zlacker

>>i13e+(OP)
The gaming of SEO has been quietly destroying the utility of search writ large as a mechanism for quite a while.

Over the last year, its become palpable.

Google has such utility in this regard that in some cases, a hallucinating lie-machine offers better answer than an index of what information is available on the internet.

This issue with with Googles failure to respond to the deluge of SEO driven content in their searches. They can do better. They've chosen to not do so.

>>Rosana+K9
I see this sort of comment a lot, and I honestly don't know what it's talking about. What are people expecting out of Google that it's not delivering?

It can only index stuff that's on the Web. Stuff on the Web is, contrary to what is popularly asserted, only a tiny fraction of all human knowledge.

I think people are forgetting how bad search was before Google. Google drove Web directories to extinction. Remember Yahoo!? Back in that era, if I were looking for something as simple as the University of Michigan, I clicked and drilled down through a Yahoo directory. The obvious search query would have been useless. Google changed all that.

I view Google as the yellow pages. It works well for that. Is it an oracle of knowledge? Of course not. How could I possibly expect to find knowledge on a place where there is no reward for making it available? People producing knowledge don't work for free.

I've tried ChatGPT and it's no better. It serves up stuff that is flat-out wrong.

>>massys+7d
> What are people expecting out of Google that it's not delivering?

Not optimize for "most documents indexed" but "highest quality of results". One of them encourages adding spam to their index, the other encourages removing spam from their index.

>>luckyl+Pd
There are giant teams of people at Google whose only job is trying to define things like "spam" and "seo abuse" more precisely in more diverse contexts. There are equally large armies of people outside of it trying to outwit the first group and find more and more elaborate loopholes and workarounds.

HN is constantly pushing this notion that "spam" is some well-defined, solvable problem, so obviously Google wants it. That narrative just doesn't make sense from any angle. The notion that more click bait improves Google's bottom line is absurd

>>gipp+Cf
Their giant teams are an organizational failure then.

Product reviews alone, whether it is enterprise software or sports clothing should be something that they can easily comb through by hand, as humans, and uprank sites that are putting out more than affiliate link assemblies.

>>basch+wg
Absolutely: the challenge is that any signal that you use to identify "good websites" from "bad websites" will be adversarially optimized by incredibly motivated people.

You are dealing with a moving target that has a huge financial incentive. It's a very difficult problem.

>>Fede_V+fi
I don't agree. You start whitelisting good content manually. If babygearlab is the best result for baby gear, you start hardcoding it. If seriouseats is the best result for recipes, you hard code it. If someone better comes along, they get moved up the priority list.

You figure out a way to crowdsource certain decisions and establish who you can trust. Ask them questions with right and wrong answers. You start to tackle it one product category at a time. Instead of pagerank, which was a web of who linked to who" you start figuring which voters you have who consistently turn in good feedback.

This is some form of metamoderation that slashdot tried to implement.

If you are going to be a tastemaker, stop hiding behind "the algorithm" having some mind of its own that cant be controlled.