Google Trust Rank assessed by humans

Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness

V (Vital), Rel (Relevant) and Usf (Useful)

Google hires humans to evaulate websites.

"System and method for supporting editorial opinion in the ranking of search results".

2016 Google updates the search quality rating guidelines on March 28, reducing it from 160 to 146 pages. Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness . These raters are hired by outside vendors, not Google themselves, so I imagine quality varies, both by locale and language. But they are now specifically looking for people who are experts in Google search. When it comes to paywalls, Google is simply asking raters to release a task if they reach a paywall which is preventing access to the content. So we aren't seeing any kind of negative impact on paywalls in the quality rater guidelines… at least not yet.

An Interview With A Google Search Quality Rater
Quality Raters don't actually work for Google; they work for contractors such as Lionbridge, Leapforce, Butler Hill and possibly others. According to Lionbridge's Internet Assessors Program job page, it has more than 4,500 people around the world rating search results. Leapforce's website doesn't indicate how many are in its program, but the job listings page includes opportunities with names like “Search Engine Evaluator,” “Social Search Engine Evaluator” and “Search Quality Judge.”
The user [username]@gmail.com is not a member of EWOQ. Please contact the ratingprojects@google.com for access.

Page Quality Rating: Most Important Factors
Here are the most important factors to consider when selecting an overall Page Quality rating:
Main Content Quality and Amount: The rating should be based on the landing page of the task URL.
Website Information/information about who is responsible for the website: Links to help with website information research will be provided.
Website Reputation: Links to help with reputation research will be provided.
Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness: This is an important quality characteristic. Use your research on the areas above to inform your rating.

2015 GOOGLE MAPS IS RACIST BECAUSE THE INTERNET IS RACIST
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/google-maps-racist/?mbid=nl_052515
It's important to understand that while the technical function of producing racist results are similar to how a Googlebomb works , there's one very big fundamental difference: A Googlebomb is calculated. A group of people decided they wanted to game the “santorum” results and made it happen. In the case of the White House and other offensive Maps searches, the algorithm wasn't subject to a coordinated effort, it just gathered up all the data the internet could provide, and the google algorithm provided trash because their are no humans checking this stuff and the algorithm doesn't recognize human racism stupidity.
Typing in “nigga house” in Google Maps sends users to the White House. However, searching for “n***** king” also leads to the White House and typing in “n*****” or “nigga” pulls up other institutions that are predominately African American or associated with ethnic minorities. Howard University shows up as 'N***er University'on Google Maps

2016 A brand new version of the Google Quality Rater Guidelines has been released .

2013 International SEO: Both Google and Bing (and maybe some of the other large search engines per country) use human raters to evaluate search results - real human beings who evaluate whether your page deserves to be ranking for that keyword in the first place. They take a look at whether you have quality content that addresses the innate question that the keyword represents - this means that each piece of copy needs to be written by an in country translator who will adjust copy accordingly so that the nuances of the language provide the answer that the user is looking for. To appear in mobile search you'll need mobile optimized pages - in all languages for which you want to appear. This matters the most in Asian countries where most Internet users access the Internet via their phone.

Quality Rater General Guidelines April 6, 2007

Google was granted a patent August 22, 2006
The title is "System and method for supporting editorial opinion in the ranking of search results". For each web page/site identified as favored and non-favored, the editors may determine an editorial opinion parameter for that site... For each web page in the result set that is associated with one of the web sites in the set of affected web sites, the server may determine an updated score using an editorial opinion parameter for that web site. US Patent 7096214 patft.uspto.gov

PAT. NO. Title

1. 7,386,543 > System and method for supporting editorial opinion in the ranking of search results

2. 7,096,214 > System and method for supporting editorial opinion in the ranking of search results

3. Search Rankings are Dead: Long Live Search Placements 1/2010

Google Page Rank is actually controlled by humans who decide if you are in or out.
4 adds are now above its unpaid “editorial” search results. Editorial = they pick which one of their friends they are going to put there. So why should you try to pay - you can't beat nepotism.

Slap on the Wrist

90 Days Later, J.C. Penney Regains Its Google Rankings
J.C. Penney appears to be back in Google's good graces after a 90-day penalty that removed the retailer from appearing prominently in Google's search results for both short- and long-tail phrases. The company has regained first- and second-page rankings on a number of terms that were mentioned in a New York Times exposé of Penney's search rankings and the tactics used to get them — tactics that violated Google's guidelines.
J.C. Penney hasn't regained its search visibility based on Google recrawling its content and any automated changes, but instead based on the lifting of JCP's manual penalty. And it was just a couple months ago that Google officially explained how and when ranking penalties are removed — including the fact that manual penalties are often put in place for a fixed length of time. In J.C. Penney's case, it looks like that penalty was 90 days.

Matt Cutts Danny Sullivan SEO SEM Black Hats

Dan Sullivan Putting Humans Back In Search May 28, 2008

Google raters use the folloing in their comments about your site:

“valuable attributes” as being important.

As in, More information is better .

-V (Vital) -- Rel (Relevant) -- Usf (Useful)

-OT (Off Topic) NR (Not Relevant) DL (Didn't Load), MAL (Malicious), PPC (pay-per-click), FL (Foreign Language)

Skill Requirement : SEE JOB DESCRIPTION
Google is looking for a detail-oriented self-starter w/ excellent project management

Revised Rating

  • Vital" Some individuals have more than one blog and/or more than one homepage on a social networking site (e.g. myspace, facebook, friendster, mixi). When these pages are maintained by the individual (or an authorized representative of the individual), they are all considered to be Vital."
  • Useful"have valuable attributes
  • Relevant" relevant isn't always the most important issue.
    "A rating ofRelevant is assigned to pages that have fewer valuable attributes than were listed for Useful pages. Relevant pages might be less comprehensive, come from a less authoritative source, or cover only one important aspect of the query." This factor also comes into play when sites use formats or technology which prevent Google from extracting information used as signals.
  • Not Relevant
  • Off-topic
  • Didn't Load
  • Foreign Language
  • Unratable
True Merchants

Features that Recognize A True Merchant

  • a "view your shopping cart" link that stays on the same site and updates when you add items to it,
  • a return policy with a physical address,
  • a shipping charge calculator,
  • a “wish list” link, or a link to postpone purchase of an item until later,
  • a way to track FedEx orders,
  • a user forum, the ability to register or login,
  • a gift registry, or
  • an invitation to become an affiliate of that site”

Quality Sites can be depreciated and be mistaken for something else if any or some of these things aren't covered.

Search Engine Queries

User generated search engine queries are classified as:

  • navigational
  • informational
  • transactional
What happened to your site traffic?

Google: we're "the biggest kingmaker on this earth" -- Googleopoly Update
#Antitrust, #Conflict of Interest, #Fraud, #Freedom of Speech, # FTC, # Google #

2010 Google has “human raters” in its search “algorithm”
Google publicly admitted for the first time that its purported "neutral" and "unbiased" search algorithm is not completely-automated or computer-algorithmic like Google has long and consistently represented to the public. In a stunning first-time disclosure in a Richard Waters FT article by " the Google engineer responsible for its ranking algorithm ," Mr. Amit Singhal
Google uses human raters to assess the quality of individual sites These Google employees have the power to promote or even completely erase a site from the Google index.
This admission is potentially a very large problem for Google because it has maintained that its index rankings are unbiased and are computed from a natural pecking order derived from how other sites find a specific site important.

After a decade of passionate public representations that Google's vaunted search algorithm is "neutral' and unbiased, we now learn it has substantial regular human intervention to discriminate what site gets what ranking, who gets found and who does not, and who wins and who loses in the business of online content.

These rankings are worth huge amounts of money to many web sites and changes in rankings can put companies out of business. Google is currently being sued by several companies claiming bias in Google results. Scott Cleland, whose blog "The Precursor"
"... this first-ever disclosure by Google that "human raters" manually discriminate in the "quality scores" that determine a website's supposed neutral and unbiased search ranking, exposes a rats nest of conflicts of interest that Google has in its "black box" business model."
He says that antitrust authorities are bound to ask key questions such as: "If links are a factor in determining the rank of content, and Google's advertising revenue is derived from sites' search rankings, how does Google ensure the human raters of the SDB are not influenced to reward Google-owned content or Google partners' content that Google revenue shares with?"

2011 Organic links are Over

Googleoppoly: Check out Google-DoubleClick's ranking of "The 1000 most-visited sites on the web."

  • Note there is no asterisk or disclaimer on the ranking on this web-page, only a link "learn more about this list."
  • Note that conveniently all of Google's competitors are at the top of the ranking, but Google or none of its many most-popular-in-the-world sites like Google: Search, YouTube, Maps, Earth, News, Finance, Picassa, Adsense, Adwords, Docs, Analytics, are on this Google ranking of " The 1000 most-visited sites on the web " -- even though they would be included in any honest and neutral site ranking.
  • Note that the media is tricked to report on this deceptive ranking as if it is neutral. For example, see PC Magazine's article : " Facebook Obliterates Rivals in Google list of Top Sites."

EVERTHING - Example of Job ID: Jobsquare.323561~AIOSIntlSe
Company Name:GOOGLE.COM
Job Title: Int'l Search Quality Coord (Contract)
Country: UNITED STATES CA
City: Mountain View
Experience: More than Not Listed work experience.
Salary Range: Not Specified
Post Date: 14-11-2001
http://groups.google.com/
group/ba.jobs/browse_thread/thread/bc4f1dec633b9120/84689e43
4c38a1fb?q=%22search+quality%22+google+jobs&rnum=3&hl=en&pli=1

For a complete job listings and to submit your resume, go to
http://www.jobsquare.com

Job ID: Jobsquare.323561~AIOSIntlSe
Company Name: GOOGLE.COM
Job Title: Int'l Search Quality Coord (Contract)
Country: UNITED STATES
State: CA
City: Mountain View
Experience: More than Not Listed work experience.
Salary Range: Not Specified
Post Date: 14-11-2001

Skill Requirement : SEE JOB DESCRIPTION
Job Description :
Google is looking for a detail-oriented self-starter w/ excellent project management and communication skills, as well as strong analytic ability, to coordinate the work of our international search quality evaluators. Work involves recruiting native speakers for specific evaluation projects, explaining evaluation tasks and answering questions, monitoring to ensure evaluation quality, and pulling evaluation data together into a polished report. BA/BS required. MS/PhD in the social sciences desired. Demonstrated project management skills, particularly handling multiple projects under deadline. Background and experience in data analysis and statistics. Experience with quality evaluation. Fluent speaker of English and one of the following languages: Japanese, Korean, Chinese, French, Spanish, German, or Italian. Able to legally work in the US. Computer literate (word processing / spreadsheets). Familiarity w/ Internet search, particularly multilingual search.
This is a contract position -- local candidates only.

View our employer listings and their jobs at http://www.jobsquare.com
PLEASE REFERENCE POSITION #jobsquare - Jobsquare.323561~AIOSIntlSe. This way,the recruiter knows which job you are applying for or email your resume to jobs@google.com

we love
LIBRARIANS and CYBRARIANS

  • Librarians have critical thinking skills that allow them to look at a question from many angles before working on the answer.
  • Librarians understand nuances that aren't contained in the text of a book or web site.
  • Librarians have muti-dimensional problem solving skills. They understand that questions could lead to more questions and answers could lead to more problems.
  • Librarians recognize differences in their users that search engines have yet to learn. Humans know more about human motivation than computers could ever understand.
  • Librarians ask questions. They are taught to ferret out the researcher's real question through reference interviews. Researchers often don't know how to ask the right question to get the answer they are seeking. Reference interviews aren't set questions and answers that a computer can put forth and understand. They are discussions between two human beings that lead to a better understanding of the question by both parties and better answers for the researcher.