5 ms·
I think it's sad that so much of this is driven by SEO -- a desire to satisfy an algorithm -- rather than to make good quality human readable content in its own
by sparkzilla 11y ago
I think it's sad that so much of this is driven by SEO -- a desire to satisfy an algorithm -- rather than to make good quality human readable content in its own right. In a desire to get on the front page of Google so much useless content is being created, and the content itself is tainted by the inclusion of keywords. This is because, as the article mentions, Google's algorithm can't tell a quality article from one that isn't.
- romaniv 11y agoYour comment highlights the shift in perception of search engines between around a decade ago and now. In the past "search" was something people did, while search engine was a tool that helped them. Right now "search" is something Google does. Human, on the other hand, are seen more like a passive recipients of information. My point is, Google's algorithms do not need to tell the difference between good and bad articles. They need to give users tools for effectively filtering out the garbage they don't want to see. As far as I can tell, Google does not even try to provide that. Instead, they have a mysterious algorithm that's supposed to feed you the "right" results if if it knows who you are.
- ninv 11y ago>Google's algorithms do not need to tell the difference between good and bad articles But this is not happening. In Most of the cases, Google cannot distinguish between good and bad content and they are ranking the results using their mysterious algorithm. They are still using Backlinks to rank a content and it is wrong.