←back to thread

212 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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. Electricniko ◴[] No.42201266[source]
The air purifier review site Housefresh dug into why sites like theirs were seeing less traffic back in the spring, and it amounts to a handful of companies buying up popular magazine/blog brands and using them as affiliate farms that cross-post to sites within their networks of brands to boost visibility:

https://housefresh.com/how-google-decimated-housefresh/

On HN here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40239811

And their previous article mentioned in that post generated a lot of discussion on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39433451