4 ms·
What's strange is this is not at all a new problem, and Google has historically been quite good at fighting it. The original search engines ranked pages by the
by gregmac 10y ago
What's strange is this is not at all a new problem, and Google has historically been quite good at fighting it.
The original search engines ranked pages by their content. Naturally this led to gaming by including keywords (remember huge invisible sections of pages that just repeated keywords thousands of times?).
Google's original PageRank algorithm was a complete breakthrough for this, almost completely disregarding content and instead ranking results based on the text other pages had used to link to the page. This was so good, in fact, that most of the other search engines from the time didn't survive.
This once again led to large-scale gaming with techniques like link farms, and a small arms race as Google came up with ways to squash these new techniques. The quasi-legitimate "SEO" industry spun out of this.
I think now we're in the same cycle again, and at this moment scam sites are winning. What's to be seen is if there's a looming breakthrough, or the arms race will continue.
- joshuamorton 10y agoI think a big problem now is that the sites are capable of tricking people. That is, if you have a "turing test" for reliable content website, blogspam.forums.net with 2000 backlinks and such obviously doesn't pass. On the other hand, Reuters.com does. But so does theonion, and Breitbart and random_russian_conservative_propoganda_site.us, and so it becomes a lot harder to differentiate the good from the bad without explicity curating by experts, because the sites can trick non-domain-expert humans, so what hope does a bot that hasn't tried to learn domain expertise of the topic have?