41–50 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They probably look at the metrics and see that a lot of people are going to the Pinterest results. That the results are garbage and undermine the Google images search experience is much harder to measure.
But isn’t this a sign that it’s actually useful for people? At the same time I have to admit that google image search is probably their worst vertical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another obvious question: does Google pay for the valuable free content they get from Wikipedia?
"The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirem…
Long time Pinterest user here with a different perspective; back around 2016 there was a serious problem with duplicate images on Pinterest. You couldn't search for the word "bicycle" without seeing the same photo hundreds of times. At some point it got better, and it seemed to me that they were doing some image recognition. It has since gotten MUCH better at suggesting images that are visually similar. So let me get…
No. Nobody cares about the deduplication part. Good for them. And if they used their own users' content to increase search accuracy for their own users, nobody would care either. What people care about is that they're actively seeking out and borrowing non users' content (metadata and descriptions) to trick Google image search and pull in other non users who then can't even see the pictures they clicked for.
> Show me on the doll where it touched you.
Interesting how such an irrelevant metaphor comes so readily to mind for you, and that you think it's something to joke about. Hint: it's a super bad look for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SEO ‘hacking’ is clearly positive for the businesses doing it, but the benefits on a larger scale are less clear cut. Do you believe strategies such as outlined in the article are a net positive, negative, or a neutral tactic for search engines and the web at large?
At the end of the day, Google is a private company. They get to set the rules and police search results how they see fit. I don't think Pinterest is doing anything unethical. I do think it is spammy, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn’t this a sign that it’s actually useful for people? At the same time I have to admit that google image search is probably their worst vertical.
I'd say it's more of a sign of what shows up highest in their index rather than any indication on the quality.
Is it that weird to believe that lots of people have Pinterest logins?
Hey folks, I'm the author here and CEO of RankScience (YC W17). AMA about this growth hack or SEO in general!
There are certain sites like Wikipedia that improve the web's utility for all who use it, small and giant companies alike. Google search is improved by Wikipedia's existence. And then there are sites like Pinterest, that degrade the web's utility for the vast majority of people on Earth. It actually harms Google's search experience (obviously image search) and frustrates us that try to benignly browse images. Why doe…
An obvious question: does Pinterest buy a lot of Google's ad services?
If you generate money for them, they index you, even if the content is bad, and vice versa.
Back when I was an SRE at google for their web crawler, I thought they should de-index pinterest (did not get any traction with this). I still think they should de-index pinterest. I add "-site:pinterest.*" to all my image searches.
There's an extension for that :) https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/unpinterested/gefa...
It's great. Adds '-site:pinterest.*' to every image search.