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

I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 288 posts

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#171

Post by ux266478 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #154
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman is always right, and HN always downvotes it.

Publicly defending pedophilia arguably isn't “right”, but if you restrict Stallman's positions to software licensing, then I'd agree with you.

The only instance in which he's ever engaged in "publicly defending pedophilia" was in remarks he made 20 years ago about the innocuity of "voluntary" sex with minors. He has since retracted those statements and publicly espoused a different and more informed opinion. There's certainly a large amount of very low-quality journalism engaging in bad-faith interpretations of things he's said in other contexts, though these aren't serious characterizations, only hallucinations manufactured by professional scheisters to fulfill unspoken agendas. At this point dredging it up and holding it against him in-perpetuity is a bit wrongheaded.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#173

Post by shevy-java »

mkehrt wrote: post #150
pocksuppet wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In particular, if you license it MIT, and it's useful, expect Amazon to make a fork, not give you the source code, and each tens of millions of dollars from it while you don't get a cent. There's writing code for charity, and then there's this . Charity wasn't meant to include hyper-corporations.

I don't understand your point? If you write code with an MIT license, this is what you would expect.

Totally agreed.

I find it strange that people use the MIT licence and then complain "big greedy corporation did not contribute back anything". Though I also agree that this leeching approach by corporations is a problem to the ecosystem. MIT just is not the right licence to fight that.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#174

Post by NameNickHN »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #37
dirk94018 wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Extremely offtopic but I accidentally pasted the link linuxtoaster.com. (with the dot) and I thought it would lead to my search engine (DDG) or something but then the website opened. Then I tried opening up google.com. and this works too. I didn't know that websites resolve when you add another additional dot after TLD. This was a really fun coincidence type thing so I wanted to share it with you.

IIRC domains names read from the right and the first dot is omitted. It's actually

com. example.com. subdomain.example.com.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#175

Post by Ma8ee »

gowld wrote: post #148
pocksuppet wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In particular, if you license it MIT, and it's useful, expect Amazon to make a fork, not give you the source code, and each tens of millions of dollars from it while you don't get a cent. There's writing code for charity, and then there's this . Charity wasn't meant to include hyper-corporations.

So? I am not about to create AWS. I'm glad people can use my free software on their own machines, on rented servers, or hosted by an expert.

Are you still glad when AWS starts selling you software as a service and make hundreds of millions and you get nothing?

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#176

Post by graemep »

shevy-java wrote: post #169
nananana9 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want evil megacorps to give you money when they use your thing, maybe say "if you're an evil megacorp you have to give me money when you use my thing" in the license? If your license reads "hey, you can use this however you want, no matter who you are, and don't have to give me money", people will use it however they want, no matter who they are, and won't give you money. Unfortunately, for decades, free softw…

I agree that MIT may not be the best licence here in such a use case scenario. The question is why corporations think they can be leeches though - and the bigger, the more of a leech they are on the ecosystem. That's just not right.

> The question is why corporations think they can be leeches though

because they can be. They do not think they can be leeches, they know they can be leeches.

> That's just not right

I somewhat agree with you, but they do actually have permission to do it.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#177

Post by vogu66 »

lucasluitjes wrote: post #38

I've been annoyed with Google search quality lately and was wondering how the others fared on this specific issue. Turns out, mostly not much better. Bing, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Ecosia, Brave all had the github repo and nanoclaw.net (the fake homepage) in the first or second place. Marginalia had fascinating results about biology but only tangentially related Nanoclaw results, not the github repo or either the fake or r…

My default is ecosia and below sponsored links there is only the github and pages talking about the thing, no official or unofficial page. I guess that's better?

It gives two sponsored links to openclaw things, so no fake either (presumably, I don't know what they are).

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#178

Post by graemep »

ux266478 wrote: post #171
littlestymaar wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publicly defending pedophilia arguably isn't “right”, but if you restrict Stallman's positions to software licensing, then I'd agree with you.

The only instance in which he's ever engaged in "publicly defending pedophilia" was in remarks he made 20 years ago about the innocuity of "voluntary" sex with minors. He has since retracted those statements and publicly espoused a different and more informed opinion. There's certainly a large amount of very low-quality journalism engaging in bad-faith interpretations of things he's said in other contexts, though the…

Of course restrict it to his opinions on software licensing. I think that is the sort of thing people mean when they say he was right.

Lots of people made similar claims. Most notably The National Council for Civil Liberties (now called Liberty), the UK's leading civil/human rights organisation made submissions to parliament claiming that sex with minors was not always harmful, had a pro-paedo organisation as an affiliate and give them a representative on the gay rights subcommittee: https://www.thetimes.com/travel/destinations/uk-travel/scotl... The people involved were unaffected, some reaching fairly high political permissions.

A lot of other people whose works are respected have actually had sex with minors. Eric Gill and Oscar Wilde for example.

None of that makes Stallman's opinions defensible in my opinion. On the other hand I am happy to ignore his opinions on that topic and still value his opinions on other things.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#179

Post by graemep »

AznHisoka wrote: post #4

I’m looking at this from a 3rd party of view (definitely not claiming the .net “deserves” to rank higher) 1) the .net version has a couple of very high authority links, namely from theregister and thenewstack (both of which have had lots of engagement). I highly doubt it would have ranked without those links. 2) its only been a week. Give Google time to understand which pages should rank higher. 3) Google is biased t…

I think the precaution developers should take is having a website and adding a page to it for each project.

If you must just have a repo self host it. In fact, selfhost the repo in any case.

Re: I'm losing the SEO battle for my own open source project

#180

Post by allthetime »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #71
Growtika wrote: post #53

A couple years back John Reilly posted on HN "How I ruined my SEO" and I helped him fix it for free. He wrote about the whole thing here: https://johnnyreilly.com/how-we-fixed-my-seo Happy to do the same for you if you want. The quickest win in your case: map all the backlinks the .net site got (happy to pull this for you), then email every publication that linked to it. "Hey, you covered NanoClaw but linked to a fak…

This is very generous of you! If I was the author, however, I'd still feel like I've been put in a predicament where I need to spend personal agency to fix something that Google has broken. While that may just be a fact of life, my internal injustice-o-meter would be raging. Like, Google is going to take hours of my life because they, with all their billions of capital, can't figure out the canonically-true website w…

The billions of capital are exactly why they don't care about you. Also, Google didn't break anything. The only person who can claw out a place in this giant machine for yourself is you - all while billions of others attempt to do the same.
Post reply on HN