31–40 of 531 posts
So a common trope in the startup world is the difference between a feature and a company, the idea being that lots of features are masquerading as companies. This inevitably leads to them being shocked--SHOCKED--when some bigger player adds that feature, eating their lunch. I feel the same way about a lot of outbound sites on Google. There are a bunch of things I just don't want to go to another site for. Off the top…
So a common trope in the startup world is the difference between a feature and a company, the idea being that lots of features are masquerading as companies. This inevitably leads to them being shocked--SHOCKED--when some bigger player adds that feature, eating their lunch. I feel the same way about a lot of outbound sites on Google. There are a bunch of things I just don't want to go to another site for. Off the top…
If you have been to a local news site recently, you might agree that they are similarly "scummy," overrun with banners, popups and native ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whereas Google was previously a way for sites to be discovered and for sites to generate revenue, it is increasingly becoming the sole source system where data is scraped and imported into Google, and Google keeps all of the revenue to itself. I wondered yesterday: if you provide microdata, Google scrapes it, and you later decide to remove your sites from Google - is Google allowed to keep the microdata and continu…
I am not sure there's a specific copyright applicable there. You can ask Google to remove your website's data from their index (primarily via robots.txt)... but of course, that also delists you from search. Essentially Google has left the impossible choice to either let them steal your data for free or accept not being findable in the primary search engine on the Internet.
Granted, it's still a while away to get into that territory, I think most sites still profit from Google.
The presumption here, as I understand is, is that a zero-click search happened because Google used one of their inline apps to answer a question. (For example, if I search "population of new york city", I get a big and bold answer along with a graph that shows NYC's population over time, as well as LA and Chicago.) But I'm not convinced that's necessarily true. I frequently search for things to get a general idea of…
I've also had several fights with google over my refinements. If I search for 2 words, odds are stupidly high that most of the results will NOT include one of my two words. Thanks Google, for deciding I didn't really mean to type that. I follow up with added quotes, etc to enforce what I actually typed, so there will be a lot of Google-induced churn. Google has focused so highly on the peak that more and more searche…
-something react something something-
Google gives me some results without react and asks if I want to include the word I typed in the box for reasons.
Like Google I KNOW the words are popular without "react", that's why I included react to narrow the results. Thanks for ruining my search for me....
So a common trope in the startup world is the difference between a feature and a company, the idea being that lots of features are masquerading as companies. This inevitably leads to them being shocked--SHOCKED--when some bigger player adds that feature, eating their lunch. I feel the same way about a lot of outbound sites on Google. There are a bunch of things I just don't want to go to another site for. Off the top…
I though AMP was opt-in for publishers? As in you have to write the front-end spec and pick a CDN to cache with.
We often prefer non-clickbait headlines for good reason. The answer to a question may be simple enough to fit into the headline, but the site will withhold it to get a click.
Paywalls also encourage people to skip reading the article. I find I'm a bit annoyed at first, but it fades quickly and I realize the news probably isn't that important anyway.
The presumption here, as I understand is, is that a zero-click search happened because Google used one of their inline apps to answer a question. (For example, if I search "population of new york city", I get a big and bold answer along with a graph that shows NYC's population over time, as well as LA and Chicago.) But I'm not convinced that's necessarily true. I frequently search for things to get a general idea of…
However, while I agree that there are other factors (and we shouldn't make assumptions), I do think the walled garden effect is real. I find it particularly annoying on Android when I ask Assistant for something and instead of showing me search engine results and a Google inline app, it shows me just Google's answer and has a button to do a search. Adding an extra step to see non-Google information feels like they're trying very hard to steer me toward their stuff.
I don't think I understand this concept. If I search for something using Google, and don't click on a link, doesn't that mean my search was fruitless? What else do we mean by 'zero-click searches'? Edit: Unless it's the simple '6 x 10' or 'What is the time in London', in which case, are we surprised these queries are handled by $SearchEngine? DDG does the same thing (albeit, uses a third party website and gives credi…
Example query - “Leonardo DiCaprio‘s net worth”. While previously this would have resulted in a click to the top website that put in the effort to compile this information, now google would highlight that exact sentence with the answer right there. The site loses a click through and any potential revenue.
So a common trope in the startup world is the difference between a feature and a company, the idea being that lots of features are masquerading as companies. This inevitably leads to them being shocked--SHOCKED--when some bigger player adds that feature, eating their lunch. I feel the same way about a lot of outbound sites on Google. There are a bunch of things I just don't want to go to another site for. Off the top…