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

Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

journal.james-zhan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 199 posts

Re: Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

#181

Post by pentagrama »

> Every time I published a new post, I would go to GSC and request indexing for the post URL, and my post would be on Google search results shortly after, as expected.

I doubt this is the actual cause, but I can’t think of any other plausible explanation. One possibility is that repeatedly requesting manual indexing in GSC (Google Search Console), while the same URLs were also being discovered automatically through the sitemap, may have unintentionally triggered a spam or quality signal in Google’s indexing system.

This kind of duplicated or aggressive indexing behavior could be misinterpreted by the algorithm, even if the content itself was legitimate.

Re: Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

#182

Post by weird-eye-issue »

nolito wrote: post #158
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You noindex search pages or anything user generated, it's really that simple

Not enough. According to this article ( https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/pludselig-dukkede-nyhed-op-d... you probably need to translate) its enough to link to an authorative site that accepts a query parameter. Googles AI picks up the query parameter as a fact. The artile is about a danish compay probably circumventing sanctions and how russian actors manipulate that fact and turn it around via Google AI

Yeah all pages should have a proper canonical which would solve this too

Re: Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

#183

Post by seec »

ipaddr wrote: post #164
jgalt212 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my page impressions were high, my ranking was high, but click through took a dive. People read the generated text and move along without ever clicking. This been our experience with out content-driven marketing pages in 2025. SERP results constant, but clicks down 90%. This not good for our marketing efforts, and terrible for ad-supported public websites, but I also don't understand how Google is not terribly impac…

They moved from clicks to pageviews which gives them cover until AI ads make up the difference.

Yes, to me it looks like they are now primarily selling placement in search results (or just space on their various properties). I never really understood the rationale behind click-based prices; someone following a link doesn't necessarily make them buy, and the ad got displayed regardless. But it's probably because Google was a bit coy about ads in the start to protect its reputation, so they didn't look too much like ads. Now they have so much traffic on relevant terms that they can sell the top spots at an expensive price.

Re: Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

#184

Post by eikowagenknecht »

I‘m running a very small personal website / blog as well (https://eikowagenknecht.com) where I‘ve been writing about mostly home automation related things that I couldn’t see properly documented before, but also other topics sometimes. A typical page would be a migration guide for Home Assistant from a Pi 4 to Pi 5.

These niche posts had their steady stream of visitors for years now, coming almost exclusively from Google. But August 25 2025, from one day to the other it dropped by about 95 percent and it has been that way ever since, from 1000 visitors per month to maybe 50. Nothing I tried SEO wise could fix it.

Now I don’t need visitors for anything, but I‘m kind of sad that people who were clearly finding my content useful (I got lots of thank you mails and things like that) can’t find it any more.

Nowadays, I get more traffic from Bing, Yandex.ru, DDG and Brave than from Google..

Re: Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

#185

Post by Eisenstein »

socalgal2 wrote: post #154
lunias wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a victim of this when I moved into my house. Being unfamiliar with the area, I googled for a locksmith near me. It returned a result in a shopping center just about a mile away from me. I'd driven past that center before, it seemed entirely plausible that there was a locksmith in there. I called the locksmith and they came, but in an unmarked van, spent over an hour to change 2 locks, damaged both locks, and th…

Just curious, if you were Google, how would you fix this? And take the question seriously, because it's harder than it sounds. They are certainly trying. It's not good for them to have fake listings. https://podcast.rainmakerreputation.com/2412354/episodes/169... (just googled that, didn't listen, was looking for a much older podcast from I think Reply All from like 10yrs ago)

Why does Google get to say 'its hard' and we have to give them a pass? If a business is providing a service, they need to ensure it is doing what it claims. Whether it is difficult or not is not our problem.

Re: Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

#186

Post by ethbr1 »

_heimdall wrote: post #180
ethbr1 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's part of my preference though: I'd rather government regulation of larger market share companies be a gradient rather than a binary. If a few actors control the bulk of a market... wouldn't the same redresses be appropriate whether or not they're colluding? We should make companies want to stay at a competitive market share instead of taking over their markets.

I wouldn't personally want companies to be punished without evidence of collusion. A company isn't doing anything wrong by earning market share, and companies aren't doing anything wrong if they happen to move in a similar direction based on market incentives. If we think free markets are generally going to move in the right direction, we should just want companies to want to fill market gap and outcompete. I don't a…

So there's no collusion or misbehavior, and the market ends up as a duopoly: one participant has 70% and another has 25%.

You don't think that alone distorts the market enough to merit intervention to encourage more competitors?

If you tie intervention to proven malfeasance, you allow abusers to skirt the rules for decades, entrench their positions with obscene profits, and then maybe eventually face consequences if they lose a legal case.

Instead of labeling some things illegal after the fact, monopoly and market law should be based around identifying some high market sharr situations as potentially dangerous and requiring compliance with additional regulations that make it harder for that dominant company to prevent competitors from starting and growing.

Otherwise, it invariably slides into state-aligned and -supported chaebols, because the government has incentive to ask large companies for help and they have incentive to cooperate with the government.

Re: Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

#187

Post by vladms »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #150
vladms wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think free is attainable for everything due to thermodynamics constraints. Imagine "free energy". Everybody uses as much as they want, Earth heats up, things go bad (not far from what is actually happening!). I would settle for simpler, attainable things. Equal opportunity for next generation. Quality education for everybody. Focus on merit not other characteristics. Personal freedom if it does not infringe…

We already have excesses of everything needed to provide for people's basic needs for no extra cost. We have excess food, excess land for housing, and we already pay for free emergency services, which actually costs us much more than if we fixed problems before they became emergencies. (And if there were a need for extra cost, we have massive wealth inequality that can be adjusted, not to mention things like massive…

We do have resources inefficiently allocated (too much accumulation towards one end of the scale), but "shifting" those to the rest will have its challenges, people are complex and sometimes unreasonable (for example: there is housing available but people prefer living badly in a place where they feel they have a chance at some point to live better - big cities usually - rather than villages with few opportunities)

I feel that saying "we have the resources" ignores the difficulty of allocating them better, which is the hardest part. Compared to 20 years ago we have amazing software tools and hardware capabilities, and still many large projects fail - it's not because they don't have the resources...

Re: Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

#189

Post by socalgal2 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #185
socalgal2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, if you were Google, how would you fix this? And take the question seriously, because it's harder than it sounds. They are certainly trying. It's not good for them to have fake listings. https://podcast.rainmakerreputation.com/2412354/episodes/169... (just googled that, didn't listen, was looking for a much older podcast from I think Reply All from like 10yrs ago)

Why does Google get to say 'its hard' and we have to give them a pass? If a business is providing a service, they need to ensure it is doing what it claims. Whether it is difficult or not is not our problem.

Google isn't the one doing anything wrong. The people posting false listing are the ones doing something wrong.

Re: Google de-indexed Bear Blog and I don't know why

#190

Post by Eisenstein »

socalgal2 wrote: post #189
Eisenstein wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does Google get to say 'its hard' and we have to give them a pass? If a business is providing a service, they need to ensure it is doing what it claims. Whether it is difficult or not is not our problem.

Google isn't the one doing anything wrong. The people posting false listing are the ones doing something wrong.

Google represents this data as legitimate.
Post reply on HN