Yes. They both did.
Google came to prominence because it sidestepped the first gen SEO of keywords.
Then it became a bloated corp run by MBAs.
SEO took off and it did little to nothing as its search platform was now there to deliver eye balls to advertisers.
It’s worse than that, in Google’s current antitrust suit, the government showed that Google stopped searching for your exact text…. Instead they replace your text with the most profitable text that’s close to what you’re searching for. So you can’t actually get better results by refining your query anymore.
Meaning that Google is defrauding their users (making it look like they searched for something they didn’t give you the results for) and they defrauded AdWords clients because I paid for an ad when someone searches for X but Google manipulated a search for Y into X so that I’d have to pay more even though the user didn’t actually use my keyword.
Aaaaand we wonder why Google sucks now.
…… always the same reason that a company turns hostile to their clients…… “I’m big enough I don’t care, and I want more money, fuck you”
I feel this, especially when I’m looking up technical information. I’ll specifically exclude keywords and they show up in the first result.
Half the time I feel the search engine doesn’t care what I’m looking for.
Same algorithm that sends you right wing bullshit whenever you try to find anything. I sure as fuck don’t want to see that but they seem to.
Wired retracted that article because the writer misunderstood the slides.
https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/
That’s interesting… I’m curious now….
They may have misinterpreted it, but now I wanna know what it REALLY is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802116
If you search for “kids clothing”, when it goes to pull ads to put above the results, it fuzzes the search phrase for synonyms. So for example if TJ Maxx has purchased ads for “kidswear”, that’s a semantic match, so they’ll show the TJ Maxx ads even though it’s not one of the exact keywords they picked.
While I’m not arguing your point, it certainly appears you’re right……
I just can’t help but feel like the original story (despite the inaccuracy) was on to something.
A few years ago when Google stopped processing quotes in the search properly, their search engine started shitting the bed HARD.
I’ve always felt that since that time they’ve been searching the wrong things. Search has gotten worse. It’s been better for finding items I want to buy, but complete dogshit for everything else. I don’t particularly buy that seo’s got a sudden unexplained boost at that time.
I don’t know, the article (despite the inaccuracies) really felt like it explained everything nicely. So the article might be wrong but…. There’s still something there Google isn’t telling us. I kinda wonder if it’s true despite the lack of evidence.
Wait quotes no longer work?
It’s not that they don’t work entirely, they just started “fuzzing “ them like normal search.
They’re no longer a hard explicit.
Stop the insanity, there is no need to drive into conspiracies.
Ehhhh, only a small amount is assumed. The rest is fact. And I’m fairly upfront about it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Maybe I could even repackage such a tragedy into a sensationalized anecdote for a viral article about the people who do SEO for a living, strongly implying that nature was here to punish the bad guy while somehow also assuming the ethical high ground and pretending I hadn’t been hoping this exact thing would happen from the start.
He was the kind of tall, charming man who described himself multiple times as “a nerd,” and he pointed out that even though working directly with search engine rankings is “no longer monetizing at the highest payout,” the same “core knowledge of SEO” remains relevant for everything from native advertising to social media.
As sunset turned to dusk, I found Daron Babin again, and he started telling me about one of his signature moves, back in the ’90s, involving fake domain names: “I could make it look like it was somebody else, but it actually redirected to me!” What he and his competitors did was legal but well beyond what the dominant search engine allowed.
Unlike the Elon Musks and Jeff Bezoses of the world, who went from geeky teenagers to masters of the universe, the dorks who grew up to do SEO have stayed the butt of the joke, beholden to the fluctuations of the algorithm, frantically pulling levers behind the scenes but ultimately somewhat hapless.
Google was slow to allow someone to talk with me, possibly because of the giant PR clusterfuck that has been the company’s past year (accused by the federal government of being a monopoly; increasingly despised by the public; losing ground to Reddit, TikTok, and large language models), so I decided to start by meeting up with a chipper, charismatic man named Duane Forrester.
Once he represented Bing, Forrester more or less stopped drinking at conferences, as had long been the case for his counterpart at Google, an engineer named Matt Cutts, who helped build and then ran the company’s web spam team before stepping back in 2014 and leaving in 2016.
The original article contains 8,379 words, the summary contains 336 words. Saved 96%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
You saved 96%, but the result still seems quite fluffy. Perhaps this kind of article is more challenging to summarize.
It reads like a start of some dude’s homoerotic fanfic, reminiscing about the famous dudes he used to bang.
I think this 8000+ word article’s length is indicative of the “real” answer: it’s complicated.
I read the whole thing. Lots of great personalities and examples spanning from AltaVista to Large Language models and everything in between.
I think the quote that resonated with me the most, to summarize this article’s main thesis in a sound bite, was this:
You can’t just be the most powerful observer in the world for two decades and not deeply warp what you are looking at
In essence, it’s the fault of having a dominant algorithm dictating what the Internet “is”. Google is the tool most people use for most of their information seeking. Thus, getting a high ranking from Google is the difference between success and failure.
imho, the only real solution is decentralization. Federated services, local newspapers, new search engines, idk.
And yet, Google is still my default search engine. So I’m part of the problem.
SEO experts AND GOOGLE
That article downplays SEO and mostly argues that Google is responsible, and it still gives Google way too much credit. I mean, it’s gonna take a lot more evidence to make me believe they broke the internet by accident, for one. People knew all this crap would happen before Google was even a thing.
Greed broke it. Mostly Google’s, but you’re right, if it weren’t Google, it would have been someone else.
It already was someone else. I am old enough to remember when all these conversations (and the very accurate warnings about algorithmic filtering and artificial content promotion) being directed at Altavista and Yahoo.
And Facebook isn’t innocent, TikTok etc…. You’re entirely right.
We are our own worst enemies.
Many things have ruined the Internet, corporate greed, the proliferation of low quality content, paywalls, advertising, websites infested with user registration, AI, bots, shitty web page builders, etc… This was such a great article except the alligator was only five and a half feet long.
Does anyone ever talk about how we can fix it?
Use different services.
We’re already in the process of fixing it by using Lemmy instead of reddit.
We need some 10 foot alligators to fix it.
I think it’s not in our hand. We can only hide annoyances by a content blocker.
I started using Kagi. By paying for the search engine, at least I can ensure the search engine’s goals align with mine, instead of with whoever pays most for advertisement. I haven’t used it for a long time yet, but so far I’m satisfied with its results!
I’ve been using Kagi for about half a year now, and I’ve definitely been very happy with it. As you pointed out, the fact that you pay for it with actual money and not with your attention (ie. ad views) means that they actually have an incentive to show you good results instead of endless walls of spammy links that lead to pages using their ad network.
People don’t seem to realize that Google’s not a search engine company with an ad network, but an ad network company with a search engine: the ads pay for all of Google’s services, so they’re incentivized to fill your search results with bullshit that you have to dig through, but that uses their ad network – every useless spam link you have visit when looking for the thing you actually searched for means more 💰 for Google.
The fact that so many big online services are ad-funded has led to the situation where people seem to believe that we’re entitled to have everything for free online. While open source projects run by volunteers are definitely a thing (as is obvious considering where we are), I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that every online service should have rely on voluntary donations and volunteer work, and that developers should work on your free pet service during their time off from their actual work
Yikes.
What’s “yikes” about that?
It sounds like you’re being taken advantage of without realizing it and trying to get others to do the same.
How on earth does paying for a service mean someone’s “being taken advantage of”? You do realize that Google, Bing et al aren’t actually free? The whole problem with eg. Google is the fact that they’re an ad company with a search engine and not the other way around, which creates perverse incentives to show you bullshit results as long as it means more ad views for them (and they control both the supply and demand side of that ad network, which makes it even worse). That’s literally the reason why Google’s results have gotten so bad.
While I’d love to live in an economic system where people could just build good web search engines for free and on a volunteer basis, unfortunately we don’t find ourselves in such a system at this time. I’d rather pay for a search service than use one that’s incentivized to not show me what I’m searching for, and I’d also rather pay for developer time than assume that they’ll work on services for free during their time off (which is the reality with eg. Lemmy admins)
I don’t have a ton of experience with it yet, but I don’t have to scroll through a bunch of actual ads, followed by a bunch of not-really-but-basically-still ads, before finding what I’m looking for.
I’m paying for the service, not because I just fell for their marketing, but because I actually have the impression of getting noticeably less “polluted” results, especially when searching for something easily advertisable (e.g. “best X to buy 2023”). I don’t need to convert anyone else. Everyone can just try it themselves and judge whether they feel it’s worth their money or not. As of now, for me it seems to be the case.
Hate to bust your bubble but Kagi is just a fancy meta search engine that still uses bing,google and a few others for its queries. Its not a real search engine in its own right. A good searxng instance like https://paulgo.io will give you similar results without paying 10$ a month for it.
Support people who host these free and open source services out of pocket with donations. Not yet another business offering yet another subscription. Promising ‘were not like those other guys, for reals jut trust us’ while not being able to gaurentee they won’t turn into greedy bastards and start whittling your user rights/rolling in the ads later.
It doesn’t really matter to me if they use their own crawler or use results from another search engine. What matters to me is the results i’m seeing for my search queries. And if they “roll in the ads later” or the service deteriorates, I can still switch to another search engine.
No need for “just trust us”, if you can just compare the product yourself🤷♂️
I hope that if that day comes you may consider trying out some searxng instances, as they do probably give similar results as kagi as both pool results from the same true search engines. I am so fustrated that we are at a point where people feel the need to pay 120$ a year for something that has been a staple of the free as in freedom internet forever, especially when things like SearXNG exist.
Maybe I will take a look at that, why not?
But no solution is really free. Either you pay directly (Kagi), or it is paid through ads (Google) or it is some free open source solution, which then is paid through the time people put into it in their free time and in that case there should be donations or contributions as well, at least from people who can afford it. 🤷♂️
Its the third option, and no while nothing in computer infrastructure is ever truly free as theres always operational+maintenance cost as well as dev time and setup time, when nothing is at cost to the end user and the hosting provider isn’t trying to make a profit off their information then I consider it good grounds to it a ‘free’ service. I actually just posted a guide to alternative search engines over at [email protected] , you may find it an interesting read.
They both contributed.
Why is it “or”…? It’s as if the Verge has lost the ability to write a non-clickbait title.
And the answer is “both have” of course. The folks who make the game are as guilty as those who played it.
Every time I see an article from the verge all I can think of is Stefan and his disastrous PC Build video. The Verge lost all credibility after that for me
Unregulated capitalism did.
I did a word search of the article and capitalism wasn’t mentioned once. How can we heal the illness if no one can mention the disease.
Just keep calling it out. I’m hopeful things can get better
It was the battle between SEO “experts” and Google that did it.
the people who ruined the internet are the people. google, internet users and product owners have mutually adversarial relationships, so relying on google all this time naturally led to this.
Kind of like when George Carlin said ‘if you want better politicians; make better people.’
Yes.
It was the unholy marriage of the two
Greed of both SEO and Google.
