61–70 of 396 posts
> Instead of looking at how long people spend on a site, we would encourage users to give explicit feedback on rankings and use this to improve our ranking system. While they're not wrong about how the way Google determines ranking has its issues, this way has its own set of problems. If you explicitly use user ratings as part of your rankings in some way, people can punish sites they don't like, ala review bombing o…
I use duck duck go. Recently someone showed me their screen where they were using google to do a search. I was absolutely aghast. The last time I used google when you searched for something you saw a simple text list of sites (which is how DDG still works). Instead the google results were… a disaster. You had to scroll through some much garbage before finding actual search results - a list of sites. It was like googl…
I have family members who use google to navigate. Instead of writing facebook.com in the URL-bar, they search for facebook and click the first link...
I use duck duck go. Recently someone showed me their screen where they were using google to do a search. I was absolutely aghast. The last time I used google when you searched for something you saw a simple text list of sites (which is how DDG still works). Instead the google results were… a disaster. You had to scroll through some much garbage before finding actual search results - a list of sites. It was like googl…
I have family members who use google to navigate. Instead of writing facebook.com in the URL-bar, they search for facebook and click the first link...
I totally like the idea but I dare to doubt that this would solve the SEO problem. Website owners who are participating in those notorious affiliate programs or earn money with ads will still use the search engine to drag people onto their generic websites, using methodolgies to fit the search engines ranking mechanisms, no matter if they are public or not. SEO and all it's results seem to be immanent to the system.
I believe you mean 'inherent'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a terrible name
I disliked it too intially but it had grown on me after a couple of days. As to why the name was chosen and how to pronounce it are in the FAQ [1] [1] https://github.com/mwmbl/mwmbl#how-do-you-pronounce-mwmbl
I use duck duck go. Recently someone showed me their screen where they were using google to do a search. I was absolutely aghast. The last time I used google when you searched for something you saw a simple text list of sites (which is how DDG still works). Instead the google results were… a disaster. You had to scroll through some much garbage before finding actual search results - a list of sites. It was like googl…
ads. SEO. i have a guy in digital marketing tell me that his friend does SEO and he does wonders with obscure keywords and shit. that friend is a freelancer and earns a good payday. When you want to insert your brand in every fucking imaginative keyword as opposed to people "searching for something", why does internet advertising revolve around everyone assuming every person googling something "WANTS TO BUY SOMETHING…
The truely garbage content is produced as cheaply as possible (scraped, generated from a data source or generated via “ai”) to capture advertising revenue, often via sub prime advertising networks (or a number of middleman networks).
But to your point, not everyone wants to buy something, and not everyone needs to.
Much of the content out there is simply trying to capture your attention and make you available to some of the worst advertising and ad networks (read scams, lead gen, fake buttons, affiliate crap).
> Instead of looking at how long people spend on a site, we would encourage users to give explicit feedback on rankings and use this to improve our ranking system. While they're not wrong about how the way Google determines ranking has its issues, this way has its own set of problems. If you explicitly use user ratings as part of your rankings in some way, people can punish sites they don't like, ala review bombing o…