Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's not Google's fault this time.

The problem is that Blogspam is now a (legitimate) industry much bigger than Google can manage.

Google Search became a playground for marketing firms to dump content made by low-paid freelancers with algorithmically chosen keywords, links and headers. It's SEO on large scale. Everything is monitored via analytics and automatically posted to Wordpress. Every time Google tweaks its algorithm to catch it, they're able to A-B test and then change thousands of texts all at once.

Personal blogs can't even dream about competing with that.

In fact, those companies are actively competing with personal blogs by themselves: via tools like SEMRush and social media monitoring, they know which blogs are trending and use their tools to produce copycat content re-written by freelancers and powered by their SEO machine.

I know a startup that is churning 10 thousand blogposts per day on clients blogs, each costing from 2 to 5 dollars for a freelancer to write according to algorithmically defined parameters.

Just wait until they get posts written via OpenAI-style machine learning: the quality will be even lower.

Not only that: there's no need for black hat SEO anymore. Blogposts from random clients have links to others clients blogs, and it is algorithmically generated in order to maximize views and satisfy Google's algorithm. They have a gigantic pool of seemingly unconnected blogs to link to, so why not use it.

The irony is that companies buy this kind of blogspam to skip paying AdSense. Why pay when you can get organic search results? So not only they're damaging the usefulness of the SERP, they're directly eating Google's bottom line. These blogs also have ZERO paid advertising inside them, since they're advertising themselves.

That's the reason Bing, DuckDuckGo and Yandex still have "old web" results.

That puts Google in a very difficult position and IMO they're not wrong to fight it.

Well, I disagree. (Though I think your record of things is correct!) Certainly if you look at this as a bot war then Google's actions make sense: we need our bots to outsmart the 'bots' (human bots even!) that are writing blogs.

But look at it another way: you have lots of humans writing - and it's all of varying quality. Why not let the humans decide what's good? The early Web was curated by humans, who kept directories, Smart.com 'expert' pages, websites and blogrolls that tried to show where quality could be found. Google's bot war (and the idea that Google is the sole authority on quality) eliminated these valuable resources as collateral damage.

I agree with you.

Maybe the problem is that PageRank (or whatever they call it these days) has run its course. I mean, it supposed to gauge "what humans think is good", but it's failing miserably. It's indeed time for a more curated, artisanal, web.

PageRank is predicated on an assumption that most pages (and thus, most links) are created/curated by humans. This was true when it was invented, but appears to be less likely now.

What gives me pause here is all the anecdotes in this thread about other engines getting results right. If the real answer is "PageRank has been successfully flooded by bots", then everyone would have bad results.

What I suspect, off nearly no evidence, is that Google is using ad tracking to inform a notion of search relevancy. My nearly unjustified belief is that that system is the one being flooded by bots.

You can see some evidence that suggests it when you search for a specific software or ebook to download.

Piracy is gone, but you will find hundreds of automatically generated credit card phishing sites full of Google Ads, sometimes promising pirated versions but serving a trojan, sometimes showing a credit card form. Some of them are on the first page, sometimes before legitimate websites.

> IMO they're not wrong to fight it.

But if their efforts in fighting it are a large part of the reason that Google search results are getting downright bad, then they're wrong in how they're fighting in.

I agree with you.

What I mean is: I don't think their fight is misguided or evil this time, they're trying to keep the result pages useable for end users. They're just doing a terrible job out of it. (Or: they're doing a worse job than spammers)

>It's not Google's fault this time.

Isn't Google responsible for making Internet advertising accessible and widespread? They developed and launched AdWords (2000) and AdSense (2003).

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact