←back to thread

1743 points caspii | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ilamont ◴[] No.27428272[source]
Same story for various Wordpress plugins and widgety things that live in site footers.

Google has turned into a cesspool. Half the time I find myself having to do ridiculous search contortions to get somewhat useful results - appending site: .edu or .gov to search strings, searching by time periods to eliminate new "articles" that have been SEOed to the hilt, or taking out yelp and other chronic abusers that hijack local business results.

replies(19): >>27428410 #>>27428439 #>>27428441 #>>27428466 #>>27428594 #>>27428652 #>>27428717 #>>27428807 #>>27429076 #>>27429483 #>>27429797 #>>27429818 #>>27429843 #>>27429859 #>>27430023 #>>27430207 #>>27430285 #>>27430707 #>>27430783 #
1. wingworks ◴[] No.27428466[source]
I really don't like how easy it is to fake a "new" article on Google. You can just re-publish an old article and stick a new date on it and Googles takes it on face value and uses the new date.
replies(2): >>27429860 #>>27430653 #
2. BigJono ◴[] No.27429860[source]
I ran into this for the first time yesterday when trying to find out new info about a footy player. Some article from 15 years ago talking about how he had a good first game, tagged as 5th june 2021. Like, wtf?
replies(1): >>27430766 #
3. sellyme ◴[] No.27430653[source]
You can also do the opposite: post something today and say it was up on your site in 2003.

Makes it really difficult to find old pages about something that recently exploded in popularity, because the age filter just doesn't work.

4. lethologica ◴[] No.27430766[source]
I have been seeing this a lot recently too. Especially with the first result or two. Or the section up top that gives you a partial answer without having to click through. All of them always seem to have been freshly written like some made to order meal at a restaurant. It’s just too suspicious really.