41–50 of 101 posts
I use DDG but homestly it not much better as far as quality of results go. To me it feels like DDG has gone out of its way to copy Googles shitty algorithm.
I use DDG but homestly it not much better as far as quality of results go. To me it feels like DDG has gone out of its way to copy Googles shitty algorithm.
For all the tiny violins that could be played about how life is getting harder for SEO practitioners, this marks a fundamental and very unwelcome change in the Web. Google have decided that it’s more profitable to keep people on its own site than redirecting them elsewhere, a big change in its contract. Before, it was ‘structure your site well and we’ll send you traffic’. Now it’s becoming, ‘structure your site well…
As someone who has just launched a business to help companies produce useful free content for readers in return for their potential business, this is really worrying trend. That said, I have full faith in people. Specifically for people to drop Google and move to smaller search engines if Google no longer shows them the best content. And to use adblockers. Google gives me fairly good results most of the time with uBl…
Google basically always finds what I'm looking for (or what I think I'm looking for). Bing gets it maybe 60% of the time, and DDG is even less.
It'll be fascinating to watch if Google eventually falls. They have really interesting strategic weaknesses. Advertisers will go where the people go, but Google's balance sheets suggest there is enormous scope for a middleman to go and negotiate with the Apples/Mozillas/Microsofts of the world to give them a better cut of the search revenue. I can imagine a key based system where I register a token with, say, "Hoogle…
... did you just describe an advertising marketplace as an alternative to web search?
To the large portion of the population who doesn't understand that the "top result" on a Google search is an ad, this is already where we are at. The subtle but impactful changes to make ads incrementally less distinguishable from real results has brought us here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kinds of searches are you thinking about? I like that I can google for the weather or Dr. Fauci's age and get an answer directly. The results page always has links if I care to dig deeper but 99% of the time I'd rather get the answer and move on.
>The results page always has links if I care to dig deeper but 99% of the time I'd rather get the answer and move on. So, by your own numbers, websites that create the content have just lost 99% of your page views to Google. >What kinds of searches are you thinking about? Sounds like pretty much all your searches can be used as examples then.
No because less than 100% of my searches are for questions with simple answers.
Part of the reason getting an answer quickly from Google is so appealing is because the sources that Google uses seem to be hostile to their audience. I use Google Fi and pay $10 / GB for my data which means your ad heavy page may cost me more in bandwidth fees than you get from ads.
Do you think newsreaders are as evil as Google? I use NetNewsWire on my tablet and very few of the feeds I subscribe to show any ads and I rarely click through to the source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kinds of searches are you thinking about? I like that I can google for the weather or Dr. Fauci's age and get an answer directly. The results page always has links if I care to dig deeper but 99% of the time I'd rather get the answer and move on.
While I think those features are cool, and also appreciate DDG's very primitive version of them, how come it isn't considered some kind of copyright violation? After all, use a 5 second clip of a song for fair use and YouTube may automatically remove your video(or just the audio) on behalf of Universal Music Group. Maybe websites ought to send DMCA takedown notices to Google when they find their content being used as…
I use DDG but homestly it not much better as far as quality of results go. To me it feels like DDG has gone out of its way to copy Googles shitty algorithm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea is: I trust the content of the website (ex. the actual weather forecast) but I don't trust/like the way it is served on their website (intrusive ads, cookie acceptance, heavy pages, etc). The fact that the core of the content is displayed directly through Google bypasses the problems above.
There's two parts to this that you're unfairly combining There's what you don't like, and there's what you don't trust (in the computing security sense of the word). If you don't trust them to not do stuff that actually harms your computer, you shouldn't trust their content. The sites that serve most of the malware on the internet don't have stuff Google is going to quote in a search result... - Now there's the stuff…
This is a trope, but is it true? Maybe these spendy people buying all these $5 coffees are also buying apps and renting movies and looking at ads, while the cheapskates making drip at home are pirating and ad-blocking.
Apple isn't making tens of $billions off people refusing to buy apps.
Truth be told, Google's #1 objective is to be human. That is, to recommend what a human would recommend, but automated and at scale. This is why Google consistently recommends: Design for the human, not the bot + algorithm.
Taken a step further with personalization, Google just want to be you. That is, what would you recommend to you if you could. Who is going to make you more happy than you?
Sure SEO is a cat & mouse game but the arc of that plot is the cat wins more and more often. Eventually the mouse will be wise to assimilate.