

Introduction to Google Ranking  - Anon84
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/introduction-to-google-ranking.html

======
petercooper
This piece mentions "No manual intervention" and backs that up with some
reasons why Google supposedly doesn't have any manual intervention in the
ordering of search results.

If that's true, then does that mean the eval.google.com "secret" back-end
application supposedly used by teams of moderators to manipulate search
results was a fabrication or just not under the principle of "manual
intervention"? Or, do activities two years ago not count in the principles
shared today?

<http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/29726.htm>
[http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/01/1532216&tid=...](http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/01/1532216&tid=217)
[http://www.searchbistro.com/index.php?/archives/19-Google-
Se...](http://www.searchbistro.com/index.php?/archives/19-Google-Secret-
Lab,-Prelude.html) [http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/is-eval-google-back-on-
track.ht...](http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/is-eval-google-back-on-track.html)

Marissa Meyer is also supposed (and a big stress on /supposed/) to have said
that Google has 10,000 people checking search results for relevance:

[http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2007/06/26/GoogleScalabili...](http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2007/06/26/GoogleScalabilityConferenceTripReportScalingGoogleForEveryUser.aspx)

~~~
Angostura
I don't see any conflict. You suggest that that eval is used to "manipulate
search results". It could just as easily be used to score results and flag up
problems in the ranking mechanisms.

As the man says, they are constantly refining the algorithm, - so presumablt
they need constant feedback on how well the algorithm's working.

No?

~~~
petercooper
That's part of it, sure, but multiple sources use language like:

"Quality raters apparently spend their time checking search results,
deprecating spam, moving the best results to the top of the search result
stack, and (possibly) testing experimental Google features."

[http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/06/behind_the_alg...](http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/06/behind_the_algorithmic_facade.html)

and

"They are paid to check search results of Google every day. Most of the
employees, called international agents by Google, were recruited through
universities all over the world. The aim is to avoid spam, to get the right
sites at the top of the listing and to test new features, not shown to the
public yet."

[http://www.searchbistro.com/index.php?/archives/19-Google-
Se...](http://www.searchbistro.com/index.php?/archives/19-Google-Secret-
Lab,-Prelude.html)

"moving the best results to the top", "avoid spam" and "get the right sites at
the top of the listing" suggested human manipulation to me at the time.

Of course, none of the several sources that talked about the rater hub project
were Google itself, so determining the truth is difficult, but that was part
of the reason I raised the question.

------
wave
"Today, I would like to briefly share the philosophies behind Google ranking:

1) Best locally relevant results served globally.

2) Keep it simple.

3) No manual intervention"

