Live data from Hacker News

Search engines and SEO spam

twitter.com

461–470 of 555 posts

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#461
post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Google's algorithms didn't create this situation; people chasing high Google rankings did. But lowkey Google incentivized such behaviour by not being open and transparent on how exactly their algorithms work.

That would have allowed people to artificially chase rankings even faster and more efficiently. It makes the problem worse, not better.

How is transparency worse than smoke screen that we have today? For example healthy and good websites could rank according to good content, good optimization, variety of multimedia content, decent design and UI etc. You can't have too much of good things and qualities. That would be something like writing a too good book or making a too good product.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#462

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…

I mentioned subreddit searching in another post - this is a good way to find reviews. I often have other forums I will google search inside for opinions on something. It's more effort than a review site, but it is due-diligence. Since there is money in it for someone lying to you, unfortunately its a "why we can't have nice things" scenario. It is why you can't ask the car dealer what the best car is for you. If you want a good understanding of something, you need to dig. If I see a site with Amazon links, I close it in < 500ms.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tried creating a search engine for recipes. It works well and people like it, but the struggle is no one remembers that it exists and Google is just their default for search. Link please

https://garlictoum.com/

Have bookmarked. I shall try to remember to use it.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#465
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with all of this is it would help us greatly, but it would be useless to the 99% that the internet is increasingly being designed for. Modern UI trends are becoming obsessed with removing as many options and features as possible so the dumbest humans bordering on smartest vegetables can still use the service.

And customization breaks caching.

It doesn’t have to actually, there are some pretty advanced caching mechanisms that allow you to combine cached elements together. For the web at least, you could do this back in the day with Server Side Include, and a place I worked at used it to cache logged in content.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't speaking about that kind of entrepreneurism but about making legal software and legal web services that solve problems and are useful. So many Russian hackers got arrested when they travelled somewhere outside Russia and now they are serving 10 or 20 year sentences in US jails.

> So many Russian hackers got arrested when they travelled somewhere outside Russia How many? 20? 30? 50? IMHO the cases are rare (and get widely publicized whenever that happens, creating a disproportional visibility), you get a couple captures per year but the number is just a tiny fraction of the actual participants, more like an exception than the rule.

My assumption is beyond 20. US is only after big time cybercriminals[0] smaller ones get away.

[0] https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#467
post #36

> Why not try writing a search engine specifically for some category dominated by SEO spam? Back in the olden days, there were lots of organizations that collated high quality content from the best writers. They nurtured expert writers and paid them well. They fact-checked the content and employed diligent editors and proofreaders so it was accurate and well-written. Over the years, they'd build a reputation for reli…

>Because they were so much better than the old-fashioned publishers, search engines gobbled up the advertising money

No, what happened is that the publishing industry lost their monopoly. They could no longer extract monopoly rents from advertisers.

One problem with search engines is affiliate marketing. If Google de-indexed the junk affiliate sites, the web would be much less polluted with affiliate spam.

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#468
As I pointed out to paulg yesterday this was exactly the business model / concept that Blekko was created to address. The idea being that one could use "slashtags" to curate web sites that were "good" on a topic (not spammy) and pull results from that rather than the general web. Guess what? It works great! Also, it doesn't make enough money to support the company using advertising.

For a couple of years, Blekko ran a "3 card monte" game where we white listed the results from Google, Bing, and our own index. For every "contested" query, Blekko consistently beat the others by a significant margin. If the query wasn't contested, Bing and Google did about the same, and if the query was obscure, typically Google did better than Bing or Blekko.

What is a "contested" query? That is one where there is a lot of money on the line. My favorite one was "best credit card" (which is search engine shorthand for "What is the best credit card?" because the stop words "What", "is", and "the" are removed).

Why is it contested? Because if you put an advertisement into the results of that query, and the person making it clicked on that link and signed up for a credit card, you could be paid $50 or more. For a single click. Other queries that advertisers would pay well for getting the traffic of the user were, car dealerships, hotel chains, jewelry retailers, and university "referral" services (like the one that was busted for getting people into Ivy League schools by faking academic records).

Extremely few people click on an ad put onto a page of search results for the query "what is shoe rubber made of?"[1]. However it is required to serve queries like that so that people will come back when they are looking to spend money on something.

So using the same exact idea that Paul proposed Blekko built an English language index which allowed you to curate the crap out of your search results and return much better data. The "value" of that was not considered to be high enough to insist on people logging in to use the engine. Knowing an id for the person making the query allowed for user specific blacklists of spammers (so if for example you never wanted to see a Pinterest link in your results you could make that happen).

Without sufficient traffic, using the feedback loop "of these documents, which one was clicked as the 'best' answer?" type algorithms for ranking fail to converge rapidly enough for decent ranking.

Without a credible threat that if your site is not included in the index, your traffic will be greatly reduced, it is difficult to negotiate with web sites to permit crawling, rather than deny your crawls with the robots.txt file.

Blekko's best customers and most ardent fans? Reference Librarians. Yup, people who needed web search to do their jobs, not to find the movie times for the latest feature. Blekko never did try to create a subscription service, but I think such a service that is somewhere between free and the $$$ of LexisNexis has a shot, at least as a lifestyle business. You still need to get rights to the data and that gets harder and harder.

[1] Okay, bots do, but humans don't

Re: Search engines and SEO spam

#470
I for one am optimistic what a "post-search" world might look like. Maybe a lot like the early web. I don't think affiliate links themselves are necessarily the problem. I'll gladly use a link from a high-quality reviewer to give them a little kickback. SEO seems to be the issue. Maybe we end up with trusted brands for reviewing specific things. For example, I trust outdoorgearlab.com for pretty much anything camping related, and no purchase comes to mind that I've regretted yet.
Post reply on HN