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

Mahalo's disappearing noindex tags

smackdown.blogsblogsblogs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Mahalo's disappearing noindex tags

#31

Post by dasil003 »

josefresco wrote: post #30
jcromartie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jason Calacanis is a guy who runs a sweatshop building a website you've probably never been to and never will because you're a smart person who doesn't fall for spam. He also has made a career out of being a professional asshole and making fun of "lifestyle businesses" that make products that people like and pay for. He thinks that if you're not a workaholic and want to enjoy your short time here on Earth then you sh…

Keep your personal opinions out of this debate, please. This is who Jason is for those who do not know why his 'bad behavior' is so watched and talked about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Calacanis

We're hackers not journalists. If he feels Calacanis is scum he should be free to say so and not be held to some arbitrary standard of wiki-objectivity. It's certainly a lot more truthy than most of the horseshit that Calacanis drops around here whenever the subject of Mahalo comes up.

Re: Mahalo's disappearing noindex tags

#32

Post by alain94040 »

scott_s wrote: post #21
alain94040 wrote: post #4

Shame on Google algorithms for not automatically being able to detect a page without content. Over the years, my view of the Google's ranking algorithms went from dream-like (they are so smart they understand everything) to infant-like (just a bunch of keyword counters). Obviously there has to be huge complexity involved, so my current view must be pessimistic, but still... Just one (unrelated) example: search for "l…

Google is a tool, and like all tools, you need to learn how to use it. Two of your keywords are unnecessary, and I think that caused the problem. First, you don't need "leader." If you're looking for the top of something, you already get that information from the ordering of results. Second, "online" is redundant, since anything you look for will probably be "online." (And I suppose you don't need "in," but I don't t…

You make my point better than I could! You just explained to me that my query, which every human understood perfectly, is stupidly understood as "used cars", so Google is a basic keyword algorithm and this still doesn't explain result #5.

Really, I'm smart enough to understand your explanation of how the tool works. The problem is that I'm in the 99th percentile in the field of "computer keyword understanding" over the general Internet population. So what does that say about the tool?

Re: Mahalo's disappearing noindex tags

#34

Post by tptacek »

raganwald wrote: post #5

Who is Jason Calacanis and why is this particular but of SEO notable? What is aspect of this should "gratify my intellectual curiosity?"

He's allegedly building a business on scraping sites and re-hosting their content to exploit long-tail search. SEO is in general germane to Hacker News. What Google does (or does not do) to deal with Mahalo will be relevant to many YC-style startups.

Re: Mahalo's disappearing noindex tags

#37

Post by froo »

alain94040 wrote: post #32
scott_s wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a tool, and like all tools, you need to learn how to use it. Two of your keywords are unnecessary, and I think that caused the problem. First, you don't need "leader." If you're looking for the top of something, you already get that information from the ordering of results. Second, "online" is redundant, since anything you look for will probably be "online." (And I suppose you don't need "in," but I don't t…

You make my point better than I could! You just explained to me that my query, which every human understood perfectly, is stupidly understood as "used cars", so Google is a basic keyword algorithm and this still doesn't explain result #5. Really, I'm smart enough to understand your explanation of how the tool works. The problem is that I'm in the 99th percentile in the field of "computer keyword understanding" over t…

>So what does that say about the tool?

That there is probably room in the market for more search engines - perhaps specifically ones that specialise in translating only human queries and returning results rather than trying to be more general like Google is.

Like almost all professions that utilise tools in some way, sometimes you just need more specialised tools. A chef wouldn't be that great if he (or she) only had knives to cook with.

Re: Mahalo's disappearing noindex tags

#38

Post by SwellJoe »

dschobel wrote: post #23
raganwald wrote: post #5

Who is Jason Calacanis and why is this particular but of SEO notable? What is aspect of this should "gratify my intellectual curiosity?"

I don't particularly care about Calacanis (sorry Jason) but I'd say gaming Google this thoroughly is pretty newsworthy. Or at least it was the first three times we read about it.

What's amazing, to me, is that we're still reading about it several months into the story. Mahalo is a known black hat spam site, with despicable tactics, and Google continues to apologize on Calacanis' behalf and send traffic to Mahalo.

I think that's actually the interesting part of the story: How Calacanis has snowed so many smart and decent people into doing his bidding.

Re: Mahalo's disappearing noindex tags

#39

Post by mvandemar »

[deleted] wrote: post #36

[deleted]

The first comment they probably voted down because you expressed an opinion that had no relation to the way things work... Matt Cutts can't add noindex to a page, only the people who own the websites can do that. The second comment was probably voted down because you whined about the first one being voted down. And I am guessing that they probably voted this comment down because you called them morons. Just a guess though.

Re: Mahalo's disappearing noindex tags

#40

Post by scott_s »

alain94040 wrote: post #32
scott_s wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a tool, and like all tools, you need to learn how to use it. Two of your keywords are unnecessary, and I think that caused the problem. First, you don't need "leader." If you're looking for the top of something, you already get that information from the ordering of results. Second, "online" is redundant, since anything you look for will probably be "online." (And I suppose you don't need "in," but I don't t…

You make my point better than I could! You just explained to me that my query, which every human understood perfectly, is stupidly understood as "used cars", so Google is a basic keyword algorithm and this still doesn't explain result #5. Really, I'm smart enough to understand your explanation of how the tool works. The problem is that I'm in the 99th percentile in the field of "computer keyword understanding" over t…

Honestly, I think you under-estimate the general population's ability to learn how to use a tool. I think being able to explain why the results are what they are takes another level of understanding. But I think - and, yes, this is an unsubstantiated claim based on personal bias and anecdote - that many people have developed an intuitive feel for how to craft a decent Google query. They may not be able to tell you why they say what they say, but they can still say it.

Personally, I think Google is a good tool. I feel my mental model of it is relatively simple, and from that, I can mostly get what I want. This is also a good time to plug a great article on tools: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/07/wolfram...

edit: My explanation was not that Google understand your search to be "used cars." My explanation was based on the assumption that you were looking for a place, online, to buy used cars from. The keywords "online" and "leader," muddied that. The search for "used cars" yields many places to buy used cars from, and the top entries are probably the "leaders."

Post reply on HN