351–360 of 592 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
The theory I've heard is related to 'crawl budget'. Google is only going to devote a finite amount of time to indexing your site. If the number of articles on your site exceeds that time, some portion of your site won't be indexed. So by 'pruning' undesirable pages, you might boost attention on the articles you want indexed. No clue how this ends up working in practice. Google's suggestion isn't to delete pages, but…
How does Wikipedia manage to remain indexed?
This is why I work at archive.org. Is it perfect? No. Does it have value to society? Absolutely.
It was possibly a worthwhile fight for someone to have, but not for the site that hosts the Wayback Machine. Separation of concerns, my friends...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve always felt there is a similarity to day traders or people who overanalyze stock fundamentals. There comes a time when data analysis becomes astrology…
> There comes a time when data analysis becomes astrology. Excellent quote. It's counterintuitive but looking at what is most likely to happen according to the datasets presented can often miss the bigger picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He claims to work for Google on X, LinkedIn, and his own website. I am inclined to believe him because I think he would have received a cease and desist by now otherwise.
Probably not; anyone can claim to work for these companies with no repercussions, because is it a crime? Maybe if they're pricks that lower these companies' public opinion (libel), but even that requires a civil suit. But lying on the internet isn't a crime. I work for Google on quantum AI solutions in adtech btw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could search survive? The business value of search is in providing data for ads, is it not?
By running ads. Probably Google Ads. What it's already doing.
Split that off, and search is all of a sudden producing a whole let less value, since the profiling value cannot be meaningfully extracted by other companies.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could imagine CNET‘s SEO team got an average rank goal instead of absolute SEO traffic. So by removing low ranked old pages the avg position of their search results goes closer to the top even though total traffic sinks. I‘ve seen stuff like this happen at my own company as well, where a team‘s KPIs are designed such that they‘ll ruin absolute numbers in order to achieve their relative KPI goals, like getting an in…
In general, people often forget that if your target is a ratio, you can attack the numerator or the denominator. Often the latter is the easier to manipulate.
My organization tracks how many tickets we have had open for 30 days or more. So my team started to close tickets after 30 days and let them reopen automatically.