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

Google rewrites many page titles

zyppy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 273 posts

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#171

Post by chiefalchemist »

travisgriggs wrote: post #107

I totally get this. Back in the day when I was a kid, we went to the local library and read about the world. When the librarians weren’t serving me by “checking out books” to me, they were busily putting new and improved titles on the books in receiving. /s Seriously. Google is starting to feel less like the librarian of the net (we index the world) and more like the Truman show: we craft your reality.

Yes and no. Anecdotally, most of the SEOs and ppl who do SEO "part time" (e.g., ecomm store owner) still don't understand the foundation of modern SEO.

1. Google doesn't care about the sites. The sites aren't Google's customer.

2. More importantly, the person doing the search is the customer.

Unfortunately, most sites believe SEO is about them. They can improve how they present themselves but the "transaction" is not about them.

Google, serving ads aside, needs to maximize customer satisfaction or run the risk of losing a customer.

It's worth repeating: Google doesn't care about rhe sites.

If Google believes a site's content is a good fit for maximizing customer satisfaction, but the title isn't optimal then it makes perfect sense Google would want to optimize the title, if the title is the "gateway" to a happy customer.

Whether that's right or wrong, IDK. Whether it actually helps, again IDK. But from a pure relationship / business perspective it makes sense.

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#172

Post by jjwiseman »

sjtindell wrote: post #132
travisgriggs wrote: post #107

I totally get this. Back in the day when I was a kid, we went to the local library and read about the world. When the librarians weren’t serving me by “checking out books” to me, they were busily putting new and improved titles on the books in receiving. /s Seriously. Google is starting to feel less like the librarian of the net (we index the world) and more like the Truman show: we craft your reality.

It’s the ads. The way Brin and Page phrased it in their 1998 paper, they considered ad-oriented search engines to be lower quality. They were going to be more academic. They thought that there was lots of user data to mine in search…for academic purposes. Then innovation #2 at the actual startup was the ad auctions and that was the beginning of the end, all the way back at the beginning. I’ve recently read a lot abou…

"Then innovation #2 at the actual startup was the ad auctions..."

I don't think Google quite invented those, GoTo/Overture invented ad auctions and pay-per-click, but missed out on patenting them. Google did improve on the idea, with the second-price auctions.

https://slate.com/business/2013/10/googles-big-break-how-bil...

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#173

Post by vba616 »

omoikane wrote: post #128
pxeger1 wrote: post #3

This article has been really badly proofread (or probably not at all) - "HTLM" - "includ" (unmatched parentheses

(An unmatched left parenthesis creates an unresolved tension that will stay with you all day. https://xkcd.com/859/

\(\\\\

Escaped left parenthesis and two backslashes, or a cross section of a phalanx?

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#174

Post by ajmurmann »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #141
yardstick wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a grain of truth here, in a bit of a tangent: librarians classify all books using a system like Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress Classification. While not adjusting titles, librarians do have some influence on how a book is classified and thus filed/organised within the library. Check out the wiki article on Dewey[1] for the various options for homosexuality, which has numbers for it including under areas…

The Dewey Decimal classification system is ridiculously flawed, and no self-respecting library uses it these days (unless it always has, and hasn't got around to re-organising). Even my school's little one-room library didn't, something I found annoying at first, but came to appreciate.

What are some alternative systems? I'd expect that any categorization system for content needs to make subjective choices.

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#175

Post by Chris2048 »

hammyhavoc wrote: post #148
KerryJones wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that what they're saying isn't important or invalid? Or, what is your point?

I'm saying that we should expect better from HN, and the people who frequent it. Otherwise, it's just a poor alternative to Reddit. If I wanted content marketing that nobody could even be arsed to have proofread then I'd go elsewhere. The ever-decreasing standard continues.

> Otherwise, it's just a poor alternative to Reddit.

There are plenty of great subreddits. Every time I hear reddit used as a put-down it feels very snobbish.

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#176

Post by floatingatoll »

hammyhavoc wrote: post #148
KerryJones wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that what they're saying isn't important or invalid? Or, what is your point?

I'm saying that we should expect better from HN, and the people who frequent it. Otherwise, it's just a poor alternative to Reddit. If I wanted content marketing that nobody could even be arsed to have proofread then I'd go elsewhere. The ever-decreasing standard continues.

Quoting the last paragraph of the guidelines, which has a bunch of supporting hyperlinks:

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

I dislike that they’re an SEO company, but I don’t object to self-serving posts, as long as they’re also curious and interesting to me. Seeing a comprehensive list of how Google rewrites page titles is interesting to me, because I’m fascinated with headline writing.

I’m sorry that you find self-serving content and calls-to-action to be problematic, but I would warn you to expect more of them on HN over time (as neither are violations of the site guidelines). There’s no need to claim it’s going to turn us into Worse Than Reddit. It’s been this way for HN’s entire life, or at least the chunk I’ve been present for. HN’s just the same as it always was. I respect your outrage but you chose an invalid expression of it.

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#177

Post by dheera »

stickfigure wrote: post #126
pavon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that is the worst reason for them to rewrite titles. If they left the title as-is, then I would be able to see in the search results that it was a spammy site and ignore it. Instead Google is helping to launder their SEO and present it as a more legitimate site. If Google thinks a site is gaming their algorithms they should de-prioritize it, not rewrite it.

I think you've got this wrong - they should heavily editorialize the titles. Honest titles of search results: * Five pages of flowery text and images before two lines of instruction on how to boil rice * A bunch of tantalizing pictures of exactly what you're looking for but zero further information about it * Product reviews machine-generated from public review sources with affiliate links. Top-rated product has the…

Would also be nice if they edited things to actually be true, e.g.

* e-bike with 10 miles of actual range even though they advertise 30 miles

* laptop with 2 hours of battery life at 100% CPU usage even though they advertise 10 hours

* median $450 flight even though they advertise it as $199

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#178

Post by hammyhavoc »

Chris2048 wrote: post #175
hammyhavoc wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that we should expect better from HN, and the people who frequent it. Otherwise, it's just a poor alternative to Reddit. If I wanted content marketing that nobody could even be arsed to have proofread then I'd go elsewhere. The ever-decreasing standard continues.

> Otherwise, it's just a poor alternative to Reddit. There are plenty of great subreddits. Every time I hear reddit used as a put-down it feels very snobbish.

Sure. Likewise there's far more terribly moderated ones than good ones. OK, "the average badly moderated sub-Reddit". My opinion remains.

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#179

Post by logifail »

dpark wrote: post #165
foxfluff wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly, if the content is actually relevant to the user's search, does it matter whether the title is clickbait or not? Clickbait pisses me off when it's used to waste my time, but a good search engine wouldn't give me results that waste my time. In other words, it could give me a relevant result with a clickbait title.. I guess that'd be a little annoying but I don't know if I would want Google to be the j…

A poor title reduces the quality of the resource, though. I think it’s reasonable that there is some penalty imposed for poor titles, and that could include clickbait. If the result is the best one for the search, sure, surface it. But if it’s not clear, though, “clickbait title” is a signal that the result is not the best. I do agree it’s not really Google’s place to be rewriting titles, though. That feels very susp…

> A poor title reduces the quality of the resource, though

Is there an objective way to assess quality?

A click-bait title on a page full of ads and text that keep the visitor's attention but don't deliver on the title... ?

Then having held the visitor on your site for a minute or two, but managing to leave them unsatisfied, how about ending the page with a big fat block of even more visual click-bait content at the bottom (Taboola, I'm looking at you).

Don't advertisers and publishers love this stuff? Great metrics.

Re: Google rewrites many page titles

#180

Post by jt2190 »

yardstick wrote: post #138
travisgriggs wrote: post #107

I totally get this. Back in the day when I was a kid, we went to the local library and read about the world. When the librarians weren’t serving me by “checking out books” to me, they were busily putting new and improved titles on the books in receiving. /s Seriously. Google is starting to feel less like the librarian of the net (we index the world) and more like the Truman show: we craft your reality.

There’s a grain of truth here, in a bit of a tangent: librarians classify all books using a system like Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress Classification. While not adjusting titles, librarians do have some influence on how a book is classified and thus filed/organised within the library. Check out the wiki article on Dewey[1] for the various options for homosexuality, which has numbers for it including under areas…

> Check out… the various options for homosexuality, which has numbers for it including under areas including mental illness!

Classifying a new technology is another major area where the original taxonomies need to be extended in order successfully index material. The internet, for example, didn’t exist at when LC/Dewey were originally defined.

Post reply on HN