As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
1–10 of 318 posts
Re: As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
#2The reverse-takeover of Google by DoubleClick is the Fall. The poison apple. All else is commentary.
Re: As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
#3This is a meta-level comment, but a technique I've been using for a while now, which I've found pretty helpful/useful, is that if an article starts off with an anecdote I immediately know not to bother reading it. It shows you that the author is more interested in pushing a feeling/emotion/story rather than relaying actual information. They're trying to manipulate how you think about the topic from the very beginning. It's really hard to describe the pattern but once you see it you can never unsee it. Just food for thought.
Re: As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
#4'The People' when really it's mostly bots these days, and getting smarter with LLMs too. Only a few blogs/articles are written by actual humans, and something strange has happened to my cognitive abilities lately; is discerning whether an article is written by an LLM or a human. I regularly play a game called 'bot or not' now.
Re: As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
#5This article is surprisingly(for the Verge) unbiased, really well written and balanced. The title is definitely misleading making it seem like the author will be taking the authoritarian side.
100% worth the read.
Re: As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
#6The internet was ruined when it was de anonymized by Facebook and LinkedIn etc. I remember growing up in a completely anonymous internet. You could be who you are, say what you want and explore digitally. Then you would go back to society as the real you and temper yourself a bit to fit in and work with others and that was ok because you could blow off steam on the internet.
Re: As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
#7The internet was ruined when it was de anonymized by Facebook and LinkedIn etc. I remember growing up in a completely anonymous internet. You could be who you are, say what you want and explore digitally. Then you would go back to society as the real you and temper yourself a bit to fit in and work with others and that was ok because you could blow off steam on the internet.
There are many anonymous websites, like 4chan, and you are free to create your own, which is itself something you can do anonymously.
Re: As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
#8This is a meta-level comment, but a technique I've been using for a while now, which I've found pretty helpful/useful, is that if an article starts off with an anecdote I immediately know not to bother reading it. It shows you that the author is more interested in pushing a feeling/emotion/story rather than relaying actual information. They're trying to manipulate how you think about the topic from the very beginning…
Also a lot of (newbie) start up pitches are like this.
Re: As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
#9"The internet" doesn't really exist, now, now does it? 99% of users are living in an AOL-style world, where they live within walled gardens. Why leave twitter/facebook/instagram/youtube/tiktok/reddit? There's nothing out there but a wasteland of crumbling has-been sites. Sometimes you'll find yourself on a blog or news article, but you just click/tap the back button to go back to the walled garden. Nobody is subscribing to your RSS feed. And what really did this is mobile devices. And it isn't necessarily a bad thing, although I do miss the old vbulletin discussion days.
Re: As the public begins to believe Google isn’t as useful, what happens to SEO?
#10This is a meta-level comment, but a technique I've been using for a while now, which I've found pretty helpful/useful, is that if an article starts off with an anecdote I immediately know not to bother reading it. It shows you that the author is more interested in pushing a feeling/emotion/story rather than relaying actual information. They're trying to manipulate how you think about the topic from the very beginning…
This is a standard rhetorical technique for illustrating in personal terms what's difficult to imagine at a systemic or statistical level. It doesn't mean they're trying to manipulate you any more than you're trying to manipulate us, ie writing is pleading.