11–20 of 168 posts
I did notice that all of the authors content is duplicated in index pages, so maybe Google just doesn't consider the article page the canonical link.
It really angers me that, despite the fact that it may be essentially perfectly what I'm looking for, if it was published long ago, Google may refuse to find it. Something like a news search engine would definitely be better off prioritising the new results, but for something more general-purpose, it's an absolutely horrible choice. I know this may be a bit of an edge-case, but I frequently search for service informa…
Google has a hard time getting me what I want these days, and sites I do find do things to get found that make me like content a lot less (that's you, inane story on top of every recipe required to get ranked)
It's odd that so many of those sites exist, that Google indexes them so deeply, and that they show up in searches so prominently. It's obvious that they are spam, scams, or worthless, but those same sites have been appearing prominently for years.
I agree with the author. My experience has also been that Google heavily prioritizes very large and frequently-updated sites over small static information-rich personal sites. I think it's a big flaw that needs to be fixed or for someone else to do better.
Why does Google deeply index those useless telephone directory sites? Try searching for the impossible U.S. phone number "307-139-2345" and you'll see a bunch of "who called me?" or "reverse phone number lookup" sites. Virtually all of those sites are complete garbage. They make no attempt to collect numbers from telephone directories or from the web. They won't identify a number as being the main phone number for Di…
Google can’t do this. Original sources very likely don’t have ads, scrapes will have tons. But good results are good results. Big g has done an admirable job. They can’t exploit the best metric for quality.
It really angers me that, despite the fact that it may be essentially perfectly what I'm looking for, if it was published long ago, Google may refuse to find it. Something like a news search engine would definitely be better off prioritising the new results, but for something more general-purpose, it's an absolutely horrible choice. I know this may be a bit of an edge-case, but I frequently search for service informa…
Google got where it was by being the best at finding what you wanted. I remember those days. Google has a hard time getting me what I want these days, and sites I do find do things to get found that make me like content a lot less (that's you, inane story on top of every recipe required to get ranked)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google got where it was by being the best at finding what you wanted. I remember those days. Google has a hard time getting me what I want these days, and sites I do find do things to get found that make me like content a lot less (that's you, inane story on top of every recipe required to get ranked)
I find this. It has a bias towards large commercial news/ecommerce sites/daily fresh content. Great for the majority of browsers but for programming and other hobbies of mine the real content I want are in niche small blogs/forums that don’t get up ranked liked they used to so drop off the index.
The little guys don’t really have a chance, unless you have a search engine specifically biased toward them.
Why does Google deeply index those useless telephone directory sites? Try searching for the impossible U.S. phone number "307-139-2345" and you'll see a bunch of "who called me?" or "reverse phone number lookup" sites. Virtually all of those sites are complete garbage. They make no attempt to collect numbers from telephone directories or from the web. They won't identify a number as being the main phone number for Di…
It really angers me that, despite the fact that it may be essentially perfectly what I'm looking for, if it was published long ago, Google may refuse to find it. Something like a news search engine would definitely be better off prioritising the new results, but for something more general-purpose, it's an absolutely horrible choice. I know this may be a bit of an edge-case, but I frequently search for service informa…
Google got where it was by being the best at finding what you wanted. I remember those days. Google has a hard time getting me what I want these days, and sites I do find do things to get found that make me like content a lot less (that's you, inane story on top of every recipe required to get ranked)
Discussion at the beginning of the year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16153840
Why does Google deeply index those useless telephone directory sites? Try searching for the impossible U.S. phone number "307-139-2345" and you'll see a bunch of "who called me?" or "reverse phone number lookup" sites. Virtually all of those sites are complete garbage. They make no attempt to collect numbers from telephone directories or from the web. They won't identify a number as being the main phone number for Di…
I think there is an easy heuristic, bias against ads. Google can’t do this. Original sources very likely don’t have ads, scrapes will have tons. But good results are good results. Big g has done an admirable job. They can’t exploit the best metric for quality.