https://www.businessinsider.com/seo-google-search-engine-drama-2023-11
An 8,000-word story in The Verge asks: Why does Google search suck so bad? It points the finger at SEO practitioners — and they're not happy.
Neat. So some of them are nice. Doesn’t make the practice of “optimizing” search a noble deed because some of them think themselves on some high tower. In the end you are trying to push your site above others based on your ability to game the system, rather than relevance of your content. When you do this, I don’t think it’s relevant if you’re a nice person with feelings…
Try googling hardware-id XX for linux. You can bet there's a page "XX driver for linux" in the first results, with a download button to malware. Title doesn't make sense, but the search algorithmen can't know that.
I'm surprised stackoverflow haven't sued some of them.. they literally steal the content and stick their own name on it.
SEO ruined the Internet because it made SEO essential to be seen in relevant search results above other less relevant search results. In other words, less relevant search results can often be seen on the first page along with more relevant search results, or even sometimes instead of relevant search results on the first 2 pages of any reputable search engine.
Also, Internet Reputation companies have proven that SEO and fake content can be used as a weapon to push relevant search results so far down nobody sees them anymore.
Finally, how many times have you searched for something just to come across some random webpage with just a bunch of word salad that happens to somehow be relevant. An easy example of this are phone numbers. You search for a phone number that called you and chances are you won't see much relevant data. Just a mix of "robocaller" reporting websites -- usually with no information and random websites with just a bunch of phone numbers in sequential order with no relevant data whatsoever. Even if it's a business' actual phone number.
They claim they didn't ruin the Internet, but yet every single one I've worked with very aggressively keyword stuffed the shit out of the sites, even a blog with fake authors and carefully written junk top 10 blog posts to bring as much traffic as possible. I've even discovered they exploited Wordpress instances to stuff links to our site on it, when they weren't just leaving junk comments with a link to the website.
They're the very reasons so many sites have so many fucking useless tutorials and top 10s and whatnot. They go after search engines, and in that process, you gotta make your site appear to have loads of articles and content about a topic so it gets favored in search engines.
This is a different version of putting text the same color as your background at the end if your page, with your keywords typed over and over.
Anyone who has searched for a recipe in the last few years knows that they ruined the internet with SEO shit.
Business insider is one of the worsts.
Literally anybody who can blog can write on their site. And they're all "opinions" so you get a lot of wannabe "entrepreneurs" writing with zero qualifications or fact checking
The story they're discussing: https://www.theverge.com/features/23931789/seo-search-engine-optimization-experts-google-results
Wait till the HR world figures out their sole purpose is to protect corporations from actual human beings. God forbid they stop trying to pay people the least amount possible.
On a related note, my favorite recent SEO story:
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23931825/google-search-local-seo-thai-food-near-me-maps
Was it really near you though? :) I think I'd be obligated to at least go in and ask "HOW DID YOU KNOW??!?!?"
They just chose the money over the usable of Google search. Google used Reddit as a crutch but now that is stale or going away (pending reddit getting paid by AI companies for their data). So Google is either going to have to change how search works which will endanger their bottom line from search and totally change how search engine optimization and thousands of websites work which seems unlikely. Or find a way to keep search relevant.
Yes 162 billion+ from money they make off search. It would take some more math but you'd have to figure out the indirect income as well of people using Google services because of search.
Search is still an incredibly powerful and prolific part of Google's business despite what they make focus on from the outside. Which is why it boggles my mind that they just let it go absolutely to shit. But on the other hand they make 162 billion a year from it so there's the reason there's 162 billion of them.
So I guess nothing changes even if Reddit goes dark on the search ability front of this Google probably just keeps limping along it's not like anyone out there is competing. Bing maybe in the future there's still some innovation that needs to happen there and they need to get the default power somehow. Duck duck go is the way but that's still using Google search just with out as many tracking features built-in.
If it were for me to decide, they would be down in hiding. Cause being up in arms would mean legs broken, and also fingers or their hands to prevent further use of computer keyboards and mice.
Also an abbreviation which is expanded into "search engine optimization" by the very fscking name means that they are ruining the Internet, or the Web as its part, more precisely.
Don't forget those ads on Twitter, Facebook, instagram, Youtube. They show you the product you viewed before, called re-targeting.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Verge article, written by Amanda Chicago Lewis, is 8,000 words and starts with an anecdote about attending a search-engine optimization industry event that featured a live alligator.
A lot of what we see on the internet on a daily basis (this news site included) is shaped by efforts to appeal to Google's search algorithms.
But it turns out, they're nice people — not scammers — and perform a worthwhile service connecting websites to customers within a framework that Google has constructed.
Danny Sullivan, a former journalist and the founder of Search Engine Land — who's also a current Google employee — was also displeased.
Sullivan points out some minor errors (he had left Search Engine Land before he joined Google; The Verge story makes this more ambiguous).
One thing that's usually true is that subcultures of people, whether it's furries, pro-natalists, or Dimes Square reactionaries, don't like being written about as a group.
The original article contains 854 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The real question is: why do people misunderstand SEO? No matter what technology you are going to use, people are going to want to optimize it. Like a store front will optimize for the street it's in.
A search engine crawls sites, ranks them based on keywords (and much more), and shows results based on a search quiry. No matter how it works, sites will find out how the system prioritizes A over B.
Then there are the users. Stop asking Google/whatever questions. It's a search engine, so it'll show content that asks the same. When did we stop searching for keywords about a certain topic to find out?
Sure, I'm lazy too. And 'information pollution' is a problem. But not SEO in and of itself.