Live data from Hacker News

Search engines and SEO spam

twitter.com

251–260 of 555 posts

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the fundamental things that make search work well about 1-2 decades ago was that web sites would link to each other, and that those links could vaguely correlate with reputation. There were link spammers, but there was actually a some decent organic content as well. What's happened since then is that almost all the normal "people linking to things they like" has gone behind walled gardens (chiefly Face…

Why has blogs and articles stopped linking to things? I'm reading a restaurant review site, and they won't link to the restaurant. The chef name is a link to a list of all articles tagged with the chefs name, rather a wikipedia link or something useful that can tell me who that person is.

There aren't as many blogs now as there used to be.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#252
People don't want to search anymore. they want to see well-categorized data. For example, instead of searching for cheap vacuum cleaners, I think they want a site that lists vendors that sell cheap vacuums.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that Google doesn't employ these people or invest in their activities. It's that Google has destroyed their own search results in order to continue to expand their revenue opportunities. If Google: - Enabled downvoting on results, like YT videos. (Has its own spam problems, just like YT) - Allowed you to block certain domains from your search results, like YT videos. (If they added some kind of "coo…

The biggest perverse incentive for Google is that making better search results can mean less clicks to ads (clicking an ad because results are crap, going thru more pages of results means more ads). Clicks are revenue which is much easier to optimise for. Internal Search owners can push for better algos, but what if the algo causes revenue to fall? Are there strong forces strong enough within the organisation to ensu…

If I had to pay $10/month for good search results, I absolutely would. I think most people would. Get rid of the ads and spam, and you have a service worth a premium. The solution is to make it user-centric instead of advertiser(spammer)-centric.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is just that the solution isn't in Google's wheelhouse: There is no algorithmic ranking system that can't be gamed. Human moderation and curation is the only way to provide true quality, and Google is allergic to solutions that don't automate and scale. I think a really good search engine would still algorithmically search it's index, but the content library should be human-curated with a goal of…

This was Yahoo in late 90s early 2000s. They had a human curated directory search where one could look up something like "kayaking" and find a bunch of sites on kayaking. Then if you wanted to search on keyword it was outsourced to AltaVista and later Google. Altavista results were terrible and were almost nothing more than a keyword search (IE the word you were searching appeared on this page). Google got much bette…

I do still think we could adapt this model on top of content silos... assuming we can index them! Consider that one could also, rather than just ingesting Reddit content, we ingest new posts from particular users who write quality posts on Reddit.

Assuming a method also existed for an author to authenticate themselves with the search engine, one could also enable an author to help identify their content across multiple platforms, as well as suggest other quality authors to consider.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#255
search ads responsible for the rise of google search[1], content ads (seo spam) responsible for google search's fall?

my guess is the rate of spam content production far outpaces the rate of original content creation. so the power law concentrates even further in the tiny percentage of OC and a moat forms around them (highest ad $, highest authority/authenticity).

where do we end up 5 years from now? further consolidation and the continued return to aol style portals (telco/media giants and fast-lane to own content?) pay-to-access silos dominating the internet?

[1] oversimplifying a bit of course, there was a novel ranking method that was more than accurate enough, and it scaled, which allowed for the search ad business to go gangbusters.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#256

To some extent, I worry that the problem with search engines is that there isn't any data worth returning. Yesterday's thread talked a lot about reviews. Writing a review is hard work that requires deep domain expertise, experience with similar products, and months of testing. If you want a review for something that came out today, there is no way that work could have been done, so there simply isn't anything to find…

There are still good reviews. For TVs, RTINGS produces high-quality reviews (although they're not listed super straightforwardly). For computer internals, AnandTech does even better. You don't have to talk about the absolute latest product out that same day for you to have quality reviews of other options in the meantime.

Everyone just makes blogspam because its far less work than actually buying products and developing expertise and testing them and writing out a whole thorough review. Google's algorithms just can't tell a quality review from a surface-level, uneducated take.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#257
post #9

>This may not just be a problem with Google but possibly also the recipe for beating Google. A startup usually has to start with a niche market. Why not try writing a search engine specifically for some category dominated by SEO spam? >You might need to do a lot of manual spam fighting initially. That could be both the thing-that-doesn't-scale, and the thing that differentiates you by being alien to Google's DNA. (Th…

Some of the examples used in the Twitter thread Paul was referring to would be better served by a manually curated directory service with a possible addition of a search engine only surfacing content from the sites in the directory. For health information and recipes in particular there are only a handful of really high quality sites that have quality content for 95% of the information most people need. I bet if you…

It's really hard to get people to use something other than Google. If you were to launch such a product, it would have to be so much better that people recommend it organically to other people.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the fundamental things that make search work well about 1-2 decades ago was that web sites would link to each other, and that those links could vaguely correlate with reputation. There were link spammers, but there was actually a some decent organic content as well. What's happened since then is that almost all the normal "people linking to things they like" has gone behind walled gardens (chiefly Face…

Why has blogs and articles stopped linking to things? I'm reading a restaurant review site, and they won't link to the restaurant. The chef name is a link to a list of all articles tagged with the chefs name, rather a wikipedia link or something useful that can tell me who that person is.

Because, years ago, linking to lower reputation sites would drain your page rank.

So everyone worried about SEO became afraid to link to anything except:

1) Their own website 2) High reputation sites like NYTimes, etc.

It's sad. Makes it harder to navigate the web.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#259
I've been troubled by the just plain awful results being delivered by Google search over the last few years. I think these are just plain hard problems to solve and that Google is not incentivized to solve. Google wants you to click on ads at the end of the day, full-stop.

Often times I find myself searching for "best ($product|$thing_to_do)" which I think many other people do as well because we all want the best. Other times I'm looking for a music or a book recommendation with some depth. This of course nearly always leads to SEOd trash. There is no relevance nor is there trust. So, I like others to use keywords like "reddit" or "forum" to get to real humans who I trust and intentions are not to sell via affiliate links.

These issues often lead to the need in finding trust in real human-centered recommendations that stem from real human interests and needs. I've never found an algorithmic solution to this problem. This is why I think college radio stations or those south-of-the-dial end up being so, so much better. And why beer recommendations from your local brew-shop owner are better than anything you can find on the net.

I think building search vertical that are hand-curated would be very interesting to see. But I also think we need to build more communities which allow recommendations to be shared without an incentive to get hits via search and aren't paid for by large corporations and where community impact/quality _is_ incentivized. I do worry that those days may be gone and there are just not may be enough folks (not in tech) willing to spend so much time online and contributing to niche communities. A lot of folks spend much of their time in walled-gardens like Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, so it'll be challenging to be sure.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#260
post #18

> What would a paid version of Google Search results look like - where Google can just try to give me the best possible results and not be worried about generating revenue? God please no. YouTube premium shows what Google would do, i.e., they would further ruin the free experience by ramping up the amount of ads you see to "incentivize" the premium search.

Premium offerings like that are amazing simply for the fact that you can 'return' to the days where you obtained services by paying for them directly, not by looking at ads and paying with your mindshare. Google and YT aren't free services, and it's a miracle they continue to be accessible with ad blockers enabled.

Orthogonal to my point. Deliberately worsening the free experience after you introduced a premium service is a dark pattern for UX.
Post reply on HN