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

Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

theluddite.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 551 posts

Re: Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

#151

Post by refulgentis »

atorodius wrote: post #149
refulgentis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flagged: this trips my internal GPT detector (patent pending) at 83% certainty and seems to be a lengthy meandering response to an article describing Google preventing ad blockers. The article is about Google asking for more content on the site before approving ads.

Is this more sarcastic or do you actually have a classifier built that returned 86%? Genuinely curious.

Yes, sarcastic, poking fun at myself for having a gut feeling -- so no, no classifier, afaik it's impossible to reliably. Though I would like to take a test and see my recognition rate, I wonder if there's a site for that...

Re: Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

#152

Post by jhugo »

refulgentis wrote: post #147
fmy105 wrote: post #142

[flagged]

Flagged: this trips my internal GPT detector (patent pending) at 83% certainty and seems to be a lengthy meandering response to an article describing Google preventing ad blockers. The article is about Google asking for more content on the site before approving ads.

FWIW, I was certain this was GPT by the second paragraph.

Re: Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

#153

Post by olddustytrail »

justinclift wrote: post #135
mitemte wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally use https://www.taste.com.au . No bullshit prologue about how a distant relative used to make the recipe in question. Just and overview, photo ingredients and steps. Everything else is secondary and usually worthless.

Hmmm. First one I clicked from their home page: https://www.taste.com.au/baking/galleries/autumn-cakes/p6d5x... > When the weather starts to finally cool down and the evenings ... Just No.

That's not a recipe, it's a short intro to a list of recipes. Just Learn To Read.

Re: Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

#154

Post by refulgentis »

jhugo wrote: post #152
refulgentis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flagged: this trips my internal GPT detector (patent pending) at 83% certainty and seems to be a lengthy meandering response to an article describing Google preventing ad blockers. The article is about Google asking for more content on the site before approving ads.

FWIW, I was certain this was GPT by the second paragraph.

Eerie..I looked at the account after I posted my comment...it made several other comments I noticed this week.

Nearly every single comment I remember seeing and thinking it sounded like GPT, and yet, had enough content to be not-GPT, and I figured I was being cranky.

Same vibe here except blatantly off-topic, and less content than the others

Curious what you make of their other posts

Re: Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

#155

Post by Starlevel004 »

atorodius wrote: post #149
refulgentis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flagged: this trips my internal GPT detector (patent pending) at 83% certainty and seems to be a lengthy meandering response to an article describing Google preventing ad blockers. The article is about Google asking for more content on the site before approving ads.

Is this more sarcastic or do you actually have a classifier built that returned 86%? Genuinely curious.

You get a pretty good sixth sense for detecting GPT posts after a while. Nobody uses connectives that much.

Re: Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

#156

Post by jfoster »

bruce511 wrote: post #144
Dylan16807 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you elaborate on what the value of the site might be, to say a competitive advertiser, Lots of ads don't care very much what site they are on, even if the purpose of the site is somehow unknowable. But google knows the traffic it sends there. And it's able to show ads alongside those search results. Why can't it put similar ads on the page? And apparently adding the dumb text unlocked ads, so there's the value…

I think that if you had 5 advertising networks, they'd all operate the same. I think Google (probably rightly) sees no value in this site from an advertising point of view. I think if there were 5 advertising aggregators they'd say the same. You're suggesting Google is leaving money on the table, not just for this site, but a lot of others like it. I'm suggesting that if this category of site had value to an advertis…

"No value", meaning $0 CPM? Not really plausible unless the site has barely any human visits.

Re: Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

#157

Post by madcoderme »

> I looked into a half-dozen or so alternatives, but all the other companies were either simply Google ads re-sellers, which is an ecosystem I don't quite understand, or were extremely sketchy, and had reviews complaining about how they trick people into downloading malware and such.

This is so true. I have tried to monetize my tools with ads quite a few times before, and the only way was to use Adsense. It's actually crazy how there is literally no quality alternative.

Re: Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

#158

Post by jmpavlec »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #128
konstantinua00 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's a donation the whole point is to only get donations from people willing to do the effort - with no downsides to others

if there was an apple pay button i would have given him a dollar but instead there's "buy me a coffee" which i've never heard of, stripe which im not filling out, and liberapay which iirc is for crypto nerds i wonder if apple makes it easy to accept money with apple pay (they allow peer to peer payments via apple cash after all)

Stripe also has apple pay these days I believe.

Re: Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023)

#159

Post by Lazare »

tonyarkles wrote: post #60
oakashes wrote: post #46

It's a fair point about how awful recipe sites look without ad blockers, but this part is just plain incorrect: > You can tell just by looking at the URLs that those sites are going to be worthelss blogspam. At least two of the three results in the screenshot are from legitimate baking sites (Cookie and Kate, Sally's Baking Addiction) which are generally trusted sources online. I don't know anything about the third.…

I just looked up Cookie and Kate. On my iPad I had to flick 7 times to get past the exposition on Crispy Roasted Chickpeas and find the actual ingredients. When I found the ingredients, they occupied a small squeezed sliver of the page. As I was counting the number of simultaneous ads surrounding the ingredient list (4 separate ads), a pop up covered them all and suggested I sign up for her newsletter. The recipe loo…

That's not entirely fair.

The problem is that Google forces actual good cooks to make their recipes look like worthless blogspam, but a good original recipe is not actually worthless blogspam, even when disguised in the way Google requires.

Post reply on HN