31–40 of 117 posts
Honestly, I feel like this is Google's fault. It shouldn't be prioritising new content as much as it does. The best articles are often "classics" from several years ago that haven't changed because they haven't needed to.
Honestly, I feel like this is Google's fault. It shouldn't be prioritising new content as much as it does. The best articles are often "classics" from several years ago that haven't changed because they haven't needed to.
How is this Googles fault? They’re just following the market. People want “modern” information. They don’t want old stuff from two years ago.
Vast numbers of people are currently employed writing/updating articles with titles like "What You Need To Know About Cats In Mid-November 2019". This is Google's fault.
If I wrote an article in 2015 and freshen it up with more relevant links, better writing, or some other thing, is it still published in 2015? Should I re-date it? Am I "gaming" the system by doing that? Or am I notifying my readers (all 3 of them!) that there is fresh content? This is actually a real question from me, and I'd love feedback. I look back on my stuff from a few years ago and the blog posts need fixing u…
I know some sites abuse this because of the way that the Google algorithm works, but it is a good practice to list the date you last updated the post so your visitors can see.
For specific topics, I prefer to read more recent info so if I end up on a page that lists "2015" as published date but doesn't tell me that it has been updated since, I may not trust that page as much simply because of the idea I may have that the info may be outdated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought Google heavily penalized your site if the human version was different from the googlebot version
How do they detect that? Presumably human review, which can't possibly cover every malicious page on the internet. I assume if you report the site they queue it up to be scanned by a human, unless their solution is just to have versions of googlebot that are harder to detect - possible, but if someone is already going out of their way to trick googlebot, I don't know how well this would work in practice. As a startin…
Easy, their crawler has a google bot user agent. Then they sample some number of links with a human like user agent, and diff the output, plug the diff into some algorithm to assess the score.
How does everyone feel about only showing the updated date on the blog post itself but keeping the real / original published time in the meta tags? I do that on my site mainly to keep things less cluttered. Every post has an "Updated on November 12th 2019 in #docker #flask" line at the top of the post and that date is either the original published date or the last time I updated the content in the post, but the meta…
Actually, a lot of sites keep updated posts with new information, which is useful. Which I believe makes it harder for Google to figure out who is gaming SEO and who are providing actual value.
Honestly, I feel like this is Google's fault. It shouldn't be prioritising new content as much as it does. The best articles are often "classics" from several years ago that haven't changed because they haven't needed to.
How is this Googles fault? They’re just following the market. People want “modern” information. They don’t want old stuff from two years ago.
If I wrote an article in 2015 and freshen it up with more relevant links, better writing, or some other thing, is it still published in 2015? Should I re-date it? Am I "gaming" the system by doing that? Or am I notifying my readers (all 3 of them!) that there is fresh content? This is actually a real question from me, and I'd love feedback. I look back on my stuff from a few years ago and the blog posts need fixing u…
Thanks again!
Actually, a lot of sites keep updated posts with new information, which is useful. Which I believe makes it harder for Google to figure out who is gaming SEO and who are providing actual value.
How so? Could they not ML-detect the main body/content of the post and do a simple diff to previous "crawls" of the same content? You would think this gets picked up and somehow "resolved" because it's essentially a duplicate post or entry in their crawled pages DB.
Yeah, I could do that in an afternoon :^)