Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More content by people, for people in Search

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 320 posts

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#71

Post by wodenokoto »

amarant wrote: post #52
firasd wrote: post #32

I'm not sure this whole drive towards 'original content' makes sense. It encourages people to make long rambling pages that don't get to the point In fact it seems like Google worked better when wikipedia was almost always the first result on various topics What I mean by rambling is if you type something like "types of oranges" and suddenly land on a page where some dude is clearly just filling up paragraphs for goo…

I think there's a different driving factor that. I've heard of a metric that is how long you spend on a given URL. Not sure how they gather that data, probably only gathered from Chrome users. Anyway, from what I've heard, that's the reason recipe sites have started posting 4 pages of drivel about the dish before getting to the actual recipe. Or so I've heard, I don't really have any good sources for this, could just…

> probably only gathered from Chrome users.

Or, Google Analytics. Or Google ads. Or, if you return to Google and try other links for the same query. Or if you return to Google and refine the query (e.g., a new search where the term is within a predefined threshold of word vector similarity)

There are plenty of ways to approximate time spend on link.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#73

Post by gempir »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #44
akdor1154 wrote: post #29

Cool, so will the relevant wiki page, which is almost certainly both the most linked to and most desired page for almost all "thing" searches, go back to being result #1 instead of buried under content farms, copyspam, and Medium trash?

Maybe we’ll finally get recipe pages where the recipe isn’t buried under 2000 words of drivel just to bump the SEO score

Bread recipe

Well you see already in ancient rome they made bread this way...............

[2 pages of story time]

AD

AD

AD

Ingredients separated by more Ads

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#74

Post by nextaccountic »

hurflmurfl wrote: post #70
nextaccountic wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you share the url list?

There's a public ruleset for this: https://github.com/arosh/ublacklist-stackoverflow-translatio...

Nice!

If anyone want to share other such lists, however subjective, I would be grateful

edit: found another one, https://github.com/arosh/ublacklist-github-translation

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#75

Post by spaceman_2020 »

gempir wrote: post #67
paganel wrote: post #62

A little OT, but is there a name for that design style that Google is using here? I'm talking about the bearded dude at the top of the article, with glasses and a phone in his hand. I've seen it more and more during the last few years, from ads around the city I live in to hipsterish magazines. There's something about it that has started bugging me the wrong way, I find it kind of infantilising but at the same time t…

Corporate Art Style, also referred to as Big Tech Art Style, Globohomo Art Style and Corporate Memphis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/corporate-art-sty...

Globohomo Art Style lol. That’s what I’ll call it from now on.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#76

Post by whage »

firasd wrote: post #32

I'm not sure this whole drive towards 'original content' makes sense. It encourages people to make long rambling pages that don't get to the point In fact it seems like Google worked better when wikipedia was almost always the first result on various topics What I mean by rambling is if you type something like "types of oranges" and suddenly land on a page where some dude is clearly just filling up paragraphs for goo…

This resonates with me so freaking much. I am disgusted by how every bit of information on webpages seem to be buried between paragraphs of empty EMPTY talk and even when they seem to get to the point, most of the time there is no real information there. Sorry, this had to come out. We really need better search engines.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#78

Post by lopis »

firasd wrote: post #32

I'm not sure this whole drive towards 'original content' makes sense. It encourages people to make long rambling pages that don't get to the point In fact it seems like Google worked better when wikipedia was almost always the first result on various topics What I mean by rambling is if you type something like "types of oranges" and suddenly land on a page where some dude is clearly just filling up paragraphs for goo…

Clearly the end game for Google is to, also, become TikTok. 100% algorithmically sorted original content.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#79

Post by meltedcapacitor »

nixcraft wrote: post #23

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster…

Maybe the bootleg page could be a source of inspiration?

It has a garbage/content ratio of 32 (the browser downloads 32 bytes for every byte of content) while the original page has a 400 ratio (the browser downloads 400 bytes for every byte of content). It's borderline denial of service attack against the visitor.

The original also has a slow aggressive cookie box that is unnecessary as visitors can be spied on using server logs, no need to have cookies for the spy infrastructure. The bootleg has no cookie box (though does set a couple of gratuitous cookies, and does load one gratuitous googleanalytics.js, so maybe it does the right thing in a non-compliant way).

Maybe all these factor make the original page look "less good" to google quality ranking? (which would be ironic given Google's general leadership of the Orgy of Waste school of web design.) Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them?

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#80

Post by alecco »

I don't buy it. Google search of basic programming concepts give almost always as top results sites like geeksforgeeks and other Indian proto-spam sites with very obnoxious sign-up floats covering up everything, while the content is almost copy pasted from docs or other sites. Google rarely gives you the official documentation or tutorials at the top. You have to restrict with site: (to the point I have "search engines" doing just that "site:").

It seems there's a new one I haven't seen before called appdividend blog, from India too. And another one "DelftStack", allegedly from Netherlands (tweets from 2019 and weird lack of info). programiz, from Nepal (you have to dig to find it).

What should these search pages give, in order: Official documentation, then Stack Exchange and similar, then real people's blogs, and at the very bottom on page 25 these spammy copy-n-paste sites/blogs.

Google is full of developers, so they have to know about this but for some reason the company does nothing about it. Almost like the company is fully driven by ad revenue and doesn't want users to find actual content.

Post reply on HN