Comment by ec109685
9 months ago
The article points out numerous examples where a site like people.com is ranking for pet air purifiers, with zero evidence that they actually tested the products in question.
This tweet thread goes into more detail https://x.com/SeanDoesLife/status/1717291171473727719?s=20
Yes but it's unreasonable to expect Google to figure out whether people.com is actually testing the products it reviews or not.
All Google can figure out is whether people click on links to people.com when they search for air purifiers (they do), and whether the page in question is outright spam or has its content stolen from another site (it's not).
The idea that Google should be trying to independently figure out some level of objective "content quality" doesn't make any sense to me. It's fine that it builds a knowledge base up out of objective facts to show in cards and whatnot, but I don't want Google trying to decide which review sites are more trustworthy -- I just want it to show me the review sites that other people are clicking on and linking to. For Google to insert "editorial control" over its search results would be an abuse of its power, to me.
When I search Google, I want popular results to come up -- the "democratically elected" results, in effect, from PageRank and clickthrough rates. I don't want Google trying to make assessments of the accuracy of content when it comes to opinion, and review sites are nothing but opinion.
A site that is excellent at SEO spam isn’t the same as a “democratically elected” result.
The list of sites for that term are utter crap, recommending the purifiers paying the top commission. Why would you want Google to perpetuate that ranking just because other users are getting duped to click on them?
What "SEO spam" you talking about? I'm searching for "air purifier" right now and my results are:
1) "The Best Air Purifier - The New York Times" (makes sense)
2-4) Links to "air purifier" category on Amazon, Home Depot, and Best Buy (makes sense)
Then a "discussions and forums" section with a couple of links to Reddit (makes sense)
Then a Google buying guide full of common Q&A about air purifiers (interesting), a list of shopping links to popular air purifier models (makes sense), and YouTube review videos (makes sense), all interspersed with some more top stores, brands, and review sites (Costco, Blueair, Levoit, Consumer Reports, Better Homes & Gardens -- all totally fine).
All of this seems perfectly reasonable and, indeed, exactly what I'm looking for. I have zero complaints. I can't find any SEO spam whatsoever. Literally all of this in the first couple of pages seems entirely legit.
1 reply →
Oh my god, does Twitter now redirect to X for some users?
I've seen more and more links that start with x.com, but my browser still redirects me back to twitter.com
The Stupid burns slowly, but it burns like white phosphorus, through everything.
Using the 'share/copy link' button has been pointing to x.com since they did the whole x.com change but afaik going to x.com will redirect to twitter.com. No clue what they're on about using one domain but redirecting to the other.