
I want a search engine that let's me exclude sites that have ads. Or even just exclude javascript.
timbit42
You can exclude JS with the NoScript addon.
guelo
No, I want the search engines results to filter out websites that use ads or maybe even websites that use javascript.
heavyset_go
The more time you spend looking for the result you want, the more ads you will see. Some of those spam domains are filled with ads, as well.
baskethead
What if we all started clicking on every ad on every spam page? Would they eventually get kicked off all the ad platforms for fraud?

The only reason why Google and Facebook work is because their algorithms believe that we only click on the ads that we're interested in. If we click on every single ad, we will completely break their system within 3-6 months.

hedora
No; your clicks would be labeled as fraud, but the page likely wouldn't.
jolmg
Adding -site:baddomain.com still seems to work in both Google and DuckDuckGo. You should be able to include that in the URL template used for search so it gets added to all queries. You can build your blacklist that way. E.g.

  https://duckduckgo.com/?t=hk&iar=images&q=-site:pinterest.com+-site:flickr.com+%s
As an aside, I haven't used Google in a while, and I find it interesting how the first page shows only like 5 results and at the very end. The rest of the page is widgets like "top stories" and "people also ask".