Just filed my feedback with them but wanted to hear what you think of this. I was checking out Google News this morning and I found this link: http://www.unitedrant.co.uk/archives/2006/04/change_the_law.html Check out their strap line in the left vertical writing. I wouldn't say I was offended but I can't believe Google regards such a website as a quality enough resource to link to. There must be 10 better ones than that at least! Seems like it's pretty easy to get approved as a source... Anyones tried it for traffic/backlinks? What do you think about Google allowing such language?
The cursing is in an image, so they probably didn't catch it, especially if a human being didn't "select" this news.
Hardly a good excuse though is it. And it points out a major flaw then in their assumption they can sort quality information algorithmatically (if that's a word). What you are saying is probably the case indeed - it seems then that all that is required to get in is a couple of recommendations and probably fresh content.
Haha, I wish I could get away with talkingh like that on my sites... I'm surprised they linked to it, but like jackburton says, It's an image so they most likely didn't catch it (Maybe they should start using OCR on images, although I can imagine that having problems)... Also the image has no alt tag, I'm sure if it did they wouldn't let it in.
maybe I didn't understand the question, but google indexes porn sites with MUCH more 'exciting' language than that.
Well, it all boils down to whether those words bother you. Obviously Google can't "read" image files like that. But who cares? Should the inclusion of this word negate the whole site? I don't believe so.
Sure they index porn - but including that source as a 'quality news source' seems to go right against what is conventionally accepted in that industry. The BBC apologizes if on a live airing someone swears. Hell will break loose if the newsreader were to read out that sentence. It's also a matter of standards. By including them Google seems to suggest that they, out of many other sources, are preffered on that topic. For public relations / image purposes I wouldn't let them in. I'm not overly bothered by it myself, just surprised to see it show up. And yes, for me those words would negate the rest of the site. I mean, is it all that necessary? What does it add for the end user experience? If they want to attract foul language football scum then I guess it can work out well but then they shouldn't be listed in main stream news sources like Google News IMO. It's not famliy friendly and nowhere does Google warn about potential explicits or the need to be over 18. And in January they took it out of Beta, so that's no excuse either.
I hear ya, but the technology isn't up to detecting it yet... Simple as that... You can't expect Google (A company built on automation) to human-check every site that it links to in Google News. Not saying I disagree with you at all (I don't think the language is acceptable), I just don't see a way around it until OCR for search is used more frequently OR they verify sites using humans... That's the danger of automation I guess. :/
True, but even then, you can raise the treshold on when you accept a source. I doubt this site has many links from reputable sources... Maybe relevant ones, that don't mind the language, but a lack of trusted links could indicate trouble. Anyway, I'll check a couple of times to see whether they did anything with my feedback submission. Would be interesting to hear what the offical stance on that sort of thing is.
It depends how this site got into Google News. If they picked it up themselves then they have clearly made a decision (automatically or not) to include the source. Alternatively if the site was syndicated by a respected site and then listed in google news through the respected site then there is not much they can do other than warn the site in question. Using PRweb you can pay $40 and get into google news with anything you want. Traffic depends on the search term but there are some good links to be gained. Certainly $40 worth anyway.
I've seen them link to a page where you actually have to subscribe in order to read the article. I don't think this is a good site to link to...
The fact that the image is there and reads what it reads does not mean that it was there when Google first reviewed the site and approved it as a news source. My bet is it was added afterwards. I am sure that submitting your fedback to Google will trigger a new review and the site will be dropped from their news index (unless they take the tagline down now that they see the many referers from this thread).
I doubt DP as a refferer stands out between the many hits originating from Google News. But yes, maybe they added it later. Got a canned response from Google, hopefully they'll pull it.
Methinks quality does not quite matter to Google at the moment. Their mission, with almost everything they do, seems to be quantity over quality. Adsense publishers, sites indexed, etc.
Good point and well observed... Pretty sad though isn't it, not like it's helping anyone but their pockets...