[rednalexa]

I would assume that if Google is paying 10$/hour for humans to rank content, someone else is paying 11$/hour to fool it with a human generating content, clicks, etc.

Additionally, people writing bots learn just like Google learns, and start generating what appears to be legitimate interactions. Same algorithms that fit to critique between 'bot' and 'non-bot' class can be used to create bots that fall into the 'non-bot' category.

It's a losing battle - but what we get is better than we would get if they collected less data.

[bhartzer]

That’s what’s confusing in the articles that have come out about quality raters.

Quality Raters don’t actually rank websites.

Quality Raters look at websites and answer questions about them. Google then uses that data as a small part of their algorithm to adjust some factors about those sites.

Quality Raters don’t actually rank pages on google.

[anm89]

This isn't correct. I was a quality rater. We spent almost all of our time literally ranking websites.

[yupper32]

Your ranking is a signal that goes into the algorithm, not the actual end result.

[anm89]

I understand that. My post never implies that that was the case.

> Quality Raters look at websites and answer questions about them.

Wrong. I was never asked any questions beyond to rank to site quality for a query

> Quality Raters don’t actually rank website

Wrong again. This is what we did. We assessed website rankings for specific queries.

[yupper32]

Why do you think you're the only type of rater?

[anm89]

I understand that.

> Quality Raters look at websites and answer questions about them.

Wrong. At least in my case. I was never asked any questions beyond to rank to site quality for a query