421–430 of 531 posts
I use DuckDuckGo, obviously, especially if I need technical information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably the site being scraped is getting some value from being included in Google's index. If they aren't, they can always opt out.
First you have to find a way to prove it’s your data which isn’t trivial. Genius had to invent a watermarking system for texts: https://betanews.com/2019/06/17/google-genius-com-lyrics/
I think what folks are missing is that a lot of these "zero-click" searches happen as a result of Google scraping your website, and displaying the results as a "featured snippet." Yes, they link to you below the featured snippet. No, more people don't click, because they've taken the answer from your website and displayed it right in their search results. For example: If I'm searching for "best nail for cedar wood" G…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was curious what it was complaining about, since https://henryfjordan.com looks great to me. I tried to run it through Google's "Mobile Friendly Test" but fetching failed [1] because your robots.txt has: User-agent: * Disallow: / This would explain why you've gotten zero clicks from Google (or I would guess anyone else's) search results! On the other hand, it's surprising that you would get a notification if you ha…
Google seems to see robots.txt as "more what you call guidelines, than actual rules". Sites that block googlebot or all bots with robots.txt still turn up in google searches, just without a description, and are obviously still indexed.
they can index without scraping. It is enough that other websites have links to you site. So the google bot follows the rules in robots.txt to the letter. "no-index" is the way to stay away from google.
It feels to me like the SEO optimizing folks have gotten out ahead of Google's algorithm. I've been getting back into an old hobby and looking for where to buy supplies or advice on which supplies to buy and it's just all spam, fake sites and low quality products. And it occurs to me that I've been experiencing a lesser version of this for years. Google search just isn't working for me anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So by having a website, I implicitly agree to Google's search practices? That doesn't seem right.
You put a resource on an open network and don't use any of the standard, recognized methods to indicate don't index, don't share, (nor lock it away with auth). It's like if you put a sculpture in front yard and get upset when someone points it out in their neighborhood tour company, even worse cause yard ornaments don't have standard accepted methods of saying "don't use". Two choices 1) use robots.txt 2) don't put i…
This is the kind of argument people used to use as they flagrantly violated your copyright by cloning your article on their own site. "You put it on the Internet, so it's free for everyone to copy."
The law says no such thing, at least not in any jurisdiction that I'm familiar with. Contrary to popular belief in some quarters, normal laws do still apply on the Internet.
If you infringe copyright, it's still infringement even if what you copied was freely available on someone else's site.
And if you state something that is misleading and harmful, it might still be defamation, even if what you stated was just an automatically generated snippet that takes a small part of someone else's site and shows it out of context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. Take it easy here, there is a long way between indexing and showing the most relevant hit and outright lifting big parts out of the site and use them on their own property: It is more like if the guide that used to send visitors to your property has set up their own boot on the best spot on the sidewalk next to you and are raking in money because of the useless (often, in the last few years) ads they have plaste…
I think of it more as if you put a banner with content somewhere in the public, and I take a photo of it, what can I later do with that photo? And for that, it's a question of copyright. It turns out, in the US, if something is publicly available it does not make the copyright a part of the public domain. Thus the original author still retains copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There is an exception to thi…
In answer to your final question, I'm not sure whether this use of snippets in search engine results has been tested in any US courts yet, but the issue of search engines showing enough content from the sites they link to that users never actually go through to the original site is sufficiently controversial that the EU's recently passed copyright directive includes specific provisions aimed at exactly that sort of situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really see how this problem is any different to 'how do we know the #1 search result is the best content there is?', if it provides you the information you want, then great, otherwise you load #2.
Google lends the weight of its authority to the answers it presents. It's one thing if Infowars says that Obama is planning a coup against Donald Trump, it's another if Google says so.
OK, some people believe anything they read (especially if it confirms their existing biases), but that problem has always existed. I think Google’s occasional snippet fuck-ups are a drop in the ocean compared to the spread of false information through social networks.