Blogwashing
eggonomy.com
Blogwashing
1–10 of 117 posts
Re: Blogwashing
#2Not a particularly detailed post and, as it says, it's an old SEO trick.
But if people want an answer as to why the blogosphere is dead and everything's on centralised silos: this is why. Any decentralised system that doesn't take spamfighting into account from the beginning will drown under it as soon as it becomes popular.
Re: Blogwashing
#3Honestly, I feel like this is Google's fault. It shouldn't be prioritising new content as much as it does. The best articles are often "classics" from several years ago that haven't changed because they haven't needed to.
Re: Blogwashing
#4What? I thought I read somewhere on Google's webdev infos that they know when an article was first created vs. updated. Not sure if this "old trick" still improves the ranking of an article, but surely enough, it baits people into clicking on a link.
I noticed it a couple times myself. Stuff that's obviously an older article appears in the SERPs as if it was published a few days ago.
Re: Blogwashing
#5Not a particularly detailed post and, as it says, it's an old SEO trick. But if people want an answer as to why the blogosphere is dead and everything's on centralised silos: this is why. Any decentralised system that doesn't take spamfighting into account from the beginning will drown under it as soon as it becomes popular.
I don't follow your conclusion. This isn't spam, it's just an updated timestamp. Furthermore: Google IS centralized. This isn't about decentralization, but about a central platform (Google) showing the "wrong" date and maybe even treating these blogs in a preferred way. Not sure what this has to do with blogs being decentralized.
Re: Blogwashing
#6Not a particularly detailed post and, as it says, it's an old SEO trick. But if people want an answer as to why the blogosphere is dead and everything's on centralised silos: this is why. Any decentralised system that doesn't take spamfighting into account from the beginning will drown under it as soon as it becomes popular.
I don't follow your conclusion. This isn't spam, it's just an updated timestamp. Furthermore: Google IS centralized. This isn't about decentralization, but about a central platform (Google) showing the "wrong" date and maybe even treating these blogs in a preferred way. Not sure what this has to do with blogs being decentralized.
The blog itself, as a whole, is spam.
Re: Blogwashing
#7Actually, a lot of sites keep updated posts with new information, which is useful. Which I believe makes it harder for Google to figure out who is gaming SEO and who are providing actual value.
Re: Blogwashing
#8Am I the only one who still bristles when people say blog but mean blog post? Or is this generally accepted now?
Re: Blogwashing
#9How does everyone feel about only showing the updated date on the blog post itself but keeping the real / original published time in the meta tags?
I do that on my site mainly to keep things less cluttered. Every post has an "Updated on November 12th 2019 in #docker #flask" line at the top of the post and that date is either the original published date or the last time I updated the content in the post, but the meta tags are always the correct values (ie. I don't refresh the published date with the updated date).
But now it's making me think I should include both the "Posted on" date as well as a separate "Updated on" date in the presentation of the page itself to be crystal clear. My only concern with that is that will eliminate some vertical space on the page because I can't fit all of that on 1 line cleanly. I would have to break the dates and tags onto 2 lines. For example, this is what a current line looks like: https://nickjanetakis.com/blog/make-your-static-files-produc...
Re: Blogwashing
#10Am I the only one who still bristles when people say blog but mean blog post? Or is this generally accepted now?
what's a blog? oh you mean a weblog. /s