21–30 of 119 posts
Hey folks, I'm the author here and CEO of RankScience (YC W17). AMA about this growth hack or SEO in general!
Do you believe strategies such as outlined in the article are a net positive, negative, or a neutral tactic for search engines and the web at large?
Hey folks, I'm the author here and CEO of RankScience (YC W17). AMA about this growth hack or SEO in general!
In your opinion, is this a growth hack you'd suggest one of your customers try? Or does it cross a line in your opinion? "SEO Optimization" is difficult because it's such an imperfect science (or perhaps not, based on your company name!) What are a couple examples or anecdotes of SEO "hacks" / optimizations that are least obvious or things most people wouldn't think of, that have had the most significant impact on SE…
Organic search is still where 80% of the clicks are in search. (only 20% go to paid - though this is changing)
These are easy wins and are considered "white hat" and legitimate tactics:
* Title tag optimization with SEO A/B testing - increase CTR from Google by 10-40%
* Using NLP Content Optimization to increase content relevancy
* Optimize internal linking structure of your site so Google can easily understand your site hierarchy and spread value to important pages
* Build natural backlinks by creating interesting content that people want to engage with and link to (like this post!)
There are certain sites like Wikipedia that improve the web's utility for all who use it, small and giant companies alike. Google search is improved by Wikipedia's existence. And then there are sites like Pinterest, that degrade the web's utility for the vast majority of people on Earth. It actually harms Google's search experience (obviously image search) and frustrates us that try to benignly browse images. Why doe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super interesting. A lot of people feel the same way. Why do you think you weren't able to get any traction for this?
They probably look at the metrics and see that a lot of people are going to the Pinterest results. That the results are garbage and undermine the Google images search experience is much harder to measure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Super interesting. A lot of people feel the same way. Why do you think you weren't able to get any traction for this?
They probably look at the metrics and see that a lot of people are going to the Pinterest results. That the results are garbage and undermine the Google images search experience is much harder to measure.
Everything is decided by AI based on data we don't really understand.
There are certain sites like Wikipedia that improve the web's utility for all who use it, small and giant companies alike. Google search is improved by Wikipedia's existence. And then there are sites like Pinterest, that degrade the web's utility for the vast majority of people on Earth. It actually harms Google's search experience (obviously image search) and frustrates us that try to benignly browse images. Why doe…
An obvious question: does Pinterest buy a lot of Google's ad services?
Back when I was an SRE at google for their web crawler, I thought they should de-index pinterest (did not get any traction with this). I still think they should de-index pinterest. I add "-site:pinterest.*" to all my image searches.
I wish we could do the same for Shutterstock and all these useless stock image websites that have totally hacked Google image search yet Google won't do anything about them for some reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An obvious question: does Pinterest buy a lot of Google's ad services?
Another obvious question: does Google pay for the valuable free content they get from Wikipedia?
Back when I was an SRE at google for their web crawler, I thought they should de-index pinterest (did not get any traction with this). I still think they should de-index pinterest. I add "-site:pinterest.*" to all my image searches.
I wish we could do the same for Shutterstock and all these useless stock image websites that have totally hacked Google image search yet Google won't do anything about them for some reason.
What I would like is an open protocol for media licenses. Some media-license.txt file with names of images (and wildcards) and license info.
hero.jpg CC0
*.PNG PD # public domain
# A free preview of a proprietary image.
Teaser.jpg preview
Then sites like shutterstock could clearly mark their previews of real images, and galleries of free images could mark their images as free to use, etc. This could be reflected in the search engines' UI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An obvious question: does Pinterest buy a lot of Google's ad services?
Another obvious question: does Google pay for the valuable free content they get from Wikipedia?
The use of Wikipedia's information in search results is generally useful to the user.
Pinterest's spamming of search results can harm the user experience, making it harder to find content that is hosted elsewhere. Often the content elsewhere is better than that found on Pinterest because it is more likely to be the original source (or at least cite the original).