MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google Dislike Application to Send Bad Guys to digital hell!  (Read 8902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 06, 2011, 08:29 »
0
Ok I had this idea in another thread and felt it deserved it's own thread..

Quote from: cidepix
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..

I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..

Just imagine 100.000 contributors voting "dislike" on sites we don't like, sending them to the bottom of google search while the agencies with fair commission thrive!

Perfect World!  :D

I think we should suggest google a change in this direction.. We would need nothing else to keep the sites in good standard!

I truly believe this would be the end of lowering commissions and disrespecting suppliers as there are way too many suppliers to not take into account if such application had existed on google.

This could be the better and more effective solution than forming a union to protect our rights since we are all individuals on the web spread all around the world.. It is almost impossible to form a proper union because there will always be too many contributors who have not joined the union..

But if there was a tool like this, everybody, individually, without the need of a union, would help us have better agencies..

Come on now! Anybody knows how we let google know about this idea?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 08:38 by cidepix »


lisafx

« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2011, 08:32 »
0
I'm with you Cidepix.  This is a great idea!

« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2011, 08:34 »
0
 ::)

 ???

And we think astroturfing is a problem NOW?

« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2011, 08:54 »
0
I'm with you Cidepix.  This is a great idea!

Thanks Lisa,

@mantonino

how is this related to astroturfing?  :D

« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2011, 09:06 »
0
Miss-used this idea would be a tool of the devil. The unintended consequences could be truly devastating. Another concept with merit only in a perfect world where the inhabitants of the World Order dwell.

« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2011, 09:34 »
0
Absolutely impossible to realize.

Huge companies would buy hundreds of thousands of users (through many different ways) just to click on the dislike button of the competition.

It would be just a matter of the strongest survive. The small ones would be pushed out of the race by the sheer amount of money the big companies would throw in to buy dislikes.

It's not going to be fair either.

You will have 16 year old applicants that get rejected at Shutterstock disliking SS for not knowing what "great photography is" etc.
Stuff like that.

Useless.

You'd rather start a forum that solely focuses on the fair trade practices of stock agencies. This might be a useful resource for contributors.
There people can post all their horrible experiences along with the current TOS, commission rates, payout limits bla bla bla.

Maybe that will work.

« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2011, 09:37 »
0
It might work if there was a way to stop people abusing the system.  Google seem to be quite good at that with adsense.  I really can't see google going for this though, as they want to make money and businesses that get lots of dislikes aren't going to want to pay for advertising.

« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2011, 09:39 »
0
... I really can't see google going for this though, as they want to make money and businesses that get lots of dislikes aren't going to want to pay for advertising.

Correct. Google wants competition. They want companies to pay them lots of $$$ for ads, that's how they make money.

The dislike button would only take $$$ away from that.

« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2011, 09:51 »
0
Miss-used this idea would be a tool of the devil. The unintended consequences could be truly devastating. Another concept with merit only in a perfect world where the inhabitants of the World Order dwell.

Yep.

velocicarpo

« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2011, 10:04 »
0
It might work if there was a way to stop people abusing the system.  Google seem to be quite good at that with adsense.  I really can't see google going for this though, as they want to make money and businesses that get lots of dislikes aren't going to want to pay for advertising.

Yes, true! I absolutley love the Idea and I think google could stop abuse too. When Adsense got invented I thought too that it would fail for the potential abusive behaviour of many, but it didn`t happen. It should be only available to people with registered accounts and everyone should be allowed only to vote twice (or change the value of their vote, but not vote twice).

« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2011, 10:08 »
0
I thought about this myself.. even thought of Facebook having a dislike button. As said before.. it will only be used in a dishonest and inefficient way.

« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2011, 10:11 »
0
I thought about this myself.. even thought of Facebook having a dislike button. As said before.. it will only be used in a dishonest and inefficient way.

FB does have a dislike button but you need to install one app and then you will see if other dislike too etc..

« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2011, 10:41 »
0


You will have 16 year old applicants that get rejected at Shutterstock disliking SS for not knowing what "great photography is" etc.
Stuff like that.



SS will get many "likers" too! The ratio between "likes" and "dislikes" should be taken into account as well..

There are some evil agents who will not get many "likers" and that is what counts..

This tool could be great if abuse can be prevented...

« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2011, 10:54 »
0
It might work if there was a way to stop people abusing the system.  Google seem to be quite good at that with adsense.  I really can't see google going for this though, as they want to make money and businesses that get lots of dislikes aren't going to want to pay for advertising.

Yes, true! I absolutley love the Idea and I think google could stop abuse too. When Adsense got invented I thought too that it would fail for the potential abusive behaviour of many, but it didn`t happen. It should be only available to people with registered accounts and everyone should be allowed only to vote twice (or change the value of their vote, but not vote twice).

Or for example only members of certain sites who has been with that site for at least 3 years can cast a vote.. Just an idea...

It would nearly be impossible to abuse.. Let's say X site has 200.000 members and 120.000 has been a member for more than 3 years.. Only those people should be able to vote.. This will prevent sites creating fake accounts since they will have to wait 3 years to manipulate anything..

Or even better: you must have a google account older than 2 years to be able to participate.. There are many ways to prevent abuse..

« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2011, 12:49 »
0
SS will get many "likers" too! The ratio between "likes" and "dislikes" should be taken into account as well...

I highly doubt that.

First off, in general more people who have a negative experience will raise their voice than people who had a pleasant experience.

Secondly, according to my referrals on SS only 1 in 50 applicants gets in. That's 50 people who will be pi$$ed off vs. one who might not even "like" SS.

I doubt it would work...

« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2011, 13:26 »
0
Or for example only members of certain sites who has been with that site for at least 3 years can cast a vote.. Just an idea...

It would nearly be impossible to abuse.. Let's say X site has 200.000 members and 120.000 has been a member for more than 3 years.. Only those people should be able to vote.. This will prevent sites creating fake accounts since they will have to wait 3 years to manipulate anything..

Or even better: you must have a google account older than 2 years to be able to participate.. There are many ways to prevent abuse..

nothing is impossible to hack or abuse, and this suggestion cries out for misuse.  look at tripadvisor and other ratings sites that have obvious trolls and competitors spamming.  any anonymous system justs asks for abuse, with the victim having no way to address alleged problems



as far as poll tax requirements - how many sites get 200K 'members'?  why would google even want to address such a tiny proportion of the internet?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 13:28 by cascoly »

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2011, 13:29 »
0
Since I am into internet marketing also, with my own websites... a tool like this would be a dream and a nightmare. You could run some imacro script through proxies against a competing site to go for a higher listing in googles search. It could be used against your site too. I think I would rather this not come to be.


« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2011, 13:35 »
0
I highly doubt that.

First off, in general more people who have a negative experience will raise their voice than people who had a pleasant experience.

Secondly, according to my referrals on SS only 1 in 50 applicants gets in. That's 50 people who will be pi$$ed off vs. one who might not even "like" SS.

I doubt it would work...

compare the amazon feedback system - only 10-20% of my buyers bother to leave feedback,; on ebay it's about 80% response but that's because there is an incentive for ebay buyers to leave feedback..    but ebay also has an anonymous rating system that's abused - eg, i offer free s/h with my items, but i would still get ratings indicating my shipping charge was too high!   [ebay finally changed the system so buyers could not rate any free s/h products in that category, but only after years of complaints from sellers who were being punished by ebay]

poorly planned feedback and rating systems are much worse than npo system at all

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2011, 16:19 »
0
Oh yeah, just implement this, and watch it get abused by hackers, black-hat 'seo experts' and the rest... You'll wish it was never thought of.

Xalanx

« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2011, 16:55 »
0
Oh yeah, just implement this, and watch it get abused by hackers, black-hat 'seo experts' and the rest... You'll wish it was never thought of.

^^
...is the correct answer. This could very easily backfire and besides that, I'm sure someone at Google already discussed and perhaps dropped the idea.

RacePhoto

« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2011, 21:25 »
0
Oh yeah, just implement this, and watch it get abused by hackers, black-hat 'seo experts' and the rest... You'll wish it was never thought of.

^^
...is the correct answer. This could very easily backfire and besides that, I'm sure someone at Google already discussed and perhaps dropped the idea.

And part two of that, why not reward good sites with positive instead of taking the negative approach. Boost the ones that get positives, instead of being harmful and hurtful to the ones you don't like. Makes more sense? Seems some people are dwelling on revenge and harm as a solution. Positives are a better way to help the ones that do the right things.

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2011, 09:43 »
0
Oh yeah, just implement this, and watch it get abused by hackers, black-hat 'seo experts' and the rest... You'll wish it was never thought of.

^^
...is the correct answer. This could very easily backfire and besides that, I'm sure someone at Google already discussed and perhaps dropped the idea.

And part two of that, why not reward good sites with positive instead of taking the negative approach. Boost the ones that get positives, instead of being harmful and hurtful to the ones you don't like. Makes more sense? Seems some people are dwelling on revenge and harm as a solution. Positives are a better way to help the ones that do the right things.

Something like Google Plus?  ;D

RacePhoto

« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2011, 20:35 »
0
Oh yeah, just implement this, and watch it get abused by hackers, black-hat 'seo experts' and the rest... You'll wish it was never thought of.

^^
...is the correct answer. This could very easily backfire and besides that, I'm sure someone at Google already discussed and perhaps dropped the idea.

And part two of that, why not reward good sites with positive instead of taking the negative approach. Boost the ones that get positives, instead of being harmful and hurtful to the ones you don't like. Makes more sense? Seems some people are dwelling on revenge and harm as a solution. Positives are a better way to help the ones that do the right things.

Something like Google Plus?  ;D

What, the link or app that keeps making the pages here hang up and not load. That plusone.google.com which I'd like to shoot out of a canon! Or maybe the bullseye ads that also hangs up. I think it's the site, not the browser but I might be wrong. (never happened before?)  ::)

Lets face it, any plus system or negative system can be manipulated. Most have at minimum IP address recording, cookies and some version of memory so someone can't just keep coming back and voting all night long and so bots can't be set to do page hit and votes. But whether it's positive or negative, it's flawed.

Not to be picky but take for example the survey on the right for sales from sites. All it would take is some second tier or non-top six site to have a few stooges vote big sales numbers and it would push them up in the rankings. Make people think that someplace that sells under $5 a month was really hot like the big agencies. When the forum messages don't match the survey for a site, it's suspicious.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2011, 20:47 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2011, 00:40 »
0
@mantonino
how is this related to astroturfing?  :D

Because people would use XGenSEO to create new accounts that automatically voted competitors down.  I could setup XGen to do that in about an hour and have everyone on the top 5 pages of my top 10 keywords pushed so far down they'd never be seen again.

Or as someone said "watch it get abused by hackers, black-hat 'seo experts' and the rest... you'll wish it was never thought of."

Imagine this was implemented on Shutterstock.  Are you telling me if your income depended on it you wouldn't upload a series of say cheerleaders over white and then go vote down all the cheerleaders over white?  Be serious.  EVERYONE else would, even if you convince yourself you wouldn't.

« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2011, 12:04 »
0
what percentages of sites would need this feature? Which site in its right mind would still have this feature in it if it started getting all the negative dislikes. You cant possibly expect every site to have this feature including blog sites, the govt sites will will get tons of dislike features...

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2011, 12:51 »
0
Since I am into internet marketing also, with my own websites... a tool like this would be a dream and a nightmare. You could run some imacro script through proxies against a competing site to go for a higher listing in googles search. It could be used against your site too. I think I would rather this not come to be.

I agree...I could see a competitor using this to their advantage in a negative way. If they were desperate enough I could see them paying some people just to hit the dislike button. When it comes to money... unscrupulousness people will do anything to get the advantage.

RacePhoto

« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2011, 11:10 »
0
Since I am into internet marketing also, with my own websites... a tool like this would be a dream and a nightmare. You could run some imacro script through proxies against a competing site to go for a higher listing in googles search. It could be used against your site too. I think I would rather this not come to be.

I agree...I could see a competitor using this to their advantage in a negative way. If they were desperate enough I could see them paying some people just to hit the dislike button. When it comes to money... unscrupulousness people will do anything to get the advantage.

So true and has anyone else noticed the Internet Reputation Repair services that are now sprouting all over.

They claim that some sites have been doing reviews based on who paid them and driving business away from legitimate companies by posting bogus negative information, while they also put up good reviews for scams. This was true of those places that offered cameras for ridiculous low prices and then never shipped, unless you got talked into the over priced accessory kit.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3042 Views
Last post August 22, 2009, 20:21
by Lcjtripod
158 Replies
43210 Views
Last post October 30, 2009, 22:01
by traveler1116
4 Replies
3167 Views
Last post January 19, 2011, 16:51
by RacePhoto
34 Replies
9751 Views
Last post March 01, 2013, 20:40
by icefront
1 Replies
3102 Views
Last post November 15, 2013, 15:23
by cascoly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle