8 ms·
While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to
by shiado 9y ago
While they are at it please remove LinkedIn. You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in. Why is it listed at all? Seems pretty deceptive to me.
- icc97 9y agoCan we also ban Elsevier and get Google to replace their links with Sci-Hub links?
- YawningAngel 9y agoScienceDirect articles shouldn't be indexed unless they have a readable abstract. I realise that isn't quite where you're going though ;)
- fragmede 9y agoOn the version of Internet from the 90's? Totally. Could anything like that happen on the CommerceNet, post EME (Encrypted Media Extensions)? (Sept, 2017) Hardly. (And your name is now on a list for suggesting something so subersive, citizen.)
- jkaplowitz 9y agoGoogle didn't exist on the version of the Internet from most of the 90's. :)
- qbrass 9y agoThose few years of overlap were epic.
- oh_sigh 9y agoFairly sure google isn't going to promote pirated content over above-board content, regardless of how a large part of the community feels about it.
- coatmatter 9y agoSometimes you can, and find out personal information or that used to be the case not long ago. I don't know under what conditions it takes but it's a bit like some news paywalls, I think. Incognito tabs won't work.
- saagarjha 9y ago> You can't actually view anything on any page without logging in I believe you can, actually, in some cases. It's just most of the time they try to lock you out with a login screen.
- dewey 9y agoIf you come with a google referrer you can still see the basic information of a profile.
- breitling 9y agoI haven't found this to be true in the last few months
- adventured 9y agoEven if that's true, that means LinkedIn is presenting a different site to the reader than they are to the search engine spiders, which breaks Google's guidelines and should be heavily penalized accordingly (as it would be for any mortals). Google can spider every page freely, going from link to link without having to sign up. A regular user can't. Where's the penalty from Google for that? Why is so much LinkedIn content indexed when the user can't have the same experience as Google does? It's very blatant hypocrisy.
- ht85 9y agoThere is an extension for Chrome named "LinkedIn for Unregistered Users" that works on the basic profile page.
- baursak 9y agoAnd while they're at it, any news sites that hit you with a paywall when coming from Google results.
- vilius 9y agoOh and w3schools.com needs to go below MDN because it's less informative. Even today I wanted to read about transform-origin and landed on w3schools [0], where MDN article [1] is clearly superior. [0] https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_transform-origin.asp https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_transform-origin.as... [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-origin https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/transform-o...
- aduitsis 9y agoPerhaps, but at least they don't require you to signup just to view a stupid image.
- vbezhenar 9y agoDoes Google manually adjust weights? While I agree with you, I always supposed that Google weights websites according to their own algorithms, not because some moderator thinks that it's less informative. If w3schools is higher, probably there are technical reasons, for example more users prefer it (may be content is easier to understand).
- encoderer 9y agoThey apply “manual actions” all the time.
- Donzo 9y agoSure, so they need to improve the algorithms in this way so they produce the desired results. In other words, algorithmically driven manual actions.
- stordoff 9y ago> The Manual Actions report lists instances where a human reviewer has determined that pages on your site are not compliant with Google's webmaster quality guidelines. Google's algorithms can detect the vast majority of spam and demote it automatically; for the rest, we use human reviewers to manually review pages and flag them if they violate the guidelines. Flagged sites can be demoted or even removed entirely from Google search results. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604824?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2604824?hl=en Specifically mentioned on that page is "Redirecting users away from the image on the site when the user clicks "view image" in Google search results" as an example of "image cloaking behavior".
- Lxr 9y agoIt’s also a trap if you forget you’re logged in and the user immediately gets notified you viewed their profile.
- taneq 9y agoThere's an 'anonymous mode' setting which doesn't tell people when you view their profiles. I'm not sure how it works vs. the 'see who viewed your profile' perk that they offer in their premium accounts.
- adventured 9y agoAnd how about Google finally do something about Quora's aggressive abuse of their quality guidelines: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en Quora presents a very different site to Google than it does to the reader ultimately. Google intentionally, knowingly ignores this fact and has for years. They could manually penalize Quora for breaking Google's search quality guidelines in numerous ways and they choose not to. A user can't freely browse Quora page to page, whereas Google can. Presenting a different site to Google than you do to the user, is about as direct of a violation of their guidelines as you can get.
- stordoff 9y agoAFAIK, you always get the same page that was shown when coming from Google results. That IMO is enough - what is shown in the search results is an accurate reflection of the page you reach. Requiring that subsequent navigations within the site are also the same seems excessive (as you don't have the context of a results page that would make it seem misleading) and would be an overreach on Google's part IMO.
- adventured 9y agoThe Google spider has an entirely different experience, when going from page to page on Quora, than what the user does (someone not signed in). Google hammers any normal site that gets caught presenting a fundamentally different experience to the user than they do the spider. Google is not unaware that Quora, Pinterest and LinkedIn present different experiences to the bot vs the user, they knowingly allow it for giant services. That's the hypocrisy and double standard.
- ggg9990 9y agoThat’s because the policy isn’t derived from first principles, it’s a flexing of relative muscles. Google knows that small sites don’t have any choice but to comply with their guidelines. They also know that if they start filtering out LinkedIn results, if people are looking for something they expect to find on LinkedIn, they’ll go and search LinkedIn, possibly even before they search Google. Google will not allow that to happen.
- manigandham 9y agoLinkedIn is one of the top sites for dark UX patterns. It is 100% purposeful, just like Pinterest, and designed to increase the all important "engagement" metric.
- lostlogin 9y agoDoes anyone actually ‘engage’ in way other than trying to block their spam? Every 6 months or so they seem to break through and the crap piles up. I was just fighting them off this morning.
- fwgwgwgch 9y agoThe most important rule to use LinkedIn is to never ever log in. Or if you do, do it on a computer and shhh stop pressing those buttons. Just do the minimal and leave.
- lokedhs 9y agoI think so. Not many, but I have seen friends make posts on Linkedin. IIRC, they were about some technical topics, similar to what you'd expect to see in a blog. Why they close to use Linkedin I don't know, but apparently it does happen.
- manigandham 9y agoYes, 100s of millions of people around the world. Millions of new posts, job searches, private messages and other activities take place everyday. They do have plenty of spam and a terrible UX but that doesn't mean the site and community is anywhere near empty or useless.
- gkya 9y agoPeople take spam for granted. Most people have more unread spam in their gmail mbox than _all_ of my mail archive.
- robryan 9y agoAs a non recruiter that isn't looking for a job I just find it useful for looking into people from 3rd parties I am currently working with. Things such as who else they work with, their exact position in their company, where they have worked in the past. All the social features bolted on are useless to me.
- donohoe 9y agoAgree. On my profile page I have option to make it ‘public’ but still requires login to be seen. It’s completely deceptive imho.
- newnewpdro 9y agoThey didn't used to require this, unless I'm mistaken that started post Microsoft acquisition.
- krick 9y agoAnd Facebook.