331–340 of 592 posts
I did not know that this was a possible motivation as to why my more 'historic' work is disappearing, though.
I have noticed this at some of the sites I used to write for. Hence, as soon as I put a new piece up, I archive it at archive.is, and include that reference in my site's list of my work. Periodically, I should go there and check each one, but there's a lot of material. I did not know that this was a possible motivation as to why my more 'historic' work is disappearing, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google uses legitimate sites to make their search engine a viable product and at the same time directs traffic away from those legitimate sites towards SEO spam to generate revenue. [Disclosure: Google Search SWE; opinions and thoughts are my own and do not represent those of my employer] Why do you assume malicious intent? The balance between search ranking (Google) and search optimization (third-party sites) is a…
> Why do you assume malicious intent? Not GP, but to me, admittably a complete non-expert on search, there are so many low-hanging fruits if search result quality was anywhere on Google's radar that it is really difficult not to assume malicious intent. Some examples: - why pinterest is flooding the image results with absolute nonesense? How difficult it would be to derank a single domain that manages to screw google…
You might already be aware of this, but you can use uBlock Origin to filter google search results.
Click on the extension --> Settings --> My Filters. Paste in the bottom
google.*##.g:has(a[href*="pinterest.com"])
I have noticed this at some of the sites I used to write for. Hence, as soon as I put a new piece up, I archive it at archive.is, and include that reference in my site's list of my work. Periodically, I should go there and check each one, but there's a lot of material. I did not know that this was a possible motivation as to why my more 'historic' work is disappearing, though.
What’s the difference between archive.is and Internet Archive Wayback Machine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So whose word do we have to go on that this is beneficial, besides anonymous "SEO experts" and CNET leadership (those paragons of journalistic savvy)? Perhaps what CNET really means is that they're deleting old low quality content with high bounce rates. After all, the best SEO is actually having the thing users want.
In my experience SEO experts are the most superstitious tech people I ever met. One guy wanted me to reorder HTTP header fields to match another site. He wanted our minified HTML to include a linebreak just after a certain meta element just because some other site had it. I got requests to match variable names in minified JS just because googles own minified JS had that name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Minifying code for browsers greatly reduces the amount of bandwidth needed to serve web traffic. There's a good reason it's done. By your logic, there's actually no reason to use compiled code at all, for almost anything above the kernel. We can just use Python to do everything, including run browsers, play video games, etc. Sure, it'll be dog-slow, but you seem to care more about reading the code than performance or…
In this utopic arrangement, users of search services are more-or-less evenly distributed among different search providers, enjoying a variety of different takes on how to find stuff.
Search providers, continues the sci-fi imagination, keep innovating and differentiating themselves to keep an edge over competition and please their users.
Producers of content, one the other hand, cannot assume much about what the inventive and aggressively competitive group of search providers will accentuate to please their users. So they focus on... improving the quality of their content, which is what they do best anyway.
Its a win-win for users and content producers. Alas, search service providers have to actually work for their money. This is slightly discomforting to a few, but not the end of the world.
One cannot but admire the imagination of such authors. What bizarre universes they keep inventing.
So 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
There is no way the PR team making that tweet can say for sure that deleting old content doesn't improve rank. Nobody can say that for sure. The neural net is a black box, and it's behaviour is hard to predict without just trying it and seeing.