101–110 of 278 posts
While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.
While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.
Can we also ban Elsevier and get Google to replace their links with Sci-Hub links?
It should, but this also illustrates a problem with Google Search that they'll need to grapple with in the future. Namely, that while they should treat all sites equally, in practicality there's not really much incentive to on their part. Think about it. Let's say Google does remove Pinterest altogether, banning the site as a punishment for 'gaming' the system. What then? The people that do search for Pinterest will…
It should, but this also illustrates a problem with Google Search that they'll need to grapple with in the future. Namely, that while they should treat all sites equally, in practicality there's not really much incentive to on their part. Think about it. Let's say Google does remove Pinterest altogether, banning the site as a punishment for 'gaming' the system. What then? The people that do search for Pinterest will…
I think you're looking at this in exactly the wrong way: Pinterest is already getting special treatment and it's positive special treatment. I think that any other site that didn't have the clout of Pinterest would get explicitly downranked for this kind of behavior if it became as apparent.
Google lacks any incentive to screw with a site that has millions(?) of users, as it could have significant consequence, and so Pinterest gets away with what others wouldn't.
While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.
If you come with a google referrer you can still see the basic information of a profile.
While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.
In days of old it was pretty easy to ban a site from your Google search results. It looks like they have removed that function. I wonder why? I know I liked having certain low value (to me) sites not clutter up my results. A little article about the feature, sorry it is going to try to throw an interrupting DIV at you– https://searchengineland.com/google-block-sites-feature-1464...
While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.
Even today I wanted to read about transform-origin and landed on w3schools [0], where MDN article [1] is clearly superior.
[0] https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_transform-origin.as...
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This brings up a great point. Why does Google not just extract whatever information Pinterest is providing and provide that directly in Google Images as SERP? If none of the content in Pinterest is original, what value are they providing the user? Pinterest is the "experts-exchange.com" of digital imagery, except EE at least had (gated) original content.
Pinterest (re)hosts the images so I'm not sure what you're suggesting. That Google write custom logic that supposedly unrolls this indirection on this one site where the image sources already exist on other sites?
I find that hard to believe considering the resources they’ve put into Content ID at YouTube for copyright infringement identification and takedowns.