Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

rankscience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#81

Post by mthoms »

stelonix wrote: post #80

For some years now, Google Images has been pretty awful to navigate, all thanks to Pinterest. I do hope Google is just unaware of the mentioned "hack", because the other option is they do not care because Pinterest helps them through ads. Note: I have not checked whether Pinterest has Adsense since I use Adblock. I'm going by some of the comments here. A couple of days ago I was trying to find out better image search…

The first problem is monetization. Do you think people would pay a yearly subscription fee for a better image search? I'm not sure they would, but maybe.

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#82

Post by dang »

arkanciscan wrote: post #31

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…

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's the opposite of what we're hoping for here. I understand that it's frustrating to be in the minority and represent a contrarian view to an internet forum, but if you don't want to discredit the truth you're arguing for, the only way is to provide correct information and correct errors neutrally.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#83

Post by nxc18 »

jwegan wrote: post #56

Hey, I run the Growth team at Pinterest. I just wanted to comment on the article to be very clear and say we have never scraped Google search results either currently or at any time in the past.

Can you please explain to me how you think its ethical or just personally acceptable to run a team that actively makes the web a worse experience for everyone?

I look forward to your company's downfall and it sounds like the blame lies solely on you and your team. Please consider the reputational cost of 'growth'.

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#84

Post by dethswatch »

jwegan wrote: post #56

Hey, I run the Growth team at Pinterest. I just wanted to comment on the article to be very clear and say we have never scraped Google search results either currently or at any time in the past.

Your company is the reason images.google is useless unless -pinterest is used.

"100 presents for grandmothers 2019" is just web badfaith, sleazy internet pollution.

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#85

Post by wanderr »

coding123 wrote: post #52
panpanna wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the future. Everything is decided by AI based on data we don't really understand.

If only there was a way to track the number of seconds they spent on pinterest until the back button was hit and... factor that in as a feature in ML. voila.

I don't think it's that simple. When a user goes back to image search results, is it because they are unsatisfied with the result they clicked on, or are they looking for even more, hoping to compare? And when a user closes out instead of doing back, is it because they got what they wanted or because the results were so garbage they gave up? Based on my own usage of image search results I don't think you would be able to tell when I was happy with the results or when I wasn't. But you can probably tell that my usage of image search went down when it started getting shitty due to this spam.

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#86

Post by dang »

nxc18 wrote: post #83
jwegan wrote: post #56

Hey, I run the Growth team at Pinterest. I just wanted to comment on the article to be very clear and say we have never scraped Google search results either currently or at any time in the past.

Can you please explain to me how you think its ethical or just personally acceptable to run a team that actively makes the web a worse experience for everyone? I look forward to your company's downfall and it sounds like the blame lies solely on you and your team. Please consider the reputational cost of 'growth'.

You can't attack another user like this here, regardless of how right you are or feel. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules.

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#87

Post by TeMPOraL »

ryanb wrote: post #53
panpanna wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the future. Everything is decided by AI based on data we don't really understand.

This answer is super spot on, and this will be the story of our lives for a while.

It could be better than what we have now, assuming somewhat smart AI. Right now, data gives plausible deniability, and is the universal scapegoat - you get to do whatever you want, backing this up with misapplied A/B tests and telemetry, with zero statistical rigor. And if someone complains about your decisions, you point to these tests and that telemetry, and cry "we're a data driven company, and the data proves we're right".

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#88

Post by xg15 »

ryanb wrote: post #36
RubenvanE wrote: post #21

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.

What would you consider unethical?

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#89

Post by xg15 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #87
ryanb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This answer is super spot on, and this will be the story of our lives for a while.

It could be better than what we have now, assuming somewhat smart AI. Right now, data gives plausible deniability, and is the universal scapegoat - you get to do whatever you want, backing this up with misapplied A/B tests and telemetry, with zero statistical rigor. And if someone complains about your decisions, you point to these tests and that telemetry, and cry "we're a data driven company, and the data proves we'…

I mean, it would help to be honest about the metrics that the A/B tests are evaluated against. If you optimize purely for growth and engagement, then your test results will reflect that - even moreso if your tests are scientifically sound.

I'm continually surprised how companies manage to sell "let's try to keep users glued to the screen as long as possible" as doing something for the general good.

Re: Deconstructing Pinterest’s reverse-image-search SEO growth hack

#90

Post by kenned3 »

smcameron wrote: post #3

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.

It really is unfortunate that you were not able to make any traction on this. Pinterest really is among the scurge of the internet.
Post reply on HN