More content by people, for people in Search

Post by seanwilson » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #198

seanwilson wrote: post #174

> Next week, we'll launch the “helpful content update” to tackle content that seems to have been primarily created for ranking well in search engines rather than to help or inform people. This ranking update will help make sure that unoriginal, low quality content doesn’t rank highly in Search, and our testing has found it will especially improve results related to online education, as well as arts and entertainment,…

> What about letting users give a vote/rating or leaving a comment on if a page was helpful? Difficult for such a system not to be gamed, e.g. via botnets.

Post by bsedlm » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 4:27 PM UTC

kylecordes wrote: post #270

dalbasal wrote: post #95

>> We know people don’t find content helpful if it seems like it was designed to attract clicks rather than inform readers. So... Back when "SEO" was new, I would read the Matt Cutts blog. He was head of "anti-spam." I remember thinking back then that anti-spam was an ignorant frame. Once Google gained importance, websites started trying to improve their rankings. That might mean migrating from Flash to HTML. It migh…

I agree with you, but Google also faces a perhaps impossible problem of how to detect good content on YouTube. They can look at how long people watch; but that ends up rewarding rambling pointless blather when a concise two minute video would be perfect. They can look at likes or subscribes, but that causes many wasted human lifetimes per day, of people saying and listening to pleading to click said buttons.

Post by jccalhoun » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #224

jccalhoun wrote: post #191

I am so sick and tired of sites that have a bunch of filler content in them just to appear higher in search results. You search for something, say "How to change a light bulb" and you get all this front loading with sections on "what is a light bulb?" "Why do light bulbs need changing?" "Picking a light bulb" and then finally the answer. Maybe a search engine that could prioritize getting to the point would be good.

Basic queries like "how to change a light bulb" are better answered on Youtube; it's not 1995 anymore, a web page explaining that with text and pictures is slower than creating a video. The only ones still writing web pages for things like that are trying to sell you something. If they weren't, they'd also just make a video.

Post by mikro2nd » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 5:13 PM UTC

Kbelicius wrote: post #157

mikro2nd wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're forced into long form posts because recipes cannot be copyrighted . By adding a story you get something with copy rights.

IANAL but wouldn't you just get a copyright on the story and somebody could still extract all the necessary information for preparing the meal and publish it as a simple recipe?

Post by rawoke083600 » Fri, Aug 19, 2022, 5:15 PM UTC

yunohn wrote: post #120

swiftcoder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, more likely, they are just SEO optimising by providing a lot of prose (which Google has historically prioritised in search rankings) - the same way as all those AI-generated article summaries on the astroturfing sites

How do you propose anyone (Google or humans) differentiate between 500 mostly-similar recipes for brownies? I think HNers look at food blogs with a very depressing robotic expectation.