A lot of people are writing about how Google search results are being polluted by content farms, and that the cynical gaming of the Google algorithm in search of clicks is becoming a predominant feature of search results.
Maybe part of the answer is to look at who is clicking on what in the search results. Users with a higher reputation should carry more weight when assessing what links are clicked on (or starred, especially) by searchers.
How can users gain reputation? A bit chicken-and-egg but clearly sites need to develop a reputation too. A user who consistently clicks on and stars high-reputation sites will find his or her reputation enhanced. Sites that are clicked on by high-reputation users will get their reputation enhanced.
To do this, Google needs to know who you are. So clearly you need to be signed in to a Google account when you search. Then, more controversially, Google needs to record your clicks and your stars. At the moment your browing history is collected and your stars are recorded but Google promises not to use them in its search algorithm.
I guess it might freak some people out that Google is assessing what they click on so carefully.
But I would be happy for Google to use my clicks and stars to improve search results for everybody. I’d like an opt-in so they can do this.
It would be difficult for content farms to game this data since it relies on billions of distributed clicks. However many datacentres they filled with fake users clicking on their links it would not match the weight of real people really clicking on useful links.
Just a thought.
[UPDATE 10 Feb 2011]
As I was writing this, Microsoft Research published Making Bad Search Results History which says much the same thing. Zeitgeist, eh?
[UPDATE 15 Feb 2011]
And, hey presto, Google introduces a personal blocking tool that feeds information back to Google about sites you’ve blocked. That was quick, Google chaps. Thanks.