251–260 of 363 posts
I often use examine.com directly without going through Google but I hope Google will realize they have made a mistake in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I want to explain why I am so passionate about this. Resources like Examine are amazing for lots of people. And the fact that they are free and credible, is incredible. So I hate it when people like you are incredibly lazy, only doing cursory looks at things, and then pretend that those of us who have done hundreds of hours of research are the lazy ones. Not only that, but people like you are probably scaring off…
"So I hate it when people like you are incredibly lazy, only doing cursory looks at things, and then pretend that those of us who have done hundreds of hours of research are the lazy ones." Then maybe look into how to present yourself as something other than a wide-eyed lunatic. To me , if not mindlessly taking the word of an online hype squad sets them off, that's a big, red flag.
Hell, I'm not even as passionate as the typical sports fan.
And this is true, despite my not having to pay any money for information which has helped my sleep, concentration, athletic performance, social comfortability, empathy for others, etc.
Most people would pay tens of thousands of dollars for the benefits I've received. And I got those benefits with some free info, and a few hundred dollars worth of supplements.
So don't feel so shocked if someone has a positive opinion about the company which provided a lot of the "free information" part of that equation.
Anyway, thank you for the interesting discussion. One thing I've learned from supplement experimentation is that biochemistry heavily dictates the kinds of feelings and thoughts people are capable of. It's entirely possible we will be unable to persuade each other of much of anything, if our biochemistry doesn't make it salient to do so :).
Have a great day, wherever you are!!
Is there any other double-digit employee at Google around now who can take up the mantle?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, it's rude of you to keep downvoting my replies to you. If you apparently respect the discussion enough to continue it, you don't need to automatically downvote everything, especially when you refuse to put in any evidentiary work yourself. Stop being so petty.
So that you know, in case you haunt this place in the future, posters here can't downvote direct responses to their posts. That's other people doing that. When enough people downvote your posts, that's when they start turning lighter and lighter gray.
I've "haunted" this place since the first day it existed (though with other nicknames), and will doubtless haunt it for years to come. I just normally lurk, not comment.
This was just a topic important enough to bring me out of the woodwork.
"posters here can't downvote direct responses to their posts."
I did not know this, thank you for explaining. Apparently someone is following our discussion and almost instantly downvoting me each time (I guess...)
I never experienced that before, so I thought it was you. My apologies, apparently you are not rude like I thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, it's rude of you to keep downvoting my replies to you. If you apparently respect the discussion enough to continue it, you don't need to automatically downvote everything, especially when you refuse to put in any evidentiary work yourself. Stop being so petty.
So that you know, in case you haunt this place in the future, posters here can't downvote direct responses to their posts. That's other people doing that. When enough people downvote your posts, that's when they start turning lighter and lighter gray.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So that you know, in case you haunt this place in the future, posters here can't downvote direct responses to their posts. That's other people doing that. When enough people downvote your posts, that's when they start turning lighter and lighter gray.
Also, to be honest, none of my comments shows as grey, but a couple of yours do. I don't get it. (I do have one comment showing as -1, previously -2).
However, it looks really dodgy.
The layout, titles of articles, illustrations and just about everything makes it look like part of a cheap ad farm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn’t matter. If a cursory visit doesn’t inspire confidence, users will back out and that will look like low engagement/low value to Google’s ranking analysis. It’s actually a more helpful analysis for this topic to do a cursory, cosmetic look.
So how you go by applying this reasoning to this very website where you are commenting? Hacker News would never be, for me personally, on the top of the list of websites that inspire confidence by its looks, it's only when you delve into it and realise the content is actually great that you can appreciate it. Such a shallow evaluation is quite strange coming from technical people who are used to mailing lists and all…
Other than the whole unchangeable orange theme, I think it's fairly easy to intuit.
The folks at Examine.com should also analyze what inbound links they have scattered on the web. An easy way to sink your competition is to place their links on shady websites. It's common SEO practice.
I thought google got rid of the disavow feature and no longer penalize on the quality of inbound links?
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/disavow-links-main?p...
Got curious and decided to go through their SEO. - First off, according to Ahrefs, their dofollow / nofollow ratio is a staggering 10:1, which is a huge red flag right away. A more natural ratio would be in the neighborhood of 1:2 so we are talking 20x less. But hey, maybe it's the niche that naturally attracts a ton of dofollow links - let's move on - Looking at another of the main spam indicators, anchor text, most…
This completely misses the point of a search engine. The ability to game SEO has nothing to with relevance or content quality. If a random supplement information website's most lucrative monetization path would be to game SEO instead of doing what they're nominally supposed to do (i.e. provide quality content), the problem doesn't lie with the the content owner but rather with the search engine and the incentives it…