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

141–150 of 320 posts

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#141

Post by jraph »

progre wrote: post #122
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…

The traditional response when someone hotlinks your images is to goatse them.

This would be lame, here I'm sure the person who reposted this content is not malicious. A quick mail is nicer and less work.

Sure, goatse people if they refuse to observe your requests if you feel like it.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#142

Post by emptyparadise »

alecco wrote: post #96
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t decide what I hate more: the pandering or the infantalization or the forced cheerfulness of it all.

Smile or Die https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

No wonder people are getting jokerfied.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#143

Post by addandsubtract »

medion wrote: post #138
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…

Encourages people to make long rambling pages which don’t get to the point? Ever seen YouTube, it’s exactly the same. 10-11+ min videos saying almost nothing because it’s the most lucrative length. The internet of today is just everyone gaming everything for a dollar.

At least Youtube has a timeline (with sometimes even chapters) that let you jump ahead. The thumbnails are also a good indication on what type of content you can expect from a video.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#144

Post by cerved »

hrdwdmrbl wrote: post #126
meltedcapacitor wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Orgy of Waste school of web design What is this referring to?

Crappy angular apps

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#145

Post by JW_00000 »

mianos wrote: post #81
stevewatson301 wrote: post #33

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.

Plagiarism is not the same as copyright infringement.

"Plagiarism" is not a legal thing: it's not a crime codified in law and doesn't appear in laws [1]. Instead, usually it's a violation of some internal code, e.g. a school's or newspaper's policy of integrity. As you say indeed, usually these policies only consider something plagiarism if there is a lack of (clear) attribution.

However copyright is encoded in law and copyright infringement is a crime. The linked page clearly violates the copyright of OP.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Legal_aspects

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#146

Post by spaceman_2020 »

throwaway1851 wrote: post #140
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t decide what I hate more: the pandering or the infantalization or the forced cheerfulness of it all.

For me, it’s the nightmarish distortion of everyone’s form. Big sites have become a bad acid trip you can’t wake up from.

Fitting. Corporations don’t see us as real people anyway now. Just an amorphous collection of wallets and monetizable data.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#148

Post by cma »

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…

Wikipedia doesn't bring in adsense dollars, I'm surprised it is usually still on the first page (frequently it isn't for disease searches, which have some of the highest ad spends).

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#149

Post by JW_00000 »

dgudkov wrote: post #133

I don't think Google will ever be able to distinguish texts that are written for people from texts that are written for Google. It's effectively the Turing test, and Google won't pass it.

It's worse than a Turing test: it's trying to distinguish between a honest human (writing content they are knowledgeable about or that is original) vs a dishonest human (who writes filler content just to get a higher ranking). It would almost need to be able to read the author's mind to figure out their intention. Or, given a text, figure out if what it is saying is original and/or true.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#150

Post by machiaweliczny »

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…

But it's very easy to exclude most popular words and use TF-IDF and Google probably uses that to devalue rambling.
Post reply on HN