Ideas

This is interesting. Certainly I'd love a way to filter out all those search engine spam pages. Integrating this into a firefox bar would make the process far easier than google's submit spam system, which I think would increase useage. I think if this would integrate well with the browser - so it flags/autohides links on a page if they are downrated, it would really improve the browsing experience. I like the potential to be site/search independant.

I'm sure there would be a lot of technical limitations, and you'd have to prevent gaming the system, but this is an idea I really like.

It would be cool to have. Your site could get dugg on digg.com or buried on berryit.com.

There are a few things that came to mind after reading through the idea:

1. This would have to be limited to a browser functionality (i.e. extension) in something like Firefox, otherwise people wouldn't be able to benefit from all the "work" that went into burying sites. This would limit your potential user base to only those using Firefox or other extensible browsers.

2. I'm not sure I would want to spend time doing "work" for other people without some sort of reward. When researching online I have very limited time, and would not be too concerned with flagging a site as useless but would instead just move on. As long as you're using quality search engines and search engine techniques, I think you'll find the "good stuff" which means that you don't necessarily have to flag the "bad" stuff because it will be inherently bad in the sense that it's not at the top of the "good" list. Did that make any sense? :)

beancounter, for me the advantage would be having some sort of action to take when I run across a spam site. I think being able to blacklist a site has the same advantage and usefulness as being able to bookmark good stuff. After all, two weeks later running the same or a similar search, I may not remember which site was completely useless. This would handle it for me.

As for being limited to pluggable browsers, I'm pretty sure you can write toolbars for IE these days as well as firefox. Toolbars/plugins are fairly essential features for modern browsers.

I like the idea as it puts the control back into end user's hands. Definitely worth pursuing.

- Srikanth

bean, obviously you don't use Digg or Stumbleupon as millions of others do. People don't consider it "work" to click a button. However, I do see your point that there needs to be a benefit to clicking the button. Digg and Stumbleupon both have a social aspect to them. I'll work on that.

If you created a bar for IE and one for Firefox you would hit probably 90% of the browsers in use, not to mention that most of the people drawn to a product like this are likely Firefox users. Secondly, if it used a simple +/- voting system, it could be done with key combinations, thus making it very simple for the end user.

As somebody that does not use digg or any other such site, however, I am unsure of the user-base or how this product would compare to others.

How are you going to manipulate the results from other search engines exactly?

thebeancounter Posted: March 26, 2008, 3:14 pm wrote

2. I'm not sure I would want to spend time doing "work" for other people without some sort of reward...

Not so sure about this, people rate things for free all the time. Take a look at amazon and book reviews or eopinions.

My original idea was to have a plugin for a browser tool bar that would allow you to vote a site down (the opposite of Digg which votes sites up). Now with Digg, in order to get any advantage for the Dugg sites, people have to go to Digg to actually see who is on the front page and then visit the site from there. There is nothing on their toolbar to tell them if a site is rated well on digg. Now, I really wish this could be a toolbar extension that allows users to vote down sites and them somehow have them removed from their searches automatically. That would be one of the greatest things since Digg. How to accomplish this I haven't a clue. Maybe someone here does though. There are popup blockers, ad blockers, spyware blockers, why not a berry blocker? Also, Google has an extension that shows page rank for each page viewed. Maybe we could do something like that. Just have the toolbar ext show how a page is rated by our site or something.

The main focus for us is to find a way to get rid of the clutter on the net by using the wisdom of the crowds, much like Digg and Stumble.

I like this idea

I would think you could use the same techniques (whatever they are) as ad-removal plugins. I assume these manipulate the DOM.

Someone here is smart enough to make this happen (not me of course).
Step up whomever you are! I've got $100 cambros to burn!

New research. Google's search API now lets you define CSS styles per different types of search results. So in theory, if you have this plugin installed, when you do a search any sites we have tagged could show up as a different color. That would solve lots of problems and make it pretty easy to do.

I second VanHees.
Sounds good.

Anyone want to get to work on Google's search api and see if this thing flies?

This is basically what StumbleUpon does, right? They add their logo and a stumbleupon ranking Google search results if you have the stumbleupon plugin installed. Basically you want the same kind of infrastructure and plugin as stumbleupon except you want to focus on negative ratings to flag bad stuff rather than promoting good stuff.

Exactly micco. And also a web site that will list these sites so that site owners can sign up to see if their sites are listed. Stumbleupon allows you to vote down a site but stumbleupon is a social network site that will list sites that you may be interested in based on how you normally vote. This isn't exactly the same but the mechanics may be similar.

I envision thousands with this plugin going through their everyday searches and clicking this button or digg or others. Eventually we will have a database of sites that have been voted to be buried (or berried if we coin that phrase for trademark reasons). With enough buzz, site owners will begin to take down those pages and sites or changing them. It is a public service that we will be performing.

Now I can see this as a democratic way to also voice your opinions about certain types of sites, like liberal versus conservative sites. Either way will be good.

If we have a social aspect to our site it would be to have people to be able to form into groups (Mothers Against Banner Ads) and have them meet and stratagize together to vote down banner ad sites. It would be very web 2.0 and also make way for the new 3.0.

Check out this link. http://www.ratepoint..._17_08_verisign.html

So far we need a plugin or extension for Firefox that when a button is clicked, that webpage address is sent to a database. This is a vote to bury the site. Also, when a search is performed or a page is rendered the database should be queried to tell the user the status of that page on our site and either have a rating button or either hide the site altogether.

Anyone available to try this?

I personally think this has to flag things -before- you visit the site to be useful. If I'm searching on google, I'd like the berried sites to be hidden or strikethrough'd or something. Because if the plugin doesn't help me to not go to the sites, it's not providing me any value. Going to a spam page and getting notified that 'hey, this is a spam page' is telling me the obvious.

Another option would be for each user to not only vote on sites but also to categorize them. I've been reading about an extension that allows you search without Ebay, About.com, and Wikipeia results coming up.

This extension may blossom into something more. With the wisdom of the crowds behind it, we could really make searching pleasurable if individuals and not robots were determining what is good and what isn't. So for instance you could install the extension and check that you don't want any porn, ebay listings, or sites with banner ads. Even though there are multi millions of pages on the net, a group of 1000 people on a mission to eradicate the web of any pages that misspell the word "bananna" could get it done pretty quickly.

A more democratic web where I choose what comes up in my search and not some damn robot. If only!

"A more democratic web where I choose what comes up in my search and not some damn robot. If only!"

At some point, it won't really be a search anymore.

That might be too harsh Summer ;)

1. I do not see money in this project, nowhere (e.g. paid ?? 'plug-in' for free browser?)

2. Stumble upon has thumbs down and full reporting feature ( for adult or otherwise ill fitting content.

3. I.E. still accounts for major portion of the market base (still can't see any) and it has fishing filter (with reporting feature)

4.How would you cover legal issues when sued by 'innocent' websites 'attacked by the mob' ?

etc.

A.

Wiz4rd, I'll cover each of your items separately.

1. Stumble upon and Delicious are worth millions. This would start out as a free site and maybe add premium service for advertisers in the future. I'd rather keep it free and then build the user base. After that its about attracting a buyer. Stumbleupon is reportedly going to be sold for $40-$75 million dollars.

2. Yes Stumbleupon has the thumbs-down feature but the main focus of the site is to vote sites up for individuals. Our plugin will deal with actual search results being filtered based on group votes. You may have certain sites or certain types of sites or certain subjects that you would not like to have included in your searches, you would join or start a group to find and eradicate these types of sites from your personal searches. For instance, I hate when foreigners with little command of the English language build adsense sites to try and get my clicks. If I had this plugin, I could start or join a group that hated the same things. As they find sites they would tag them and so would I.

3. I mentioned Firefox because its growing in popularity and is the easiest to build plugins for. In the future we could do IE also.

4. I've never heard of any website doing a poll and then being sued by the loser. However, if we were to maliciously slander a certain site then I could see repercussions. This will not be anything like that. We simply give our opinion as to a certain site and its up to the individuals to decide. That is something to look into however. Thanks for the comments.

Connecting people that hate, manipulating search results (you think there could be problems with paid search results and the companies that paid for it?

So you mean personalized search results (re-ordering) to exclude or low-rank websites you do not like. I think you can filer and exclude from search already on google already.

I just want to get this right, it is like a child protection filtering program but limiting you even further?

Well groups that love to hate are getting popular so i can see people wanting to go and click their 'I-HATE' button (i would forever wonder which sites i missed out on..)

This idea has changed from the original intent at the beginning of the post to something new and fresh and I like this later version better. At the outset the idea was to somehow tag the site we found that we didn't like and cause them to rank lower or be taken down all together but now the idea is more of a filtered search for individuals based on a group effort for finding sites they commonly don't like. This way there is no legal implifiction and no trouble with Google. So to clarify a bit; it will be a filter built by groups of people and not by bots that search for meta tags and keywords. So a searcher can sign up for different groups and the groups, in their daily searches, find and tag sites that they feel should be eradicated from their searches. Maybe we could have a voting system for each group whereby they visit tagged sites and then agree or disagree with the tag. This way one malicious person couldn't cause havoc. This is fresh and new and has that social aspect to it. Thanks to everyone who agreed and disagreed with the idea.

Once again the wisdom of the crowds has shown through like a beacon and has changed this idea into something better. So Wiz4rd, does this sound better to you?

How does this sound for a tagline, "The Web, Your Way."

I just skipped down to the comment (2 above). This clarified and made it more interesting to me.

My previous comment might still apply: If I select a group that filters my searches and one day I notice that I have trouble finding something, it might help to have an adjustment for the filters. Would toggle-on/off be too drastic? The group process is a slow continuous training, right? So, would it be possible and helpful to also have discrete filter increments?

Thanks for the comment Summertime, Yes that could be an option. I hadn't thought about what happens when someone selects a group two years after they have been working on a particular filter. I guess it would be a good idea to show all of the sites each group has filtered and also have the groups periodically check those sites to see if the owner has made changes that would allow it to be unfiltered. Or if you disagree with the group you can uncheck a filtered site. Great suggestions. Oh and we have had someone step up to work on this plugin.

Hmm, this sounds like it's turning into a human-indexed search engine, something that has been done with various levels of success. I'm not sure if any of the others used a browser plugin though. It sounds like you can signup to be a tagger for a particular keyword? I can see the advantages of that, but what happens if I find a great site for a topic I'm not signed up for?

Sort of like a human indexed search engine but in reverse. Human indexed search engines vote to allow a certain site to be included. With ours, all sites are included until voted to be taken off search results by the group.

I don't see it as a per keyword basis, but more per genre I guess although keywords may play a part in it.

As an example, let's say that an English teacher starts a group because she doesn't want to include any site that has bad grammar in the content. Other English teachers and maybe their students sign on. Now every time they find a site with bad grammar they tag it. The other members can see all new sites tagged and can then offer their opinion and vote to include or exclude the site from their personal search.

Now, someone new to our site says to themselves, "I also don't like sites with bad grammar" and so they check a box that will let them know when this group has found a site, it is then up to them to decide whether to agree or disagree. After a while if a particular group is well respected and has a keen knack for finding bad sites then a searcher can just choose to include all sites from that group.

Keep the comments coming so we can really nail this thing down.

Hmm. Is there any filtering for duplicate groups ("bad grammer", "bad grammar", "can't you use english properly!" could all be very similar )? Is there feedback on why a site is filtered? Ie, I can look to see that x site is downmarked by 'no bad grammer' but not by 'bad science', and then choose to view it any way? If I'm signed up for multiple groups, can I choose which groups I want to tag it with.

On the one hand, I like the idea of tagging why a site is bad ( too many trolls, author opposes/supports [political viewpoint], slow load time, seo spam page), but i could see this getting really cliquey too.

How are you defining 'genres' ? Is "programming" a genre? what about "php"? What about "code standards"? Or "the internet". A really good post about the best way to handle something in java would be a positive under a 'programming' or 'java' label, but a downvote on 'php'. A recipie for pecan pie would be great for 'desserts' or 'southern food' or 'nuts', but knocked off 'low carb', or 'allergy free'. If I'm searching for 'whole wheat crust pecan pie', what genre do I look under? You've got millions of very very fine grained searches to match with this, and I'm not sure how that's being handled.

It'd be very valuable information to know that x site is good for keywords q-z, but not for a, c, or i, but I'm not sure if this idea is going to be able to handle that level of complexity.

I suppose my original concept of this idea was a way to mark pages that are -universally- bad. Spam pages, scam pages, phishing schemes. However, there's always going to be disagreements on what is bad. (how many republicans would try to bury democrat sites, and vice versa).

I think we have defined the idea down a little too much. The original intent wasn't to bury pie sites but maybe pie sites with banner ads flashing "Buy this pie!"

As for genres, I guess programming could be a genre and a group that abhors php could get together and limit their searches by filtering any site using php. I think this is the greatness of the site. It needs to be there for the serious minded and also the playful. Also, if a republican group wanted to bury (on their searches) all democratic leaning sites then they could, and if you're a republican who would like to do the same then sign on for that group. There will be some of that and that is why I think this will be huge. People like banding together for a cause even if it is to eradicate the pecan pie.

Okay, is it that each group could specify a topic range? So on the profile/signup page for "Grammar Guru's" it would say 'berrying sites on all topics that have bad grammer', while "Php guys" would have an intro that states 'berrying bad sites, with a focus on berrying bad code examples, non-php sites'.

So the group creator is defining the scope, and people sign up for as many filters as they want?

A feature might be to auto-berry entire domains, so you could easily sign up to berry ebay, wikipedia, and what have you.

Exactly. Now, if enough people join a certain group, that group will have some power and site owners whose sites are listed may take notice and decide to do some changing. The goal is to have the opposite effect of Digg or Stumbleupon where sites gain massive traffic for being recommended and instead (at least for these users) traffic goes down.

As for groups, yes you can create any group you like and you may be the only one using it if it is kind of weird or outrageous. But as others join then you collaborate with each other, vote on sites, etc. until your personal search is just what you want.

To further clarify the idea, let's say an evolutionist starts a group to eradicate any site that is pro-creation. He doesn't mind debate or sites that talk about creationism; he just doesn't want sites that either distort facts, are mean spirited, or who are overly religious. So as he finds these types of sites he tags them. Others come along and join his group. They all begin to tag these sites and debate the validity of them. There may even be creationist who join this group in an attempt to save some of the sites from ruin. In the end every person who joins this group and searches for the term "evolution", will get search results catered to their way of thinking and not littered with the type of sites they don't like.

Ideas for groups:

Blatant Adsense site haters groups
Anti-popup group
Anti-liberal group
Anti-conservative group
Anti sites with scrollbars group
The No Affiliate sales group
The Ban Banner Ads group

Etc.

So, how does 'de-berrying' work? If anyone in the group can de-berry, then it just takes on member with an opposing view to cause trouble. Does it take a vote? Do berry's expire after so much time? Can a site owner go to the berryit.com site, and submit their url asking for a deberry, and then members see that request in their profile, and can opt to 'ignore' or 'unberry'?

I think you really need to be able to turn on/off filters with the toolbar. If i'm searching for something code related, I want to turn on the strictest code-related filters, but turn off some of the others. Some times you can't avoid popups/ads.

I think this would also be a really nice tie in with some kind of social bookmark site. So, if I wanted to 'whitelist' a site, i could just point my berry profile to my del.icio.us feed. Then, no matter if a site was berried, i'd still see it.

This could be useful for parents/schools as well, to prevent access to inappropriate sites. Sort of an open source netnanny.

More great ideas Laura, Thanks.

I think this is a fantastic idea, and I would urge you to pursue this, perhaps talk to Mozilla about it.

Lot's of feedback. I stopped at the money part by Wizard about halfway.

How about selling the feedback to companies?

I think this is a great idea, but can you answer a few questions?

So the concept has morphed into a toolbar and a website, with social aspects such as groups?

The main purposes of StumbleUpon and Digg are to help people discover quality sites and content. Who's going to want to look at a site which is essentially an index of crap sites? Digg has it's own problems: sensationalism, misinformation, spam, using burying stories without accountability, and possible censorship. How will you handle these issues?

You must also remember the 1% rule. Furthermore, it has been reported that the top 100 Digg users controlled 56% of Digg's frontpage content, and that a niche group of just twenty individuals had submitted 25% of the frontpage content. And what happens if company x hires a bunch of people to "berry" company y's site?

What are the revenue models? Sure, you can keep it free and focus on building a user base to attract advertisers etc, but your main revenue model should never been hoping to be acquired by another company. Can you think of a more in depth way to monetize this?

As to the first question, I think a lot of people would want to look at a list of crap sites. Some of the most popular top ten lists ever were list of the worst BLANK or the ugliest Blank...

Also, I believe that people would visit the site in order to learn how not to be berried. There would be a wealth of information available for people who may be building a site to look at and say, "Hey, I don't want to do that" or "I need to make sure I shy away from that subject" and there will be some popular sites who people choose not to be included in their searches.

The best thing we can have happen is for someone to start a group that berries sites of companies that say... support the war, or maybe they berry it because they want to protest fishing or any crap like that. It can be a voice for activist. But please remember, only their searches will be affected.

Imagine this, an animal rights activist starts a group to berry sites of companies that have a bad animal rights record, maybe they sell fur-lined underwear or something, now all animal rights activist can join this group and while not doing physical damage can still make a peaceful point and MAY actually make some difference in the amount of traffic this company receives.

As to the second statement. That's Digg's downfall. They can be manipulated. In our model, individuals will choose which groups to join and as a group decide content for their searches. So, you may start a powerful group with 10,000 members and you may Berry 100,000 sites but it will only affect those who join that group and only if you choose as an individual to have all the sites berried. You will still have an option to include some.

Notice how the idea keeps getting better with each post? I just thought about the political and activist side of this while I was answering your question. I think that will be a great angle to market.

Revenue-Well a lot of companies hope to be purchased and I think it is valid to go into something like this with that possibility in mind. All the other companies mentioned above, as well as Youtube and some others all started with a free model. They received funding to continue for the sole reason that the investors felt strongly that the company would be purchased. It is risky and we will need to think longterm in case a sale never materializes.

I believe our group concept will allow for highly targeted advertising. Each of the groups that are created will be done so by someone who is passionate about something and those that join the group as well. Once you get people who are passionate together in one location, you have the ideal advertising forum. But I wouldn't do Adsense or banner ads. I think we should have an ad-sales department that hand picks advertisers for each group.

Great questions. I may not be as articulate in answering them as I need to be but this is an evolving idea and nothing I say is settled in stone.