The DuckDuckGo approach of just blacklisting a few of the larger and more egregious content farms seems like a decent band-aid. It's not a real fix, but it cuts out a large number of the bad cases, since at least for me, a handful of large content farms account for most of the times when I've accidentally clicked on a Google result and then realized "oh ugh, it's one of these sites". Spammy blogs are the other big problem, but there's no easy band-aid for that one.
The DuckDuckGo approach of just blacklisting a few of the larger and more egregious content farms seems like a decent band-aid.
I really like that they take a pro active approach to issues. It was one of the main reasons I switched.
Spammy blogs are the other big problem, but there's no easy band-aid for that one.
A lot of "spammy blogs" are owned and operated by the same people. The whois data is usually enough to tip you off. I do not see why some spiders do not do a whois query and black list the owner/company; at least for a set period of time, and allow appeals.
> just blacklisting a few of the larger and more egregious content farms seems like a decent band-aid.
The real band aid would be to enable users to blacklist sites that they don't want to see. I often search for things and come across the same spam sites that I do not want, over and over.
After that a distributed trust model should be built so that users can share blacklists of spam sites.
It is not google news but sites which aggregate search terms. A good example is www.eudict.com which repeatedly puts up other peoples' search terms as real words.
(If you are searching for some words, you are flooded with EUDicks search spam)
