131–140 of 320 posts
>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…
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…
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…
E.g. if a link to your page is shown to the user in search and they don't click or they return to search page too quickly, Google sees this as a signal that the result was not helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still, it appears someone at CNR copy-pasted someone else's blog and published it as their own.
No, the very first thing in the blog post is a link to the original, so it’s highly unlikely they wanted to pretend to be the author. More like someone who didn’t care much about copyright or license decided to back up information they found useful in their personal blog.
It's good they linked to the original post and that the link is the first thing we see, but nothing says that it's the source, and no paragraph explains that the content comes from elsewhere.
I also don't see why the content should be copy-pasted instead of just a link.
I see no malicious intents, it's probably done in good faith, but meh.
To the author: did you try to reach out? I'm sure something can be done about it if it bothers you. I expect the author of this copy to be receptive.
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…
It got so bad that I'm actually taking my own notes on topics again and trying to build up a personal knowledge database. Maybe it's not such a bad thing...
Make sure to go full circle by publishing your notes on a blog and start ranking!
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.