Wednesday, March 04, 2009

More than once someone has asked me if there is a way to get Google to change their search results to exclude mean, inaccurate, defamatory, rude, or otherwise hard-to-swallow web pages. Often the desire motivating the question is legitimate, as someone has been smeared unfairly or - even worse - in a completely fabricated and malicious fashion, sometimes by anonymous online personalities.

The short answer is, "Probably not."

Now, before you think the proper solution is to have Google block the pages from their search results, it's important to understand that Google is not the Internet, and that it's not really making recommendations to you when it lists web pages that match what you're looking for. Rather, it's showing you an extensive list of links to content out there on the Internet that seems to match what you're looking for.

And that's what Google's search engine is: A way to find information created by other people and displayed on the Internet. It's not a filter that's meant to decide good from bad, who's right and who's wrong, who's lying or telling the truth, etc.

That said, there are things that Google works hard to avoid showing you. Spammy pages (especially ones that try to game Google's own advertising systems) are filtered out, and there are a couple topics that won't return results in their adsense and adwords advertising systems (just try to set up adsense on a site that sells or promoted firearms, for example). So they're not completely hands off, but for the most part they don't discriminate.

When you want to have a web page removed from the search listings at Google, the most effective (and almost the only) way to do so is to convince the person controlling the web page to change the information or remove it. If you can't get them to do that, it might be time to go to a court - assuming you have convincing proof that the page is inaccurate and/or malicious, etc.

Granted, if a judge sends Google a legal notice requiring them to take action, they'll probably do so. But good luck getting a judge to agree to do that.

Always go after the source of the problem. It's not Google's fault that some mean person posted a page that says you're a jerk and thief (even though you're not). But you might be able to convince a judge that the person you claim is defaming you should change or remove the page. If that happens, Google's indexing bots will automatically update the search results the net time they crawl the offending pages and see the content has changed.

Matt Cutts has a good article (with a great graphic) discussing this. Here's a brief excerpt of what Matt tells people when they ask him the same question:

We really don’t want to be taking sides in a he-said/she-said dispute, so that’s why we typically say “Get the page fixed, changed, or removed on the web and then Google will update our index with those changes the next time that we crawl that page.”

His post prompted me to think about this again since I get this type of question several times a year. Just keep in mind that while it's an emotionally difficult thing to have someone write mean things and lies about you for all to see, it's a relatively clinical process to try to get that information changed or removed. Just make sure you stay calm and look to the right people to help with driving those changes.

Google's official page that addresses how to remove content from the company's search results is located at:

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=136868



Add/Read: Comments [10]
IT Security | Tech
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:10:44 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I consider blocking adsense from sites promiting firearms descriminatory.

It would be more acceptable to say blocking adsense from sites promiting political view points.

I know this was an example but it is an example of how companies play politics and push their viewpoints.
xdtke
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:59:43 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Hey Greg - you made it into a Matt Cutts tweet.

http://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/1279503807
Matt hartley
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:08:55 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Greg, your view is pretty naive and makes me think you haven't actually dealt with cases of online harassment. Its easy to say "go to court" ("let them eat cake"), but that's not practical for the average internet user. Have you ever sued anybody? Do you know how much it costs and how long it takes? Meanwhile, a person or small business could have their livelihood destroyed.

We are not so concerned about individual incidents of harassment that occur on any social media site. Most sites act in good faith to clean up messes. You go to the site, ask for help, and they comply. The organized scams are another matter. Asking them for help is only going to intensify the harassment. Those site's sole purpose is to game the system. They want to damage people's reputations by ranking high in Google. When Google turns a blind eye to this egregious abuse, they become morally responsible for the results.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 3:25:19 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
@xdtke - I tend to agree with you. I was both surprised and a bit disappointed when I first discovered firearms and weapons related content was specifically excluded from the advertising program. I won't pretend to know the reasons Google has for that decision, but I do think it's unfortunate.

@Jonathan Hochman - I'm not naive. Not in the least, at least where this type of offense is concerned. I've been an Internet security professional for years, have been smeared myself a couple of times online, and I worked in law enforcement for years and have dealt professionally with both online and carbon-based harassment, defamation, libel, slander and stalking many, many times. Note that Harassment is a criminal act, and where it happens and can be proven it doesn't necessarily take a lawsuit to get content adjusted. Judges will often be willing to intervene. Defamation, libel and slander are typically civil offenses, so you might have to sue to get traction there. You're the SEO expert, so I won't try to play in that court and will defer to your expertise, but I will say that it's far from impossible for the average person to take action. Sure, there are outlier cases, but not every situation is quite so extreme.

In any case, I stick by my position that Google is not the content, it's just a way to *find* the content that exists elsewhere, and until it gets cleaned up at the source, the problem will persist.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 6:28:46 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
You may not be able to have undesirable results removed from google but there are other, legitimate ways to make a difference and alternatives to the law.

Assuming they are just a couple of random and erroneous pages, a decent, strategic PR campaign that generated articles and blog posts would raise your online visibilty and relegate the less relevant negative results into the obscurity of page 2 or 3.

Not black-hat, just a by-product of genuine reputation building!

Of course, if lots of people hate you, it would be a tough task!

Al

Wednesday, March 04, 2009 6:32:46 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)

"...Google is not the Internet, and that it's not really making recommendations to you when it lists web pages that match what you're looking for. Rather, it's showing you an extensive list of links to content out there on the Internet that seems to match what you're looking for. And that's what Google's search engine is: A way to find information created by other people and displayed on the Internet. It's not a filter that's meant to decide good from bad, who's right and who's wrong, who's lying or telling the truth, etc."

That's almost true, but not quite. Google certainly does filter the information that is shown in search results; what's more, it applies certain (secret) standards to decide whether or not a page or site should be indexed at all.

There's also the matter of the order in which results are displayed, which is definitely an expression (algorithmic though it may be) of Google's determination of "good vs. bad" results.

What initially separated Google from other search engines was the application of a principle derived from the scientific publishing world: a non-contextual measure of a work's quality can be inferred by the number of references to that work.

Granted, without filtering and ranking, a search engine would be quite hard to use. But we should be cognizant of the fact that there *is* an editorial voice at work behind the scenes, even if it's algorithmic, and that occasionally there will be valid reasons to dispute the results.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:30:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
A couple more thoughts on reader comments:
"Assuming they are just a couple of random and erroneous pages, a decent, strategic PR campaign that generated articles and blog posts would raise your online visibilty and relegate the less relevant negative results into the obscurity of page 2 or 3."


Good point. It's all about relevance, and campaigning the positive can, in fact, relegate the negative to a position lower in the ranked list.

"There's also the matter of the order in which results are displayed, which is definitely an expression (algorithmic though it may be) of Google's determination of 'good vs. bad' results."


Except that it's not about good vs. bad. Google's results rank based on more relevant vs. less relevant. Again, I hear ya and agree with the big-picture, but disagree in the details because I think they matter. Good and bad imply a moral or other subjective, opinion-based judgment is taking place. And maybe Matt or someone else can clarify, but I don't believe that's the case (in the search results, at least).

And even if Google removed the results from their database of information, the offending information would still be out there.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009 8:48:00 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I am not too concerned about all the minor cases of abuse. Most of those can be fixed through normal channels.

I am concerned about a few bad actors who game Google's results to purposefully violate copyright, harass people, or damage reputations on a large scale. That sort of systematic abuse could be detected algorithmically, and those sites could be downranked. Disinformation does not help search users. It would be a benefit for Google to filter out that noise, the same way they filter out spam and pages that host malware.

Something I look for in a website is an editorial policy that explains where content comes from, how it has been verified, and the copyright status. I look for signs that user generated content has been posted by real people rather than sock puppet accounts. If I can spot abuse at a glance, surely Google can create an algorithm to do the same, or at least to flag suspicious content for human review (the same way they do for suspected webspam). They don't need to do a perfect job, but I think they should be willing to look for egregious cases and do something about them.

The argument that removing crap from Google won't solve the problem is false. Material on the web that does not rank highly in Google is much less problematic. Take away that visibility, and the bad actors have a lot less incentive to create abusive content. Without Google traffic, the scams just won't pay well enough to be worth it. With great power comes great responsibility.
Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:08:03 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
@Jonathan Hochman
I agree with you, wholeheartedly. Having been slandered by a competitor is common in the online SEO world. Especially where that competitor is suffering the illusion they can be the only one writing about a common subject such as SEO. Obviously having an optimised site can bring more visitors to your site, but are those visitors relevant is the question a good SEO company asks.

A poor one just promises higher visitor numbers, that's easy to do. What as you know is not is providing relevant visitors to the clients site.

For this reason Google, The good guys will in most cases remove the offending page from the search stats, why? Because it is not relevant to the searchers to see this kind of anti-competitive behaviour or slander.

Complain and they will in a lot of cases simply bomb the site. No loss to Google and more importantly more relevance to the searchers.


So way to go Google, get rid of the anti-competitive designers and faux search engine 'experts' who only use automated tools - which is against Google terms anyway....



Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:08:04 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
"it's important to understand that Google is not the Internet, and that it's not really making recommendations to you when it lists web pages that match what you're looking for."

This is incorrect on many levels, and just excuses search engines from responsibility.

Google is, in all intents and purposes, a website. You use it to search for things. If by chance, through their service you happen upon this bad info or slander or false information, it is on their service. It is not just a link, but a brief detail, which is bad enough for people obviously to complain. Yes, a big job to watch for this, but by far a much easier job to correct the issue when made aware. This has been succesful with picture sites, for removing hateful pictures, the only reason google does not assist is because the don't have to and won't. A poor company with bad principles. You create something to use for the public, you have a responsibility to police it, otherwise make it private.
Nemo
Name
E-mail
Home page

Comment (Some html is allowed: b, blockquote@cite, em, i, strike, strong, sub, sup, u) where the @ means "attribute." For example, you can use <a href="" title=""> or <blockquote cite="Scott">.  

Live Comment Preview