this is my answer also. So please remove this from my computer

I worked in the book vertical for many years so I’m very familiar with the idea of a vocal minority trying to censor the majority. But you’re right to poke at the definition of ‘spam’ in this context. The reason and motivation for marking that site or URL spam is unclear. A group of concerned parents could mark a company as spam because of the products it sells or where it advertises. Does that have any relation to the relevancy of that company to specific queries? No.

I actually like the idea that you can filter and shape your own search results. That’s a nice feature. I just think Blekko reached too far in an effort to appeal to the current search engine drama.

Thanks for the thoughtful counterpoint. I agree that Blekko can do whatever they wish. It is their platform and their product. The lack of data troubles me. Frankly, the sites with the most spam complaints are often the most popular. It would be much more interesting to know the spam/click ratio or spam/impression ratio. Using the ‘most complaints’ logic we’d never have to listen to Justin Beiber again.

However, I don’t think innovators are experts in determining quality across a large breadth of search terms. To be clear, I loathe Squidoo, but the fact that I do shouldn’t prevent others from making their own decision on the site. It’s very popular.

The mental model for the Innovator is vastly different from that of the Early Majority. Robert Scoble is going to have a very different opinion of quality than my mom. And while I like Robert, I don’t think he has any idea what my mom thinks is good or bad. Flat out, it’s subjective.

I don’t think Google is perfect (far from it), but they do try to be objective, or at least balance the various competing subjective views.