[HN Gopher] Why Is the Web So Monotonous? Google
___________________________________________________________________
Why Is the Web So Monotonous? Google
Author : amf12
Score : 110 points
Date : 2022-08-04 21:28 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (reasonablypolymorphic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (reasonablypolymorphic.com)
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| > What I dream of is Google circa 2006. A time where a search
| engine searched what you asked for. A time before aggressive SEO.
| A time before social media, when the only people on the internet
| had a reason to be there. A time before sticky headers and full-
| screen modal pop-ups asking you to subscribe to a newsletter
| before reading the article. A time before click-bait and
| subscription-only websites which tease you with a paragraph
| before blurring out the rest of the content.
|
| Well, I built sort of exactly this: https://search.marginalia.nu/
|
| It's not great, but it sure has its moments.
|
| Should be noted, regarding Koh Lanta, that travel is one of the
| most aggressively SEO-spammed topics, along with pharma and
| online casinos. It's extremely difficult to cut through the noise
| and reach any sort of signal.
| taftster wrote:
| [Quoting your quote] - A time before aggressive SEO? No, just
| that Google was able to defeat it with Page Rank (one of their
| possibly few innovative ideas to the search arena).
| Mathematically, Page Rank did very well to weed out the SEO'd
| websites of the time.
|
| Point is, I don't think SEO at the time was any more or less
| "aggressive", per se. Just different. And clearly, the game has
| since escalated altogether.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > Well, I built sort of exactly this:
| https://search.marginalia.nu/
|
| What's the elevator pitch? What do you actually do that is
| special?
|
| From the about section:
|
| > This is an independent DIY search engine that focuses on non-
| commercial content, and attempts to show you sites you perhaps
| weren't aware of in favor of the sort of sites you probably
| already knew existed.
|
| > The software for this search engine is all custom-built, and
| all crawling and indexing is done in-house. The project is open
| source. Feel free to poke about in the source code or
| contribute to the development!
|
| But that doesn't really give me much info.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| The point is to surface human websites and discriminate
| against content mills, click funnels and e-commerce.
|
| For one I have a sort of budget for how much javascript I
| will tolerate. Some is fine, like your standard wordpress
| config probably will fly, but not much more. I also do a
| personalized pagerank biased toward the blogosphere. The
| likelihood your website shows up in the results is directly
| determined by whether real humans link to the website.
|
| It's not a Google replacement by any measure, it's meant as a
| complement, but if you are looking for more in-depth content
| on a topic than you can find elsewhere, it's often a good
| starting point.
| tigerlily wrote:
| I know it's of low value to ask, but who really gives a shit?
| varispeed wrote:
| Social media existed way before 2006, it just wasn't so
| popular.
|
| But this was indeed a great time. Remember being on a social
| network ca 1999 and people used it as a diary where others
| could comment, give advice and meet others with similar
| interests. There was a timeline and posts from people you
| "followed". I think it didn't have likes or ratings though.
| Most people were super friendly and we were doing meet ups, so
| very much everyone knew each other. At peak time there was
| about 20k people and at that point owners couldn't cope with
| it. With that amount of people you'll find some nasty ones that
| will ruin it for everyone else and that's what happened. Owners
| couldn't afford to host it, so they were doing crowdfunding to
| cover the server costs and maintenance. Some bitter people
| didn't like that and started making unfounded accusations of
| theft or that they will report everything to the tax man and
| the police. So owners eventually closed it.
| ArtofIndirect wrote:
| shadowgovt wrote:
| FTA:
|
| > Why don't other search engines compete on search results? It
| can't be hard to do better than Google for the long tail.
|
| I think that's the "citation needed" that the author's missing.
| It's not like Google is unaware of this problem, and a huge piece
| of their research spend goes into improving search.
|
| It's entirely possible nobody's doing better than Google because
| nobody knows how. The entire paradigm Google's leading in might
| be a saddle-point with significant activation energy needed to
| escape it while still having something as usually-useful as
| Google.
| carabiner wrote:
| Isn't this just getting older? You could just as well ask why is
| _life_ so monotonous. There 's a finite number of experiences,
| practically speaking, and as you go through each, subsequent
| versions lack novelty. This is also why time seems to speed up as
| we age.
| kmprod wrote:
| > My last point: websites are penalized for even linking to low-
| ranking pages!
|
| No they aren't.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Google is not the front page of _my_ internet.
|
| I recently decided to create my own landing page, stored locally
| on disk, with a funny gif and favicon.ico, and a shortlist of my
| most used work and personal links (including this site!).
|
| No ads, no tracking. Shockingly - I had to install browser
| extensions to override the new tab page in both Edge and Chrome.
| This used to be a built in setting! Shady guys. Very shady.
|
| Although... Not as shady as the fact that Chrome by default sends
| your entire browsing history to Google for analysis.
| guntars wrote:
| > Not as shady as the fact that Chrome by default sends your
| entire browsing history to Google for analysis.
|
| Citation needed. Are you saying that, as I click around the
| site here, Google knows what comments threads I'm interested
| in?
|
| Edit: I think they're talking about the History sync, which
| does indeed by default send Google every link you visit, but
| only if you explicitly enable it. We should get access to this
| data and leak porn preferences of every senator. That ought to
| get the laws changed quickly.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Yes. And I can prove it to you.
|
| Settings > Sync and Google Services > Other Google Services >
| Make Searches and Browsing Better.
|
| Underneath the setting it explains, "Send URLs of pages you
| visit to Google".
| cma wrote:
| we need to expand wiretapping laws to this stuff, the
| disclosure should be upfront and default off
| dredmorbius wrote:
| I'd like to set something like this up on an Android tablet.
|
| I have Termux installed and there are a few options for running
| a simple webserver (e.g., via Python). I've yet to look into
| hosting my own homepage and directory there, though ... it
| would be nice and useful to do this.
| alar44 wrote:
| Oh no my search history
| redavni wrote:
| I have resorted to using Russian (Yandex) and Chinese (Baidu)
| search engines in the last few years. It is interesting that non
| commercial sources have more of a voice on these search engines
| than on Google today.
|
| Google is good at many things, but their leadership is
| questionable now, unlike in the past.
|
| I would pay a subscription fee for a service that provided
| partity with Google and customer service that answers the phone.
| akudha wrote:
| Have you tried this one? https://neeva.com/
|
| No idea how good it is, I remember it was posted here a while
| ago
| outworlder wrote:
| Aren't those heavily censored?
| yazzku wrote:
| I would also ask, why is HN so monotonous?
|
| If you compare 'new' vs what goes on the wall, you'll see a non-
| trivial amount of Big Tech bias and very good posts (often
| criticisms) effectively getting censored. Is the paycheck that
| good?
| talkingtab wrote:
| Exactly! The top "comment" right now is: "this is a clear
| demonstration of the user's expectation of search having
| exceeded what's possible today".
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| Cancel culture fear => Peer pressure hypersensibility =>
| Monotonicity
| pixl97 wrote:
| Because to avoid trolling and arguments HN filters out
| controversy and most politics.
|
| Yea, it's more monotonous, but it's far less hate filled than
| most forums and keeps on target far more often.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| > and very good posts (often criticisms) effectively getting
| censored
|
| I browse new occasionally and I encounter a lot of lowbrow
| substack spam to be honest. Rants against big tech make you a
| contrarian, problem is you have to be contrarian and right to
| be interesting.
|
| I don't think HN has a big tech bias, most criticism of big
| tech is just plain awful. If anything in today's discourse
| there is a stupendous anti big-anything bias (for context, I'm
| not paid by big tech, I work for a small German company on the
| other side of the pond and find much of SV culture annoying
| personally)
| krapp wrote:
| It shouldn't be a surprise that most of the content posted to a
| forum owned by a Silicon Valley startup incubator is related to
| "Big Tech."
| wnissen wrote:
| Does this mean that pages with excessively complicated cookie
| acceptance/rejection also get ranked higher because they have a
| longer dwell time? Talk about a dark pattern.
| lotw_dot_site wrote:
| Among other things, _Linux on the Web_ can be used to usher in a
| new paradigm for accessing online resources.
|
| The current document-centric approach has an intensely graphical
| (attention grabbing) aspect which very much encourages the least
| common denominator types of results that the author abhors.
|
| Those who want to be more thoughtful about these things need
| better toolsets to allow them to focus the way that they go about
| their online lives (including general search).
|
| Google is in indeed more than search. They are also the machine
| learning framework, Tensorflow. _Linux on the Web_ is in as good
| a position as anything else to start putting the JavaScript
| implementation (Tensorflow.js) to very good use.
|
| We don't need new search _engines_ as much as we need new search
| engine _interfaces_.
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| stevesearer wrote:
| I had a scenario today where I looked something up and the
| search result page yielded zero results. However, there were
| 3-4 ads above and below the text that said there were zero
| results.
| Kye wrote:
| It could be a situation where Google doesn't mean to do it, but
| also isn't incentivized to fix it. The people who make the most
| money off Google have the most time and motivation to find ways
| to manipulate it to protect and increase their profit. Anyone
| at Google who wants to fix it is incentivized to come up with
| new features for promotion rather than bugfix.
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| > if your goal is to maximize the next few quarters results and
| don't care if you crash the company.
|
| Also makes sense if you are optimizing a metric and only
| considering the data, not where it is leading you.
| norwalkbear wrote:
| I've personally thought it's a side effect of bringing the masses
| to the internet.
| i_have_an_idea wrote:
| The author seems to only have a superfluous understanding of SEO.
| Yes, keywords matter, as well as inbound and outbound links, but,
| these days Google is also quite sophisticated about surfacing
| results that meet the criteria for Good Page Experience and pass
| the Core Web Vitals. That means responsive web sites, with highly
| optimized images, font delivery, minimal on-load jitter that load
| super fast, even on old mobile devices. All of that is good for
| the end user.
| drivebycomment wrote:
| This is a clear demonstration of the user's expectation of search
| having exceeded what's possible today.
|
| From the article:
|
| > Lets look at some examples. One of my favorite places in the
| world is Koh Lanta, Thailand. When traveling, I'm always on the
| lookout for places that give off the Koh Lanta vibe. What does
| that mean? Hard to say, exactly, but having tourist amenities
| without being touristy. Charming, slow, cheap. I don't know
| exactly; if I did, it'd be easier to find. Anyway, forgetting
| that Google is bad at long tails, I search for what is the koh
| lanta of croatia? and get:
|
| This is a near impossible query for human beings, let alone for
| computer given the state of the AI at this point in time.
| vector_spaces wrote:
| I know that search engines are optimized to facilitate
| commerce, and yes, depending on the extent to which you're
| bought into their ecosystem, Google probably knows a lot about
| you, like, for instance, whether or not you've been to Koh
| Lanta before as a tourist, but good lord what a self-centered
| way (for the author of this blog post, not the parent comment)
| to think about this.
|
| Like, Koh Lanta is surely not just a vacation destination, it's
| also a place where people live their lives, go to work and
| school, are homeless, deal with illness. The expectation that
| Google will assume that by "koh lanta of croatia" you're really
| asking "vacation destinations in Croatia that are similar to
| Koh Lanta, Thailand" really rubs me the wrong way
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Eh, I dunno. I feel like if there _had_ been a human somewhere
| blogging or writing on a forum "I was thrilled to find this
| village in Croatia which really reminded me of my trip to Koh
| Lanta, one of my favorite places" -- then Google of 15 years
| ago would have found it and put it on the first page. Even if
| there are ten such things on the web today, I don't think it's
| gonna wind up in my google search. But am I overly optimistic
| about historical Google?
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > But am I overly optimistic about historical Google?
|
| Well, I was about to post a similar reply. It would have
| taken some messing around with the search string, but I'm
| confident I would be able to find something like this on
| Google 18 years ago, and I'm certain that if it exists, I
| can't find it now (unless it's on some big name site).
| summerlight wrote:
| > then Google of 15 years ago would have found it and put it
| on the first page.
|
| I don't think Google of 15 years ago will do a good job on
| the current age of internet. The size of web has increased a
| lot like 100x where most of the increment comes from
| unstructured formats like video or image and its signal to
| noise ratio deteriorated considerably. SEO has become much
| more sophisticated ever. A large fraction of useful
| information is now locked in the unindexed walled garden.
| spitfire wrote:
| I actually built this exact thing for myself when I was looking
| for property to buy. I built a VAE DNN to identify sandy white
| beaches, added in a bunch of data about economics and such,
| built a custom McPain index (Inverse of the distance to the
| nearest chain restaurant (McDonalds, Burger king, Starbucks,
| etc)*1000000)[1].
|
| Fed a bunch of countries coastline into it, and popped out
| ranked beachfronts to investigate more.
|
| 1. I once went to Ao Nang, Thailand a few years after the
| tsunami and found a really cool chill cheap beach town and
| loved it. Went back a few years later and right on the main
| street there was a McDonalds. Across from that there was a
| Burger king, ~100M up the road was another McDonalds. I will
| never return.
| ck_one wrote:
| Sounds super useful!
|
| Where did you get the data from? Do you still have the code
| somewhere?
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| krapp wrote:
| >The correct result is to return pages containing "Croatia"
| AND "Koh Lanta".
|
| But that isn't the correct result. "Koh Lanta" is being used
| by the OP to describe the vibe of a place "having tourist
| amenities without being touristy." It isn't a common English
| idiom, but one they made up based on their personal
| experiences as a tourist in Thailand. Results which simply
| contain the text "Croatia" and "Koh Lanta" aren't going to
| reflect what they want.
| [deleted]
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| tigerlily wrote:
| That's easy, just ask DALL-E and do an image search
| Kye wrote:
| There's some mix of people in here who weren't around for or
| forgot about when Google handled stuff like this brilliantly.
| In fact, one of the best ways to get search traffic was to
| write a quality article tackling questions like this. Google
| was thirsty for answers to the ever-growing number of queries
| it had never seen before and would shower traffic on anyone who
| answered them even if it was a bad answer. A good answer had
| staying power.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I was there for it.
|
| It worked for a select group of toy problem domains and the
| answer for most high-concept searches would be noise or
| nothing.
|
| The author never manages to convince me that the information
| they're looking for is on the Internet for Google to index in
| the first place. The author then asserts "don't just hit me
| with garbage," which is a fine assertion, except what they're
| interpreting as 'garbage' is the information other people
| making the search could actually use. Google A/B tested the
| _hell_ out of "say nothing" vs. "guess something close to
| what the requester might care about" and the latter won out
| every time.
| cfeduke wrote:
| Maybe. If this were a couple of decades ago and this search
| were performed, the searcher may simply see zero results. This
| used to be an acceptable response from a search engine - unless
| there's some website that specifically contains the search term
| being sought, simply return zero results. Not thousands or tens
| of thousands results.
|
| What we get instead are incorrect results which are being
| presented as reasonable answers to the search query in the name
| of advertising revenue.
| marcodiego wrote:
| I remember, in the 90's, I typed "hexdit" in altavista and
| spent the time visiting exactly 100 websites to find exactly
| the hex editor I was searching for. I remember the number
| exactly because it was in the last position (10) of the last
| page and there were 10 pages.
| trebbble wrote:
| It did used to be possible to craft searches that'd find that
| kind of thing, with Google. Not in natural language, but you
| could guess enough unusual words that might show up on a page
| that had that info to zero in on it.
|
| Their apparently paying a lot less attention to certain things
| (like link text--"what might someone use to describe a _link
| to_ this resource, but which might not appear on the resource
| itself? " used to be a very fruitful way to search), and freely
| substituting words or dropping terms that are merely _not
| common_ on hits (but not _totally absent from 100% of results_
| ) has made this kind of thing impossible.
| varispeed wrote:
| Indeed. It was so much easier to find stuff you are looking
| for a decade ago. Now it is mostly spam or (what really
| grinds my gears) AI written posts that only after reading it
| for a while you realise it is all bollocks.
|
| That being said, I remember my cousin had a blog where he was
| writing utter nonsense about trending topics and he was
| actually able to pull enough money from Ad Sense to afford a
| pub crawl once a month.
|
| Now of course all of this is streamlined - one button website
| generators with AI content and posts for given topic and self
| optimising for engagement and advert clicks etc.
|
| But I see Google has thrown in the towel and no longer cares
| for search results.
| halayli wrote:
| OP is asking google to search their feelings, it's ridiculous
| expectation for sure.
| jxramos wrote:
| So true. People see sci-fi representations of technology in
| movies and TV shows and extrapolate that to the real world
| never realizing that satisfying the prerequisites for any
| technology to become a reality is easier said than done. It's
| always handwavvy too: the computer will figure it out. Let the
| computer do it.
| chx wrote:
| Yeah unless there's a blogger who have the same train of
| thought of OP this is not going to be findable by "Koh Lanta
| vibe". Quantifying it as charming slow and cheap does lead to
| results: croatia off the beaten path slow cheap search result
| #5 is
| https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2021/jul/17/croatia-10-be...
| which has this gem
|
| > Places where things move at a less hurried pace, where
| Croatian life can be savoured, where you get a flavour of what
| the Dalmatians call fjaka - the art of doing nothing. These
| islands and mainland destinations are what you want in a post-
| lockdown escape: peace, beauty and the chance to discover why
| Croatia is such an enticing country.
|
| Now I know I want to search for fjaka -- if I want to search
| further because this article might just be what OP wanted.
|
| The success for search _always_ has been finding the keywords
| to search for. You can see here it took me just a few minutes.
| dakial1 wrote:
| It is not only that. This search specifically is something that
| it's impossible because if the search worked, those "places out
| of the beaten path" the author is searching for, would
| immediately become popular and they wouldn't be true results
| anymore. They not being "indexed" by Google (or the internet in
| general) is what makes them the way they are.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >having tourist amenities without being touristy. Charming,
| slow, cheap.
|
| Ugh, this reminds me of the people that move from high tax
| places to low tax places but want all the benefits of high tax
| places at low cost.
|
| Now, back to the main point, if this was searchable it wouldn't
| exist.
|
| The number one complaint people have today is popular places
| are too busy, too many tourists come and prices go up and it's
| over ran. So what do you think is going to happen to some place
| that 300+ million wealthy people around the world can search in
| a few seconds and find out it's cheap an empty. The answer is
| "become busy and expensive".
|
| The only reason places like this still exist is Google can't
| find them.
| [deleted]
| devmunchies wrote:
| I disagree that its google's fault. I think it went from a
| diverse mainstreet to a walmart. Likely an inevitable progression
| of any economy if not deliberately prevented. Was likely
| quickened by Google though.
|
| "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot"
| haskell_melody wrote:
| The About page of Read Something Interesting
| (https://readsomethinginteresting.com/about) conveys this well.
| RootKitBeerCat wrote:
| Hey yeah! Imagine like two small guys in a garage could like make
| a indexer for the web and call it a search engine and just make
| it work the best, and gain market dominance and become a little
| bit slower to innovate than authors "back in 2006" nostalgia...
| seydor wrote:
| > like it consists of ten big sites
|
| Optimistic. Which are those?
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| ...and purple? Huh? Why _everything_ is purple? Seriously
| swayvil wrote:
| >websites are penalized for even linking to low-ranking pages!
|
| So the top hundred sites link to each other and everything else
| gets ignored.
|
| This the equivalent of social media's echo chambers.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I would like to see a source for that claim though. Seems odd
| to me. Also most pages are low ranking. Even on say HN which is
| probably high ranking, the page for this comment is likely to
| be low ranking, because it is new and nothing is linking to it
| (other than the one link from another leaf-like page).
| codefreeordie wrote:
| This gets even more effective once you layer in content-based
| ranking adjustments -- where defined types of content or
| viewpoints get automatically downranked. You downrank the
| content directly, and then the rest of the web is highly
| penalized from even linking to the "disapproved" content, and
| so that content effectively disappears from the internet,
| except in tiny dark corners that aren't found via search.
| throwaway539324 wrote:
| I was thinking about this recently, because at my business we're
| working on improving our SEO.
|
| The big problem is that Google is the major way people discover
| goods and services. If you have a site that sells garden hoses,
| the best way to get eyeballs is to write blog posts that a
| potential user of garden hoses might search for. "How to install
| a garden hose." "What is the best garden hose."
|
| This kind of content marketing can drive huge traffic and thus
| huge sales.
|
| But only results on the first page of Google matter, and the
| farther down the first page you are, the less traffic you get.
|
| Now, the 15 companies that produce garden hoses are fighting
| against each other to get the 10 slots in Google's first page for
| any given keyword.
|
| With AI-generated articles, it's become a race to the bottom.
| Google rewards AI-generated, keyword-optimized blog spam. If you
| want to be one of the 15 companies that makes it into those 10
| slots, you better believe you need to write AI-generated blogspam
| too. And when everyone has to do that in order to compete, all
| that's left is the AI-generated blogspam that has infested the
| modern web.
|
| You almost have no choice as a business. Either write AI-
| generated blogspam that Google loves, or your competition will,
| and bury you in the search results.
| will_walker wrote:
| Be careful what you wish for. AI capable of writing weird garbage
| nonsense content that looks truthful is coming down the pipeline,
| with a reward function built in for user engagement. In a world
| of effortless surreal content, authoritatively truthful answer
| will become more valuable. We're going to need encyclopedias
| again!
| bluGill wrote:
| I miss yahoo of 1996 when they were a table of contents.
| Practically unmaintainable which is why they gave up, but it was
| nice to follow a few links and find something interesting on
| weird subjects. No search at all in those days, but it was better
| for finding things.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Like this: https://dmoz-odp.org/
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| bluGill wrote:
| Maybe i'm just lucky, but every link I tried was not only
| live but updated reciently.
|
| Though i'm still disappointed they are not updating.
| bluGill wrote:
| Wow, it actually lets me discover interesting things.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| > As it happens, Google rewards websites which use keywords in
| their url, title, headings, and first 100 words. Just by
| eyeballing, we can see that this particular website is targeting
| the keywords "water", "system", "irrigation", and "garden". Pages
| like these hyper-optimized to come up for particular searches.
| The stupid expository stuff exists only to pack "important
| keywords" into the first 100 words.
|
| Another explanation is that the type of company that buys
| thousands of links is also the type that pays rock bottom for
| their writers. I don't think you need to necessarily write trite
| crap in order to do well in SEO.
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| It's not technology. It's about culture (which is linked to the
| social imaginary, a kind of group consciousness operative system,
| hence a kind of immaterial technology itself).
|
| Psychologically, at the core of the problem, this is what
| happens:
|
| Cancel culture fear => Peer pressure hypersensibility =>
| Monotonicity
| a9h74j wrote:
| > Mass-appeal queries are, almost by definition, not particularly
| hard to find. If I need a bus schedule, I know to talk to my
| local transit authority. If I'm looking to keep up with the
| Kardashians, I'm not going to have any problems (at least, no
| search problems.)
|
| In identifying a 95/5 reward for supporting "mass-appeal
| queries", is much of the answer right there?
|
| And will the average general-purpose alternative search engine
| escape similar incentives?
| abruzzi wrote:
| this page makes a comment that I wish more site developers
| understood-no results to my search is a much more meaningful
| result than changing my search to provide results I didn't ask
| for.
| whateveracct wrote:
| Sounds like a use-case for search but - should it ever re-
| materialize [1]
|
| A bazaar of boutique search indexes provided by People seems like
| it would be nice to have. Better than Google constantly trying to
| sell me shit.
|
| [1]
| https://paste.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/048293268d4ed4254659c3cd6abe67...
| alexalx666 wrote:
| i dig your layout
| warning26 wrote:
| There's a lot of Google hate on HN, and much of it is deserved,
| but I think this particular trend of blaming Google for the
| prevalence of useless clickbait articles is a bit much.
|
| The _real_ answer to this question is that walled-garden social
| media took over everything. The much-pined-for "Old Google"
| worked because people used to actually create content on their
| own sites, and not just post it on walled garden monolithic
| social sites like Facebook or Twitter.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I disagree. The fact that Google has such a power over the
| shape of web traffic, along with a few other websites,
| absolutely re-shapes the Internet to fit whatever its standards
| make a website rank well. It's in many ways almost exactly the
| same process as natural selection. Whatever works gets traffic
| and gets copied by other websites, whatever doesn't fades away.
| alexalx666 wrote:
| yes but we can build our own query tools, for ex. Im using `$
| so graphql vs sql` and such terminal commands more and more
| these days
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Oh yeah, this is primarily a problem for Google. They're
| sort of stuck being chased by the shadow they cast.
|
| I've had very little problems cutting through the SEO spam
| running an independent search engine, but then I don't
| shape traffic like they do.
| didip wrote:
| I disagree because it's 100% within Google power to purge junk
| websites, see Panda in 2011.
|
| But they didn't want to do that anymore. Why? Because of ads
| money.
|
| To drive the point home, it is not that difficult for Google to
| have a junk score and simply phase out the junkiest of junks.
| But they didn't even want to do that.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Feels like they'd be much more liable to get in trouble for
| anti-competitive behavior today than they were in 2011, given
| that they are in a very different position now compared to
| then.
| summerlight wrote:
| Have you heard about the concept antitrust regulation? This
| is the real thing.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I do wonder how things would be different if facebook posts
| (instagram, tiktok, etc) were exposed to Google... I'm not sure
| they'd be better though.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-04 23:00 UTC)