141–150 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SEO itself is sleazy. Any gaming of search is sleazy, whether active or passive. The NSA is sleazy, even though they simply report on "the state of affairs".
I get this sentiment. "SEO" is basically an euphemism for spamming at this point. It's no longer just "Let's repeat this keyword 3 times" but "let's add 120 footer links and spam 35 blog comment sections per day"
Doesn't render anything without Javascript. You know who does? Google.
This raises an interesting question. Presumably you are referring to search results on a browser where JS/Ecmascript is disabled. Another interesting place where Ecmascript comes into play is the pages that have been scraped. One difference between search engines is how they handle SPAs, and 100% Ecmascript rendered pages from frameworks like React. I wonder if they execute JS in order to build good search results fr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it be a search engine's role to provide the entirety of every creators' livable wage? That would obviously be impossible for many reasons, and I don't see Yep making any claims about being a primary (or even significant) revenue source. Instead, they're proposing that the value of search comes from the end content, not the results page. The creator revenue stemming from that is inherently the appropriate am…
It seems we read the same article and understood it differently. The announcement post said : "Say Anne from Kentucky helps 4,000 people learn how to build container gardens via her Wordpress blog every month. She would receive $1,000 monthly from the search engine in return." To me this sounds like the idea of this model is to allow an average person doing casual blogging to make significant income? Given this premi…
Here is the actual portion from that post:
"YouTube’s revenue [...] can approximate that top-earners receive $0.0015 for every one view. Considering how much more ad revenue Google SEPR[sic] clicks generate in comparison to YouTube views, a Google profit-share model could generate significantly higher returns for top content creators. Based on a quick analysis, serving one search could pay an average rate from $0.05 to $0.25 in the US. Say Anne from Kentucky helps 4,000 people learn how to build container gardens via her Wordpress blog every month. She would receive $1,000 monthly from the search engine in return."
Given the context, you're putting many words in their mouth. It wasn't a product announcement, the product itself didn't even exist yet, they didn't actually claim a $0.25/query profit or even make any claims at all, they never made any mention whatsoever about being a substantial revenue source for "average" creators (who don't make substantial revenue to begin with), and they weren't even talking about their own product.
So, again, you're holding them to an impossible standard of revenue to meet your arbitrary and unreasonable qualifications of being "impactful." It comes across as ethical posturing, and shaming someone for napkin math about a different company's offering in an old "I have an idea" post just doesn't seem appropriate from a competitor in the space. I can only presume that you wouldn't be a fan of people nitpicking quotes from your old posts, so I'm not sure why you're doing it to someone else.
[1] https://medium.com/swlh/investor-money-vs-public-interest-di...
Edit: In fact, the other person who replied to your comment just proved that what you're doing is completely irresponsible and libelous. You're sowing the idea that those two sentences were in reference to the company's actual offering, which is completely false, but you're actively convincing people otherwise.
Edit: Here's a screenshot[2] of your unedited comment, since you decided to remove false information and things that I referenced.
I love how there are now many little search engines trying to differentiate themselves from Google. A few others worth checking out are: 1. https://search.brave.com (they use their own index / my personal favourite) 2. https://kagi.com 3. https://neeva.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This needs to be higher up. If you go to the about section of Yep.com, you can see this is powered by the "Ahrefs" bot (not just for sourcing crawler data but also run by the same people). Ahrefs is a sleazy "SEO tool" ( https://ahrefs.com/pricing ) that basically exists to exploit weaknesses in search engine algorithms and other shady things (and make lots of money doing it -- $99/mo to $999/mo).
Folks here have a really strange view of SEO. These days it's really following guidelines, creating content that people want to see and is useful to searchers, linking to sources, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems we read the same article and understood it differently. The announcement post said : "Say Anne from Kentucky helps 4,000 people learn how to build container gardens via her Wordpress blog every month. She would receive $1,000 monthly from the search engine in return." To me this sounds like the idea of this model is to allow an average person doing casual blogging to make significant income? Given this premi…
So every time someone clicks to that blog about container gardens, the writer/owner of the blog gets $ 0.25? Who pays? With money coming from where? And how bad will SEO efforts become to get their hands on that kind of money, which is 10 times (not 1,000 times, my mistake) more than that same blog would make with advertising, if we considered a CPM rate of $ 25 ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole yep.com thing feels like an attempt to get everyone to please stop blocking their bot
Dumb question but would they not rotate bots in a situation like this? Or do they have a specific crawler
Ahrefs is the biggest reason why Google results are so bad nowadays. While they call it SEO, this site gives you the very metrics which every so called SEOer uses to game Google search results (and it's very good tbh). I hope they are ready to face the seo monster they have created and yep can't be gamed as easily.
As a network operator that runs a number of websites I'm honestly one step away from null routing all of their traffic. I'm constantly seeing their bots and as far as I know it's not helping anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get this sentiment. "SEO" is basically an euphemism for spamming at this point. It's no longer just "Let's repeat this keyword 3 times" but "let's add 120 footer links and spam 35 blog comment sections per day"
That was SEO 15 years ago. If you think that still works, you’ll be disappointed.
As with most supposed Google killers, it suffers from the small issue of being terrible. Right now I'm in Los Angeles and looking to buy a roll of film. When I search for "where to buy film in los angeles": - Google gives me three top Maps results, all small photo stores relevant to my search, a Yelp results page, some relevant reddit discussions with recommendations, and then sites for some individual businesses. -…
Google is a large, horizontal platform. My intuition is the next Google killers will be specific to verticals, health comes up on HN a lot. All that to say, if I were yep I would focus on search that avoids big, corporate, SEO stuff and connects users with thoughtful, small creators. I would not focus on commerce eg film, as it’s a crowded vertical full of Google, Shopify, Etsy, and other large e-commerce players.
That's roughly what search.marginalia.nu does.
