←back to thread

259 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.201s | 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(10): >>42199551 #>>42199854 #>>42200207 #>>42200304 #>>42200373 #>>42200611 #>>42200832 #>>42200911 #>>42201266 #>>42204122 #
xivzgrev ◴[] No.42200832[source]
I miss Google of 2003

What would it take for someone to make it today? No AI, only 1 on mobile, and sites with heavy ad loads are punished

replies(6): >>42201143 #>>42201222 #>>42201281 #>>42202333 #>>42202571 #>>42209572 #
1. Shorel ◴[] No.42202571[source]
I think it would be easy to make, with two decades of hardware improvements.

The problem is that the web of 2003 doesn't exist any longer.

Google existence changed the websites for better or worse. The Google of 2003 is no longer capable of dealing with today's web SEO dirty tricks.