CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking

Post by darklycan51 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

Jiro wrote: post #472

dannysullivan wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. So I'm the person at Google quoted in the article and also who shared about this myth here: https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1689018769782476800 It's not that we discourage it. It's not something we recommend at all. Not our guidance. Not something we've had a help page about saying "do this" or "don't do this" because it's just not something we've felt (until now) that people would somehow think they sho…

Your recommendations are not magically a description of how your algorithm actually behaves. And when they contradict, people are going to follow the algorithm, not the recommendation.

Post by jmount » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:21 PM UTC

dannysullivan wrote: post #460

pessimizer wrote: post #68

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?

Hello from Google! I work for our search ranking team. Sadly, we can't control publishers who do things that we do not advise and do not recommend. We have no guidance telling publishers to get rid of "old" content. That's not something we've said. I shared this week that it is not something we recommend: https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1689018769782476800 This also documents the many times over the years we…

Post by smoldesu » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

awiejtrailw wrote: post #475

dannysullivan wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello from Google! I work for our search ranking team. Sadly, we can't control publishers who do things that we do not advise and do not recommend. We have no guidance telling publishers to get rid of "old" content. That's not something we've said. I shared this week that it is not something we recommend: https://twitter.com/searchliaison/status/1689018769782476800 This also documents the many times over the years we…

Facebook doesn't have guidance telling content creators to publish conspiracy theories, but their policies are willfully optimized to promote it. Take responsibility for the results of your actions like an adult.

Post by lampshades » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

pohl wrote: post #484

dannysullivan wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been diligently working to improve the results through things like our helpful content system, and that work is continuing. You can read about some of it in a recent post here (and it also describes the Perspectives feature that's live on mobile): https://blog.google/products/search/google-search-perspectiv...

It's great that you responded to the question. Is there a reason you didn't answer it, though?

Post by Gareth321 » Thu, Aug 10, 2023, 4:32 PM UTC

mcpackieh wrote: post #459

pmoriarty wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed something similar on youtube. I search for "how to do X", and instead of just showing me how to do it, which might take 30 seconds, they put a ton of fluff and filler in to the video to make it last 5 minutes. Typical video goes something like: 0 - Ads, if you're not using an ad blocker 1 - Intro graphics/animation 2 - "Hi, I'm ___, and in this video I'm going to show you how to do X" 3 - "Before I get i…

Sponsorblock is great for cleaning this crap up. Besides skipping sponsor segments, I have it set to autoskip unpaid/self promotion, interaction reminders, intermissions/intros, endcards/credits, and filler tangent/jokes set to manual skip.