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

271–280 of 320 posts

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#271

Post by ROTMetro »

vandreas2 wrote: post #110
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…

Feels like the early days of the internet when the computer savvy knew how to find what they were looking for (possibly even using early google) and everyone else was condemned to sifting through trash to get something useful. These days I find myself reaching more often for specialised search like going straight to wikipedia or amazon if I want to get a direct answer.

I almost spit coffee all over my keyboard. "straight to ... amazon if I want to get a direct answer.". Hilarious.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#272

Post by Aulig »

codazoda wrote: post #205
SCLeo wrote: post #200

I write novels as a hobby and I publish them on my website. I recently noticed that there are websites that blatantly copy and sell my novels without my permission and are ranked higher than mine. I think it is because Google identifies their pages as the source. If anyone knows how to deal with issues like this, please let me know.

I would write up a simple cease and desist letter and send it to the registrar, web host, page owner, Google, and anyone else you can identify. You might even be able to write a script that does some lookups for you. May not work for foreign domains, hosts, etc. But, maybe. YMMV

> script that does some lookups for you

Might want to check out https://plagiashield.com/

I use it occasionally but don't have an active subscription. But it's decent at finding stolen content (except for false positives on privacy policy & TOS)

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#273

Post by [deleted] »

byteduck wrote: post #267
jccalhoun wrote: post #191

I am so sick and tired of sites that have a bunch of filler content in them just to appear higher in search results. You search for something, say "How to change a light bulb" and you get all this front loading with sections on "what is a light bulb?" "Why do light bulbs need changing?" "Picking a light bulb" and then finally the answer. Maybe a search engine that could prioritize getting to the point would be good.

I've found that DDG (and by some extension, Bing) seems to do a little bit better at this. But, the only search engine I've found that actually does a good job at this is Kagi. It's really good at filtering out those SEO spam articles, and even separates out stuff like listicles when it's not what you're looking for.

[deleted]

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#274

Post by tofuahdude »

rchaud wrote: post #224
jccalhoun wrote: post #191

I am so sick and tired of sites that have a bunch of filler content in them just to appear higher in search results. You search for something, say "How to change a light bulb" and you get all this front loading with sections on "what is a light bulb?" "Why do light bulbs need changing?" "Picking a light bulb" and then finally the answer. Maybe a search engine that could prioritize getting to the point would be good.

Basic queries like "how to change a light bulb" are better answered on Youtube; it's not 1995 anymore, a web page explaining that with text and pictures is slower than creating a video. The only ones still writing web pages for things like that are trying to sell you something. If they weren't, they'd also just make a video.

"better for you" != "better for everyone"

People have very different preferences in the format of content they consume.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#276

Post by superkuh »

whage wrote: post #103

Reading through the comments here (and very much feeling the pain they describe), this idea came: Shouldn't we have a search engine that heavily favours the types of websites that we typically look for? You know, the classic 90s style tech blogs, the plain HTML documentation pages. Ignoring websites with ads, sites with lots of baggage (fonts, scripts, whatnot), sites with lots of images. Maybe increase the ranking o…

millionshort.com used to be good but it recently joined the mega-corp search pack and hid it's search engine behind required code exectution that blocks non-megacorp browsers.

https://searchmysite.net/ is a curated search for exactly what you describe though. It's been on HN a couple times.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#277

Post by throw10920 »

mdmglr wrote: post #35

> Last year, we kicked off a series of updates to show more helpful, in-depth reviews based on first-hand expertise in search results. I find myself searching + "review reddit" to find real honest reviews. My anecdotal experience is that everything else is written by content creators who are given the product for free to use for a few days/weeks/months w/o going in depth.

At this point, I'm not sure how many of the Reddit reviews are valid, either.

Marketers may be dumb, but they're not stupid - all it takes is a few people to notice Google starting to add "reddit" to their autocomplete, start looking around, figure out what's going on, and then suddenly the whole "SEO"/marketing spam sphere is aware of it and will start making sockpuppet accounts.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#278

Post by _hcuq »

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…

Yeah. The more words, the more space to insert ads. Then people tap on those ads by mistake when scrolling.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#279

Post by rawoke083600 »

yunohn wrote: post #118
Andys wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry, but I believe you are mistaken. Recipe sharing worked one way for all of history until it became profitable to game the search engines by adding story-like content.

Could you source anything that proves this? I’ve always seen personalised stories with recipes, save for barebones websites that are aggregators and not personal blogs. Maybe consider food writing the same as technical writing? Nobody wants to read a dev blog with just snippets of code, they want the story too!

imagine stackoverflow came with a backstory when you googled "javascript http post" ! Same with "best brownies recipe"

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#280

Post by robotnikman »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #203
SCLeo wrote: post #200

I write novels as a hobby and I publish them on my website. I recently noticed that there are websites that blatantly copy and sell my novels without my permission and are ranked higher than mine. I think it is because Google identifies their pages as the source. If anyone knows how to deal with issues like this, please let me know.

Unfortunately it sounds to like a lawsuit may be your best bet.

Unless they are hosted by people in countries unfriendly with the US, in which case good luck.
Post reply on HN