Affiliate links are environmental toxic waste and it would be only logical to tax such affiliate payments to fund cleanup and mitigation efforts.
Who would write good or even decent content for free?
Search engines and SEO spam
411–420 of 555 posts
Re: Search engines and SEO spam
#412what a great idea.
Re: Search engines and SEO spam
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a lot of good quality reviews on YT on launch date of pretty much anything these days. It’s not a problem of doing the review, it’s that there’s not much of a market for written reviews, most people would rather watch a video instead.
How do you compare 3 or 4 videos before watching them? Watching video reviews of the reviewers?
Like most things, it’s a reputation ladder.
There’s top channels like LTT and if what you are looking for is out of their niche, you look for the biggest channels in that niche and go mostly by association (who they have made collaborations with,..).
EDIT: of course the big win of video reviews is that you can see the thing working.
Re: Search engines and SEO spam
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the bigger issue now is that more content is inside social media "silos" like twitter, instagram or youtube. I don't have the numbers though.
Why is this a problem? Can't google index social media silos?
Which ones. They can index their own, but for the others only the public stuff. Facebook has a lot of things private so nobody can see them except your friends. (they are by no means perfect, but a lot of things are private and only seen by friends - most of it isn't of interest to a search engine anyway but comments of the form "I love X product" could in a perfect world be indexed as a sign of what people find good)
Re: Search engines and SEO spam
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
I trust DC Rainmaker's reviews of fitness tech products because he always returns products back to the manufacturers after writing reviews. So there's no conflict of interest based on free products. https://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-reviews
If companies don't like his reviews, they'll stop sending review units. That hits both in the pocketbook and the race to be one of the earlier reviewers of a new product. Reduced conflict, perhaps, but not none.
This presupposes that companies think their products are bad. If you have (what you believe to be) a good product, you definitely want DC Rainmaker to review it. I think this is a reasonably general point across industries - companies want to get their products into the hands of the most reputable reviewers.
Re: Search engines and SEO spam
#416Good. In fact, if we want people to visit websites other than google.com (and then read the answer in the snippet or the box in the sidebar) then it's good that google results are crap. Use google less.
Re: Search engines and SEO spam
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
I trust DC Rainmaker's reviews of fitness tech products because he always returns products back to the manufacturers after writing reviews. So there's no conflict of interest based on free products. https://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-reviews
If companies don't like his reviews, they'll stop sending review units. That hits both in the pocketbook and the race to be one of the earlier reviewers of a new product. Reduced conflict, perhaps, but not none.
Depends, if someone is popular you can't afford not to have them review your things. A a certain point a bad review will still generate more money than no review at all. Few reach that level though, most reviewers don't have that much following.
Re: Search engines and SEO spam
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be interested in searX - it refers to data sources as Engines; you have the ability to run your own instance (or use a public shared one) and only enable engines you want results from (reddit, stackoverflow etc.). Build your own meta-engine recipe, basically. https://searx.space to learn / get started. Find one and visit it, click Preferences upper right then follow your schnoz.
The results include all the SEO spam that infected Google, ie. SO clones. How is it better?
The GP commented about using curated sources. One can disable all those (google, bing, etc.) and choose to only enable results from reddit, wikipedia and so forth in searX, which directly queries based on a config inside the project.
Re: Search engines and SEO spam
#419To 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…
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…
Does this mean that Facebook is the only company well poised to take on google search?
Re: Search engines and SEO spam
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
There aren't as many blogs now as there used to be.
I find that claim surprising considering how many more people there are simply using the internet at all. Fewer unique blog domains due to “blogging” sites that aggregate users? Sounds plausible. Fewer people blogging overall? I’m not convinced yet.
I wonder if it would be possible to have a big filter button “commercial” or “non-profit” or something along those lines. So you get results that are not deemed commercial or are.
Don’t know how hard it would be to know which is which. Maybe non-commercial : don’t run ads, don’t sell a product or service and provide information only.