141–150 of 296 posts
It kind of ruined content too. Why it ruined content? You are not the only one that is searching for the answer to that question. Keep reading to know why SEO ruined content. Many people think that SEO ruined content, in this post, we are goin to explain why SEO ruined content. When you finish reading this post, you will know why SEO ruined content. In the last years we have observed a grown in the quantity of conten…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a very rough estimate. I'm not going to check every search in my history. But it feels like the chances I'll find what I need are comparable to the chances I won't. One example: this weekend I was looking for lyrics from the British folk band Why? . I know they exist; my brother has a bunch of their albums. I have quoted lyrics at Google, I've searched for it on Youtube, I've searched for the band name combined…
Lyrics are notoriously hard to find on Google. I assume it's in part due to copyright issues, but it's also not how Google works. Searches are based on key words, not exact matches of several words in order.
Now there are times where I can’t remember the song title, but I can type a few lines of lyrics verbatim plus include the musician’s name and get only random, unrelated links.
It kind of ruined content too. Why it ruined content? You are not the only one that is searching for the answer to that question. Keep reading to know why SEO ruined content. Many people think that SEO ruined content, in this post, we are goin to explain why SEO ruined content. When you finish reading this post, you will know why SEO ruined content. In the last years we have observed a grown in the quantity of conten…
Yep. Say I want a recipe. A tried and true delicious recipe. Can I search and just find a recipe? Nope. Through the magic of SEO, I now have to scroll through 15 paragraphs of somebody's life story before being able to examine the time and ingredients. How much time and energy was wasted on building "tag" systems? All those fun little term link clouds that sites used to have. I know I wasted time on it. I had somethi…
Pay for a Cooks Illustrates or NYT Cooking subscription and all these problems go away.
I totally agree. Google has become useless for about half my searches. It gives me only the biggest, most commercial or most popular results. Anything obscure is impossible to find. I'd like to have a search engine where you get only the most obscure, hard-to-find content. One where you can tweak the kind of content you're looking for, or even switch between different modes: am I just looking for the definition of a…
I wish I would have seen this coming years ago. I would have built a Google Custom Search Engine, and every time I ran into a good website, added it to the whitelist. By now, it would probably be alright.
It kind of ruined content too. Why it ruined content? You are not the only one that is searching for the answer to that question. Keep reading to know why SEO ruined content. Many people think that SEO ruined content, in this post, we are goin to explain why SEO ruined content. When you finish reading this post, you will know why SEO ruined content. In the last years we have observed a grown in the quantity of conten…
This is sooo true, every time i look for a recipe online it's all i ever see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't being rude, just increasing the sample size and reporting back. Perhaps we're witnessing SEO for different regions, regulations, and aggregate history of the two.
Again, I'm not a native speaker, here are the exact words that krapp used: - "Don't know what to tell you." - "The problem you're complaining about doesn't actually appear to exist, at least not objectively." In my limited experience I don't see any reasons to use these exact words in this context except to belittle..? Anyone care to explain? My seatbelt is fastened and I'm ready to learn (and apologize if necessary…
The first quote is potentially a dismissal, which is belittling. However, if it stood alone, it could also be interpreted as the person backing off because they lack qualification to interpret the results. But the second quote includes dismissal terms like "complaining" and "not objectively" in a demeaning context.
So, with all that, I'd say your impression is valid. The context highly suggests that these responses were meant to belittle the parent author's contribution to the conversation.
Here is my take on the parent's search results. The God Of War director ( Cory Barlog ) was a big part of the marketing for the game. And he did some in-game commentary for it too. So, this suggests some kind of SEO manipulation. But it could also just be the google spellcheck guessing wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this particular example particularly gross. Recipe's are no doubt a heavily searched category. Why does google allow pure CPM hacking garbage websites to win the top spots? does it have to do with the google ads from top to bottom?
> Why does google allow pure CPM hacking garbage websites to win the top spots? Something bothered me about this question, and I think it's the way it frames Google's role as being a passive participant. Google doesn't "allow" anything. Google writes the rules and picks the winners. When you search for "chocolate chip cookie recipe," Google's search algorithm goes "Here's a nice webpage with Grandma Betty's life stor…
It's not just some simple disinterested mathematical orchestration without any engagement or other layer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recipe blogs are the worst! Just get to the goods already!
It's like we've flipped APIs on their heads - humans use tools to obtain the minimal data (just the recipe), while the bots make requests and receive the whole dump of pointless, extraneous fluff in return.
The Internet is the exact opposite of what it was meant to be. Instead of giving efficient access to high-quality information, it gives inefficient access to watered down, spread-down, low-quality interaction. Site after site, query after query, we all continuously pay a little tax with our time.