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

More content by people, for people in Search

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 320 posts

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#81

Post by mianos »

stevewatson301 wrote: post #33
nixcraft wrote: post #23

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster…

DMCA notices are unpopular with the crowd here, but when your content is plagiarized and other people are profiting off of your work, I'd recommend the following workflow: * Use Copyscape and perform automated plagiarized content detection. * Automate the sending of DMCA notices to Google and the website host (using captcha solving services, if necessary).

As lame as it is, it's not really plagiarism when there is attribution, even if it is non obviously that URL at the top of the page.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#83

Post by sitkack »

ctrlmeta wrote: post #55
yrro wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Google experience would be improved immeasurably if there was a way for me to block domains after I decide I never want to see them in my search results again.

Searching for Python API docs and getting w3schools and geeksforgeeks results is frustrating. Is there a solution to this problem? Maybe even a browser extension?

If you are searching for docs, then https://devdocs.io/ might be better than a regular search engine.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#85

Post by darkwater »

firasd wrote: post #32

I'm not sure this whole drive towards 'original content' makes sense. It encourages people to make long rambling pages that don't get to the point In fact it seems like Google worked better when wikipedia was almost always the first result on various topics What I mean by rambling is if you type something like "types of oranges" and suddenly land on a page where some dude is clearly just filling up paragraphs for goo…

You have just described the typical content-farm page created to game Google. I hope this update is going to lower the ranking of those pages (pages that usually have an ad every paragraph or more).

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#86

Post by gregw134 »

meltedcapacitor wrote: post #79
nixcraft wrote: post #23

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster…

Maybe the bootleg page could be a source of inspiration? It has a garbage/content ratio of 32 (the browser downloads 32 bytes for every byte of content) while the original page has a 400 ratio (the browser downloads 400 bytes for every byte of content). It's borderline denial of service attack against the visitor. The original also has a slow aggressive cookie box that is unnecessary as visitors can be spied on using…

Plus, the original has an excessive amount of ads. I'm not surprised Google is ranking the other page higher.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#88

Post by asddubs »

paganel wrote: post #62

A little OT, but is there a name for that design style that Google is using here? I'm talking about the bearded dude at the top of the article, with glasses and a phone in his hand. I've seen it more and more during the last few years, from ads around the city I live in to hipsterish magazines. There's something about it that has started bugging me the wrong way, I find it kind of infantilising but at the same time t…

I've known it as alegria, see also this subreddit collecting examples:

https://old.reddit.com/r/fuckalegriaart/

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#89

Post by pas »

lopis wrote: post #78
firasd wrote: post #32

I'm not sure this whole drive towards 'original content' makes sense. It encourages people to make long rambling pages that don't get to the point In fact it seems like Google worked better when wikipedia was almost always the first result on various topics What I mean by rambling is if you type something like "types of oranges" and suddenly land on a page where some dude is clearly just filling up paragraphs for goo…

Clearly the end game for Google is to, also, become TikTok. 100% algorithmically sorted original content.

I have no problem with that if it can also read my mind and serve up what I need. Until then, I want the option to correct their generous recommendations.

Re: More content by people, for people in Search

#90

Post by feanaro »

meltedcapacitor wrote: post #79
nixcraft wrote: post #23

>Better ranking of original, quality content Hah. Just another day, someone sent me this link[1] which took images and text from my page[2] for the Google query "linux check disk space". Here is the thing my page doesn't even appear on Google. The ripped page points to the source[2] and has a link back to the original images. These scammers know how to game Google with their AI-driven sites, and they adopt it faster…

Maybe the bootleg page could be a source of inspiration? It has a garbage/content ratio of 32 (the browser downloads 32 bytes for every byte of content) while the original page has a 400 ratio (the browser downloads 400 bytes for every byte of content). It's borderline denial of service attack against the visitor. The original also has a slow aggressive cookie box that is unnecessary as visitors can be spied on using…

> Also if google starts ranking such pages up they may expose themselves to class action lawsuits as users could ask for a refund for the power, hardware and telecom bills incurred in being lead to load them?

Sorry, but this is completely insane. Search engines should most certainly and definitely not ever be liable for linking to original sources for such a stupid reason. This American pro-litigious attitude has to stop.

Post reply on HN