91–100 of 320 posts
https://devrant.com/rants/4578894/holy-shit-google-nobody-li...
>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…
cnr.it is a domain which belongs to the Italian Research Council, and that subdomain seems to be a blog by the Institute of Microelectronics and Microsystems. These are not scammers, it's probably an amateur researcher which published that information in a blog which is usually read by no-one. Probably it wasn't even meant to be public. But because of the prestige of the domain, it becomes first in relevant searches.…
There are plenty of scam pages, but specifically this one doesn't look like it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DMCA notices are unpopular with the crowd here, but when your content is plagiarized and other people are profiting off of your work, I'd recommend the following workflow: * Use Copyscape and perform automated plagiarized content detection. * Automate the sending of DMCA notices to Google and the website host (using captcha solving services, if necessary).
As lame as it is, it's not really plagiarism when there is attribution, even if it is non obviously that URL at the top of the page.
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?
Wikipedia doesn't run AdSense. Content farms run AdSense. Google algo updates have revenue as one of the core metrics.
While this is almost trivially true based on what we know of (the world, big tech companies, Google in particular, etc), do we have direct supporting evidence for this?
Back when "SEO" was new, I would read the Matt Cutts blog. He was head of "anti-spam." I remember thinking back then that anti-spam was an ignorant frame.
Once Google gained importance, websites started trying to improve their rankings. That might mean migrating from Flash to HTML. It might mean meta-tags, content, keyword stuffing, link collecting... paying a consultant.
Google's early view/advice seemed to be: "Just ignore rankings. You do your thing, makes your site as useful you can. We'll do our thing: judging your site algorithmically and deciding how to rank it." Websites intentionally trying to improve rankings was ipso facto spam. The very idea of SEO was spam.
Naturally, cracks appeared. Flash and embedded images was an early one. Google's initial position was: "HTML is better for users." They thought websites should use clean HTML regardless of rankings. No contradictions need be confronted
Once a two sided conversation starts, that crack becomes a wedge. It becomes clear that website owners don't care about the usability of plain html text. Usability doesn't matter until you have users... and users come from Google. The "language" of SEO continued developing in this disingenuous way. Google pretended to be giving tips about accessibility or content, that tangentially also improve rankings. Websites pretended that their keyword stuffing was about usability or whatnot.
Google have been carrying this culture of euphemisation for almost 20 years now. Elephants stampede all over the meeting room. Everyone tries hard to pretend they don't hear the deafening trumpeting.
Youtube is an even more extreme example. Google's algorithms, policies and processes throw an entire media industry around, while Google pretend these are just minor side effects, or that it isn't happening. The gaslighting is awful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporate Memphis is so awful.
Can’t decide what I hate more: the pandering or the infantalization or the forced cheerfulness of it all.
>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…
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?