Why not at least spin the old articles into a sub-brand? Something like CNET archive?
CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
291–300 of 592 posts
Re: CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
#292I begin to think that Google is a disease for the Internet.
Re: CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll just assume you neglected to read TFA, because if you had, you would have discovered that it links to an official Google source that states CNET shouldn't be doing this.[1] [1] https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1689018769782476800
That only says that Google discourages such actions, not that such actions are not beneficial to SEO ranking (which is equal to the aforementioned economic incentive in this case).
Exactly. Google also discourages link buildning. But getting relevant links from authority sites 100% work.
Re: CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
#294So google's shitty search now economically incentivizes sites to destroy information. Can there be any doubt that Google destroyed the old internet by becoming a bad search engine? Could their exclusion of most of the web be considered punishment for being sites being so old and stable that they don't rely on Google for ad revenue?
I'll just assume you neglected to read TFA, because if you had, you would have discovered that it links to an official Google source that states CNET shouldn't be doing this.[1] [1] https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1689018769782476800
I remember these kind of sources right from inside in the Matt Cutts era 15+ years ago encouraging and advising so many things which later proven to not be the case. I wouldn't take this only because it was written by the official guide.
Re: CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fairness to them. If one of their top ways of getting traffic is being marked as less relevant because of older articles, what do you want them to do? Just continue to lose money because Google can't rank them appropriately?
simple. Split google's Ad part, with search part and chrome part. Because it's clearly bullshit at this point.
How could search survive? The business value of search is in providing data for ads, is it not?
Re: CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
#296IT : dementia :: finance : cancer
Re: CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose the difference is that someone debugging at that level will be offered some sort of "dump" command or similar, whereas someone debugging in a browser is offered a "View Source" command. It's just a matter of convention and expectation. If we wanted browsers to be fed code that for performance reasons isn't human-readable, web servers ought to serve something that's processed way more than just gzipped minif…
>If we wanted browsers to be fed code that for performance reasons isn't human-readable, Worth keeping in mind that "performance" here refers to saving bandwidth costs as the host. Every single unnecessary whitespace or character is a byte that didn't need to be uploaded, hence minify and save on that bandwidth and thus $$$$. The performance difference on the browser end between original and minified source code is n…
I was thinking transfer speed, although even then, the difference is probably negligible if compressing regardless.
Re: CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I guess you think compiled code is even worse, right?
I mean, isn't that precisely why open source advocates advocate for open source? Not to mention, there is no need to "minify" HTML, CSS, or JavaShit for a browser to render a page unlike compiled code which is more or less a necessity for such things.
If someone releases only a minified version of their code, and licenses it as free as can be, is it open source?
Re: CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose the difference is that someone debugging at that level will be offered some sort of "dump" command or similar, whereas someone debugging in a browser is offered a "View Source" command. It's just a matter of convention and expectation. If we wanted browsers to be fed code that for performance reasons isn't human-readable, web servers ought to serve something that's processed way more than just gzipped minif…
>If we wanted browsers to be fed code that for performance reasons isn't human-readable, Worth keeping in mind that "performance" here refers to saving bandwidth costs as the host. Every single unnecessary whitespace or character is a byte that didn't need to be uploaded, hence minify and save on that bandwidth and thus $$$$. The performance difference on the browser end between original and minified source code is n…
Last time I ran the numbers (which admittedly was quite a number of years ago now), the difference between minified and unminified code was negligible once you factored in compression because unminified code compresses better.
What really adds to the source code footprint is all of those trackers, adverts and, in a lot of cases, framework overhead.
Re: CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If we wanted browsers to be fed code that for performance reasons isn't human-readable, Worth keeping in mind that "performance" here refers to saving bandwidth costs as the host. Every single unnecessary whitespace or character is a byte that didn't need to be uploaded, hence minify and save on that bandwidth and thus $$$$. The performance difference on the browser end between original and minified source code is n…
I was thinking transfer speed, although even then, the difference is probably negligible if compressing regardless.
The way I see it, if someone needs to minify their JavaShit (and HTML?! CSS?!) to improve user download times, that download time was horseshit to start with and they need to rebuild everything properly from the ground up.