Did SEO experts ruin the internet or did Google? - The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/features/23931789/seo-search-engine-optimization-experts-google-resultsOpen linkView original on endlesstalk.org212
Comments49https://www.theverge.com/features/23931789/seo-search-engine-optimization-experts-google-resultsOpen linkView original on endlesstalk.org
Yes. They both did.
Google came to prominence because it sidestepped the first gen SEO of keywords.
Then it became a bloated corp run by MBAs.
SEO took off and it did little to nothing as its search platform was now there to deliver eye balls to advertisers.
It’s worse than that, in Google’s current antitrust suit, the government showed that Google stopped searching for your exact text…. Instead they replace your text with the most profitable text that’s close to what you’re searching for. So you can’t actually get better results by refining your query anymore.
Meaning that Google is defrauding their users (making it look like they searched for something they didn’t give you the results for) and they defrauded AdWords clients because I paid for an ad when someone searches for X but Google manipulated a search for Y into X so that I’d have to pay more even though the user didn’t actually use my keyword.
Aaaaand we wonder why Google sucks now.
….. always the same reason that a company turns hostile to their clients….. “I’m big enough I don’t care, and I want more money, fuck you”
Wired retracted that article because the writer misunderstood the slides.
https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/
That’s interesting… I’m curious now….
They may have misinterpreted it, but now I wanna know what it REALLY is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802116
If you search for "kids clothing", when it goes to pull ads to put above the results, it fuzzes the search phrase for synonyms. So for example if TJ Maxx has purchased ads for "kidswear", that's a semantic match, so they'll show the TJ Maxx ads even though it's not one of the exact keywords they picked.
While I’m not arguing your point, it certainly appears you’re right…..
I just can’t help but feel like the original story (despite the inaccuracy) was on to something.
A few years ago when Google stopped processing quotes in the search properly, their search engine started shitting the bed HARD.
I’ve always felt that since that time they’ve been searching the wrong things. Search has gotten worse. It’s been better for finding items I want to buy, but complete dogshit for everything else. I don’t particularly buy that seo’s got a sudden unexplained boost at that time.
I don’t know, the article (despite the inaccuracies) really felt like it explained everything nicely. So the article might be wrong but…. There’s still something there Google isn’t telling us. I kinda wonder if it’s true despite the lack of evidence.
Wait quotes no longer work?
It’s not that they don’t work entirely, they just started “fuzzing “ them like normal search.
They’re no longer a hard explicit.
Stop the insanity, there is no need to drive into conspiracies.
Ehhhh, only a small amount is assumed. The rest is fact. And I’m fairly upfront about it.
I feel this, especially when I'm looking up technical information. I'll specifically exclude keywords and they show up in the first result.
Half the time I feel the search engine doesn't care what I'm looking for.
Many things have ruined the Internet, corporate greed, the proliferation of low quality content, paywalls, advertising, websites infested with user registration, AI, bots, shitty web page builders, etc... This was such a great article except the alligator was only five and a half feet long.
Does anyone ever talk about how we can fix it?
Use different services.
We're already in the process of fixing it by using Lemmy instead of reddit.
Something that has been SEO'd for Google is still going to feature prominantly on ddg or bing. There are other reasons to switch off Google, but seo isn't going to stop being a problem.
I started using Kagi. By paying for the search engine, at least I can ensure the search engine's goals align with mine, instead of with whoever pays most for advertisement. I haven't used it for a long time yet, but so far I'm satisfied with its results!
Hate to bust your bubble but Kagi is just a fancy meta search engine that still uses bing,google and a few others for its queries. Its not a real search engine in its own right. A good searxng instance like https://paulgo.io will give you similar results without paying 10$ a month for it.
Support people who host these free and open source services out of pocket with donations. Not yet another business offering yet another subscription. Promising 'were not like those other guys, for reals jut trust us' while not being able to gaurentee they won't turn into greedy bastards and start whittling your user rights/rolling in the ads later.
It doesn't really matter to me if they use their own crawler or use results from another search engine. What matters to me is the results i'm seeing for my search queries. And if they "roll in the ads later" or the service deteriorates, I can still switch to another search engine.
No need for "just trust us", if you can just compare the product yourself🤷♂️
I hope that if that day comes you may consider trying out some searxng instances, as they do probably give similar results as kagi as both pool results from the same true search engines. I am so fustrated that we are at a point where people feel the need to pay 120$ a year for something that has been a staple of the free as in freedom internet forever, especially when things like SearXNG exist.
Maybe I will take a look at that, why not?
But no solution is really free. Either you pay directly (Kagi), or it is paid through ads (Google) or it is some free open source solution, which then is paid through the time people put into it in their free time and in that case there should be donations or contributions as well, at least from people who can afford it. 🤷♂️
Its the third option, and no while nothing in computer infrastructure is ever truly free as theres always operational+maintenance cost as well as dev time and setup time, when nothing is at cost to the end user and the hosting provider isn't trying to make a profit off their information then I consider it good grounds to it a 'free' service. I actually just posted a guide to alternative search engines over at [email protected] , you may find it an interesting read.
Yikes.
I think it's not in our hand. We can only hide annoyances by a content blocker.
We need some 10 foot alligators to fix it.
I noticed something was wrong when every article repeated what I was asking as many times as possible.
They're all pretty much written in the same style now, and it's next to impossible to find the actual information you're looking for under all the bullshit.
I don't blame SEO 'experts' or Google. I blame greed.
right, we're all guilty -- not the powers that be that enabled it in the first place with the sole aim of fleecing the masses
Why is it “or”..? It’s as if the Verge has lost the ability to write a non-clickbait title.
And the answer is “both have” of course. The folks who make the game are as guilty as those who played it.
Every time I see an article from the verge all I can think of is Stefan and his disastrous PC Build video. The Verge lost all credibility after that for me
Unregulated capitalism did.
I did a word search of the article and capitalism wasn’t mentioned once. How can we heal the illness if no one can mention the disease.
Just keep calling it out. I'm hopeful things can get better
That article downplays SEO and mostly argues that Google is responsible, and it still gives Google way too much credit. I mean, it's gonna take a lot more evidence to make me believe they broke the internet by accident, for one. People knew all this crap would happen before Google was even a thing.
Greed broke it. Mostly Google’s, but you’re right, if it weren’t Google, it would have been someone else.
It already was someone else. I am old enough to remember when all these conversations (and the very accurate warnings about algorithmic filtering and artificial content promotion) being directed at Altavista and Yahoo.
And Facebook isn’t innocent, TikTok etc…. You’re entirely right.
We are our own worst enemies.
Yes.
SEO experts AND GOOGLE
It was the battle between SEO "experts" and Google that did it.
Greed of both SEO and Google.
Kind of like when George Carlin said ‘if you want better politicians; make better people.’
They both contributed.
It was the unholy marriage of the two
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Maybe I could even repackage such a tragedy into a sensationalized anecdote for a viral article about the people who do SEO for a living, strongly implying that nature was here to punish the bad guy while somehow also assuming the ethical high ground and pretending I hadn’t been hoping this exact thing would happen from the start.
He was the kind of tall, charming man who described himself multiple times as “a nerd,” and he pointed out that even though working directly with search engine rankings is “no longer monetizing at the highest payout,” the same “core knowledge of SEO” remains relevant for everything from native advertising to social media.
As sunset turned to dusk, I found Daron Babin again, and he started telling me about one of his signature moves, back in the ’90s, involving fake domain names: “I could make it look like it was somebody else, but it actually redirected to me!” What he and his competitors did was legal but well beyond what the dominant search engine allowed.
Unlike the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezoses of the world, who went from geeky teenagers to masters of the universe, the dorks who grew up to do SEO have stayed the butt of the joke, beholden to the fluctuations of the algorithm, frantically pulling levers behind the scenes but ultimately somewhat hapless.
Google was slow to allow someone to talk with me, possibly because of the giant PR clusterfuck that has been the company’s past year (accused by the federal government of being a monopoly; increasingly despised by the public; losing ground to Reddit, TikTok, and large language models), so I decided to start by meeting up with a chipper, charismatic man named Duane Forrester.
Once he represented Bing, Forrester more or less stopped drinking at conferences, as had long been the case for his counterpart at Google, an engineer named Matt Cutts, who helped build and then ran the company’s web spam team before stepping back in 2014 and leaving in 2016.
The original article contains 8,379 words, the summary contains 336 words. Saved 96%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
You saved 96%, but the result still seems quite fluffy. Perhaps this kind of article is more challenging to summarize.
It reads like a start of some dude’s homoerotic fanfic, reminiscing about the famous dudes he used to bang.
wtf, the internet is better than ever
Hah... HAH!
If your perspective is that of an advertising company, then I can agree.
If your perspective that of a user, then no fucking way.
Advertisers and those that use them are trying to suck every penny from every corner of the web using psychological manipulation to get you to buy things you don’t need with ever increasing precision.
The internet of today is a shell of what it used to be. Either you are too young to have experienced the good internet, or you work in advertising.