4 ms·

There are certain sites like Wikipedia that improve the web's utility for all who use it, small and giant companies alike. Google search is improved by Wikipedi

There are certain sites like Wikipedia that improve the web's utility for all who use it, small and giant companies alike. Google search is improved by Wikipedia's existence. And then there are sites like Pinterest, that degrade the web's utility for the vast majority of people on Earth. It actually harms Google's search experience (obviously image search) and frustrates us that try to benignly browse images. Why does Google let Pinterest get away with its user-hostile approach?

nine_k 6y ago
An obvious question: does Pinterest buy a lot of Google's ad services?
- foobarian 6y ago
  Another obvious question: does Google pay for the valuable free content they get from Wikipedia?
  - fheld 6y ago
    Not an answer but a data point: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-milli...
    - dspillett 6y ago
      Any chance of a summary for those who refuse to play TC/Yahoo's privacy game (which last time I did look in more depth made it pretty much impossible to completely opt out of tracking) beyond seeing the interstitial and hitting back?
      - nine_k 6y ago
        Does an incognito browser window help?
      - nieve 6y ago
        https://web.archive.org/web/20200701160058/https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200701160058/https://techcrunc... I find the Resurrect Pages firefox extension very useful for a lot of paywalls.
  - dspillett 6y ago
    No, not directly, though they have donated to the relevant foundation, but in any case that isn't quite the same thing. The use of Wikipedia's information in search results is generally useful to the user. Pinterest's spamming of search results can harm the user experience, making it harder to find content that is hosted elsewhere. Often the content elsewhere is better than that found on Pinterest because it is more likely to be the original source (or at least cite the original).
  - blinding-streak 6y ago
    "The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under an appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
    - not2b 6y ago
      Besides, Wikipedia isn't an ad-supported site, so Google's practice of including their text in the search result doesn't cost them ad revenue. You could argue that it means people will see the banner requesting donations less often, but that's compensated for by Google's own donations to them. So while I have definite concerns about some of Google's other practices, that one is no big deal.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    Wikipedia is expressly marking its content as free, and is interested in disseminating it. I'm not sure that Pinterest's mission is the same.
  - ballenf 6y ago
    Does wikipedia pay its users who contribute the content?
- Avamander 6y ago
  Given that Google takes MusicBrainz's data and uses it to display infoboxes but doesn't usually list MB itself, I think the motivation for indexing Pinterest is indeed ad revenue. If you generate money for them, they index you, even if the content is bad, and vice versa.
- ryanb 6y ago
  Post author here. Answer: Yes
- stickfigure 6y ago
  This question seems not so obvious to me. Or at least, the incentives are reversed from what I assume you're suggesting. If Pinterest is a buyer of Google's ad services, Google has a strong interest in ensuring that Pinterest doesn't get free organic results. More organic results, less need for ad spend.
ForHackernews 6y ago
Maybe Google degrades the web's utility for a million other websites, but they get away with it because they're big.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zsdgblh 6y ago
The EU fined Google a great deal of money in part for reducing the prominence of user-hostile websites.

nine_k 6y ago

An obvious question: does Pinterest buy a lot of Google's ad services?

foobarian 6y ago
Another obvious question: does Google pay for the valuable free content they get from Wikipedia?
- fheld 6y ago
  Not an answer but a data point: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-milli...
  - dspillett 6y ago
    Any chance of a summary for those who refuse to play TC/Yahoo's privacy game (which last time I did look in more depth made it pretty much impossible to completely opt out of tracking) beyond seeing the interstitial and hitting back?
    - nine_k 6y ago
      Does an incognito browser window help?
    - nieve 6y ago
      https://web.archive.org/web/20200701160058/https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/22/google-org-donates-2-million-to-wikipedias-parent-org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200701160058/https://techcrunc... I find the Resurrect Pages firefox extension very useful for a lot of paywalls.
- dspillett 6y ago
  No, not directly, though they have donated to the relevant foundation, but in any case that isn't quite the same thing. The use of Wikipedia's information in search results is generally useful to the user. Pinterest's spamming of search results can harm the user experience, making it harder to find content that is hosted elsewhere. Often the content elsewhere is better than that found on Pinterest because it is more likely to be the original source (or at least cite the original).
- blinding-streak 6y ago
  "The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under an appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
  - not2b 6y ago
    Besides, Wikipedia isn't an ad-supported site, so Google's practice of including their text in the search result doesn't cost them ad revenue. You could argue that it means people will see the banner requesting donations less often, but that's compensated for by Google's own donations to them. So while I have definite concerns about some of Google's other practices, that one is no big deal.
- nine_k 6y ago
  Wikipedia is expressly marking its content as free, and is interested in disseminating it. I'm not sure that Pinterest's mission is the same.
- ballenf 6y ago
  Does wikipedia pay its users who contribute the content?
Avamander 6y ago
Given that Google takes MusicBrainz's data and uses it to display infoboxes but doesn't usually list MB itself, I think the motivation for indexing Pinterest is indeed ad revenue. If you generate money for them, they index you, even if the content is bad, and vice versa.
ryanb 6y ago
Post author here. Answer: Yes
stickfigure 6y ago
This question seems not so obvious to me. Or at least, the incentives are reversed from what I assume you're suggesting. If Pinterest is a buyer of Google's ad services, Google has a strong interest in ensuring that Pinterest doesn't get free organic results. More organic results, less need for ad spend.

ForHackernews 6y ago

Maybe Google degrades the web's utility for a million other websites, but they get away with it because they're big.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zsdgblh 6y ago

The EU fined Google a great deal of money in part for reducing the prominence of user-hostile websites.