221–230 of 329 posts
Been a while since I’ve done any seo but iirc there are tools you can use to try to get the most objective serps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just do -pinterest in your search to filter
User: This service has a problem and it's not working well. Programmer: There's nothing wrong with the service, you just have to use [magic incantation] to make it work right. I've been hoping for 20 years that this kind of exchange would stop happening. Still hoping! :-)
There's no intentional or manual effort at Google to promote pinterest. Pinterest shows up because they understand how the Google algorithm works and built their website to display all the signals that Google looks for in relevant image content. They understand user intent and generate URLs that present content in a way that google expects to see. Examples of how they do this from their engineering team: https://medi…
One could say they are gaming it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why there's an aggressive firewall between the ads and search organizations. The ranking team isn't even aware of revenue numbers by ACL.
I'm sure the search team can, erm,google for the ad revenue figures in the earnings release. After reading the anti trust filing it’s hard to argue Google is anything else but evil and a lot of what it does is to hide its monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still, you keep saying all that as if most websites even notice that they're being crawled, and that their operators are very aware exactly when by whom they're crawled. Like as if the admin gets a notification every time a crawler comes by or something, with precise details about it. I don't think it's nearly as serious as you're trying to make it look.
To add another data point for you: I have had one of my websites brought down by Yandex bots before. There are also dozens of no-name bots (often SEO tools like ahrefs, semrush, etc.) that can sometimes cause troubles. For me it was a problem of having lots of pages, and having a high cost per request (due to the type of website it was). For other websites, it is not necessarily about the volume of traffic from bots,…
That's some weird logic, to me at least. That data is literally given away to everyone but some people or organizations can't have it? If you want to control access to it, maybe at least require people to register before they can see it? Is it even proprietary if it's public with no access control whatsoever?
This for-profit internet is just really such a parallel universe to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they can't do anything about it. Regulators and lawmakers in the US and EU would be very receptive to complaints from pinterest if google were to act somehow.
Do you have references for this? I'm genuinely curious if this kind of thing is actually being done. Google's altered it's algorithm to remove low quality sites in the past and if anti-trust worries are stopping that now, well, I can't even.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pinterest has a huge user base. They don't need to look at the source if they have an account; the link will work fine. And, no, most people don't bother picking a site before searching. Why would they artificially limit their results? People don't even visit amazon before searching for Amazon products.
Pinterest’s user-base is surely minuscule compared to the amount of users using Google Image Search. I’m not saying that 100% of all users with a Pinterest account use their website/app, but many of them will of course opt to use Pinterest’s website/app for their image searches, which means an even smaller percentage of the Google Image Search users will have a Pinterest account.
Pintrest has the worst UI/UX of any website. It is a cancer of the internet, contributes nothing and allows re-aggregation and front-running in Google search as a feature. It baffles me why people use this piece of shit.
However I'd still agree with you 100% on its cancerous nature: it's an app with a limited, specialised use (emphasis on app). That app leaking and pissing all over search results is not at all good and, as you say, contributes nothing for most people. By analogy, if I have some todos saved in a todo app, what would be gained (or more tellingly who would gain) by making my todos appear in public search results? Best answer I've got is simply that advertisers want that data, and want users on that app to advertise to (so, fuck you, users of search who were expecting useful search results).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google should be asking from a product perspective if they are providing the search results the user is most likely seeking. I seriously doubt that most pinterest results are what users are seeking. As such, Google probably should consider changes to their algorithm to compensate (cat and mouse) for pinterest's gaming. That is assuming how pinterest does it is not against any google rules... because if it were agains…
Yeah, Pinterest is almost always disappointing as a result: their account requirements are annoying and it tends to obfuscate the source of the image or information you’re looking for.
One big reason why Pinterest ranks so highly, and why you are seeing different tld's in the results, is because they have a variety of tld's that they use and those tld's all have separate crawl budgets from each other. So Google crawls Pinterest about an order of magnitude more than most other sites. You can read more about this here: https://medium.com/pinterest-engineering/how-switching-our-d... Source: I run a th…
Making that historical engagement data public is not feasible/realistic, IMO.