Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 205 posts

Re: New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

#21

Post by satvikpendem »

Fricken wrote: post #5
theamk wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just opened incognito window and entered "brownie recipe"... the first link is to "Love and Lemons" site which seems pretty good - there is a pretty small introduction, but then there is ingredients list, steps, etc.. top 5 links all look pretty good to me. (At least in web design area... I have no ideas if recipes themselves are tasty or not) Maybe it's a regional thing (I am in the US)? Or your profile is messed up…

The first time I visited "Love and Lemons" (the first non-sponsored link I got) I scrolled down looking for the actual recipie until I gave up. Right before you made this comment I checked again and found the link to the recipie under the introduction as you described.

Most if not all recipe sites have a jump to recipe button, as de facto required by search engines.

Re: New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

#22

Post by celdon25 »

js2 wrote: post #20
Fricken wrote: post #2

The acid test: can I find a brownie recipie without any fucking around? ...nope, I still can't.

My go to site for baking recipes is Smitten Kitchen. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Asmittenkitchen.... I realize adding `site:...` is probably fucking around. But trust me, her brownie recipes are worth it. :-)

Isn’t the point of Google search to not have to do that?

Re: New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

#23

Post by js2 »

celdon25 wrote: post #22
js2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My go to site for baking recipes is Smitten Kitchen. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Asmittenkitchen.... I realize adding `site:...` is probably fucking around. But trust me, her brownie recipes are worth it. :-)

Isn’t the point of Google search to not have to do that?

Sure, that's why I added the disclaimer. I'm just trying to help Fricken out with some good brownie recipes.

Google lists dozens of recipe sites when I search for "brownie recipes" and honestly, how many different ways can you change a basic brownie recipe. So I'm sure almost any of them will do. Any seems like reasonable result. I'm not sure what algorithm Google should use to pick the best or most reliable recipe site.

I just happen to know, having cooked many of SKs recipes, that they are good recipes that almost anyone can follow.

Re: New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

#24

Post by jseliger »

quitit wrote: post #16

This is a bit tongue in cheek, but it is also kind of true: The easiest way for Google to detect spammy, low-quality content is to ... simply add up the number of Google Ads placements on the page. Those flooding the internet with garbage content are doing so because the verbiage is tightly intermingled with Google Ad placements, that's the business model. Google -could- go a step further and deactivate those account…

I feel like I've read dozens of announcements from Google regarding its efforts to improve search quality. That can't be literally true, but the sense of deja vu inculcates a certain skepticism.

In a links post I just published (https://jakeseliger.com/2024/03/05/links-a-moon-landing-rapi...), I wrote:

Still, the Google search monopoly is under more serious threat than it’s been in the company’s history, and that may inspire real change. Amusingly, I used Google search to try and find a video of Sergey Brin saying that he’s un-retired to come back to work on AI, and Google search didn’t easily find it—but it turned up a bunch of spammy YouTube videos.

Re: New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

#25

Post by reaperman »

neilv wrote: post #14
Fricken wrote: post #2

The acid test: can I find a brownie recipie without any fucking around? ...nope, I still can't.

Never tell a Googler what the metric is. Cue a flood of aspiring L6 promo packets with detailed numbers on improved brownie recipe ranking.

Hey, as long as it gets Sally’s Baking Addiction[0] ranked at the top I’m all for it.

0: https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/

Re: New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

#26

Post by renewiltord »

jseliger wrote: post #24
quitit wrote: post #16

This is a bit tongue in cheek, but it is also kind of true: The easiest way for Google to detect spammy, low-quality content is to ... simply add up the number of Google Ads placements on the page. Those flooding the internet with garbage content are doing so because the verbiage is tightly intermingled with Google Ad placements, that's the business model. Google -could- go a step further and deactivate those account…

I feel like I've read dozens of announcements from Google regarding its efforts to improve search quality. That can't be literally true, but the sense of deja vu inculcates a certain skepticism. In a links post I just published ( https://jakeseliger.com/2024/03/05/links-a-moon-landing-rapi... ), I wrote: Still, the Google search monopoly is under more serious threat than it’s been in the company’s history, and that m…

It's an arms race, so "we are improving search against spam" is a thing they will post when they fall behind sufficiently. This goes all the way back to the "Panda" update ten years or so ago. It's been a thing for ages because they've got a Red Queen problem.

Re: New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

#27

Post by Fricken »

satvikpendem wrote: post #21
Fricken wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first time I visited "Love and Lemons" (the first non-sponsored link I got) I scrolled down looking for the actual recipie until I gave up. Right before you made this comment I checked again and found the link to the recipie under the introduction as you described.

Most if not all recipe sites have a jump to recipe button, as de facto required by search engines.

Way too much fucking around.

Re: New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

#29

Post by datavirtue »

js2 wrote: post #20
Fricken wrote: post #2

The acid test: can I find a brownie recipie without any fucking around? ...nope, I still can't.

My go to site for baking recipes is Smitten Kitchen. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Asmittenkitchen.... I realize adding `site:...` is probably fucking around. But trust me, her brownie recipes are worth it. :-)

My go-to site is King Arthur's 200th Anniversary Cook Book. Literally zero fucking around, packed with every classic baking recipe known to man, and gobs of straight-forward baking chemistry lessons a five year old could understand. Empowerment.

Re: New ways we're tackling spammy, low-quality content on Search

#30

Post by terribleperson »

Fricken wrote: post #2

The acid test: can I find a brownie recipie without any fucking around? ...nope, I still can't.

I'm sure you have a recipe already, but I'd like to highly recommend Stella Parks' brownie recipe, and even more highly recommend her blondie recipe with malted milk and browned butter.
Post reply on HN