←back to thread

212 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
NelsonMinar ◴[] No.42199494[source]
I'm confused about how or why this is a new policy. My memory is inside Google we were discussing this risk back in 2003, probably earlier. Search quality was on it. I just assumed they'd lost the arms race, or that the parasites' ranking was justified for other reasons that were hard to tease apart. What are they doing new now?

I think often about Mahalo, the sleazy shovel content that was spamming the web back in 2007. Google shut that down somewhat fast, although it did take several years. These days with AI and more aggressive spammers it's a losing battle. The real problem is the financial incentives that make this kind of spamming profitable in the first place.

My tiny little blog gets about 3 requests a week for someone to "pay me to run a guest article". Going rate is $50-$200 and again, my blog is tiny.

replies(9): >>42199551 #>>42199854 #>>42200207 #>>42200304 #>>42200373 #>>42200611 #>>42200832 #>>42200911 #>>42201266 #
1. lern_too_spel ◴[] No.42200207[source]
Because it became an embarrassing news story (https://larslofgren.com/forbes-marketplace/, also mentioned in this article). They would have lazily left it unfixed if everybody weren't laughing at them.
replies(1): >>42201239 #
2. walterbell ◴[] No.42201239[source]
If so, the author deserves a Web Signal Award for succeeding where customers, regulators and execs failed despite years of trying.