12 ms·

There's no intentional or manual effort at Google to promote pinterest. Pinterest shows up because they understand how the Google algorithm works and built the

There's no intentional or manual effort at Google to promote pinterest. Pinterest shows up because they understand how the Google algorithm works and built their website to display all the signals that Google looks for in relevant image content. They understand user intent and generate URLs that present content in a way that google expects to see. Examples of how they do this from their engineering team: https://medium.com/pinterest-engineering/demystifying-seo-with-experiments-a183b325cf4c https://medium.com/pinterest-engineering/demystifying-seo-wi... More: https://medium.com/pinterest-engineering/tagged/seo https://medium.com/pinterest-engineering/tagged/seo

blunte 6y ago
Google should be asking from a product perspective if they are providing the search results the user is most likely seeking. I seriously doubt that most pinterest results are what users are seeking. As such, Google probably should consider changes to their algorithm to compensate (cat and mouse) for pinterest's gaming. That is assuming how pinterest does it is not against any google rules... because if it were against any rules, they should be slapped down hard. When my searches result in mostly pinterest results, I give up more quickly. That means I spend less time using google, and that in theory means less money for google. Unfortunately, I do see other more regular user types operate their computers, and they are less or un-descriminating about the domain name listed under the image. So they'll head directly into the pinterest waste pond anyway.
- kauju 6y ago
  Just do -pinterest in your search to filter
  - erichocean 6y ago
    It would be great if Google had a little "hide this domain for me permanently" next to every search result. Not only would it improve that user's own search results, it's a very strong signal that other users also might not like it, for de-ranking purposes.
    - GraemeL 6y ago
      They used to offer that functionality but removed it years ago. I've been using this userscript since then. https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-domain-search-filter-block-sites https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-d... It might be called Google Hit Hider by Domain but the author has expanded it to cover most major search engines over the years.
      - LordDragonfang 6y ago
        I've used a similar script; the problem is, for certain searches, literally every result is a pinterest link, and you end up with a blank page.
  - amelius 6y ago
    It gets tiring.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Google account preferences used to have an option to exclude domains from results. About a decade (?) ago I added Burleson Consulting and expertsexchange to blocked domains and Google was instantly useful again. In 2014-ish Google moved this functionality to Chrome so I lost access to it. Not sure if it is still there.
    - DangitBobby 6y ago
      It's not perfect, but I use the Firefox version of this extension. Good for blocking Pinterest and those techno-babble scraper sites. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklistnot-by/cbbbhelcpfjhdcncigdlkabmjbgokmpg?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist...
  - baskire 6y ago
    Or just avoid using google. The Pinterest results in google image search queries was a major driver to me using bing/ duck duck go.
    - zelly 6y ago
      Linking directly to the image file (and in fact a cached version of the full image) is one of the best reasons to use DDG. Reverse image search is also intentionally gimped, unlike non-US jurisdiction Yandex which is quite good. It's certainly for legal reasons, not technical, but Image Search has gotten progressively worse every year. It used to be godly effective 10 years ago.
      - abc-xyz 6y ago
        > Linking directly to the image file (and in fact a cached version of the full image) is one of the best reasons to use DDG. That’s possible thanks to Microsoft’s Bing API. I’m surprised Getty (who’s afaik responsible for Google removing direct image links) only went after Google and not Microsoft.
  - DevKoala 6y ago
    Thank you, but still, the regular person is not finding what they seek, but what SEO experts want them to find.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Clearly we should not have no include -fakenews -porn, etc, otherwise I might as well use bing / Duckduckgo/ whatever
  - thaumaturgy 6y ago
    User: This service has a problem and it's not working well. Programmer: There's nothing wrong with the service, you just have to use [magic incantation] to make it work right. I've been hoping for 20 years that this kind of exchange would stop happening. Still hoping! :-)
    - npteljes 6y ago
      Services and users have different goals. Why is the helpful technologist the problem?
      - grendix 6y ago
        Your second statement is enabling bad behavior, your first statement is insane.
        TeMPOraL 6y ago
        No. They're exactly right. The root problem here is incentive misalignment. Both Google and Pinterest sacrifice value they provide to extract more revenue from their users.
        npteljes 6y ago
        Care to elaborate on the insane part? I feel sane.
      - matthewdgreen 6y ago
        Real answer? Because helpful technologists are the interface between less knowledgeable users and services like Google. We’re the power users and “mavens” who are both highly exposed to the product and have some understanding of what’s going wrong and how it might be made better. We also spend a lot more time talking to that product’s engineering staff than the typical user (see e.g. the fact that we’re here on HN.) When helpful technologists opt out of the problematic aspects of a product by uttering some magic incantation, we essentially remove ourselves from having to be annoyed by the product’s rough edges. This means we’re less likely to help improve the service for everyone, and we’re probably more likely to incorporate similar carelessness into the things we make ourselves.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    I just wanted to mention that excluding strings has been broken for me off-and-on over the last month at least. Not directly relevant to anything except how lame google has become.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Only a month? I don't recall the last time it actually worked. I always end up having to do -"string" and put it in quotation marks, kind of like telling Google "why, yes, this thing I put that minus sign in front of really is something I don't want to see in my results."
  - smcameron 6y ago
    -site:pinterest.* (there's supposed to be an asterisk at the end, but I have to type something after the asterisk for it to show up)
- maya24 6y ago
  Stop using Google search. DDG works just as well
  - fuzxi 6y ago
    Would that this were true, but it's not. Searching for specific technical issues especially shows DDG's weakness.
    - daveFNbuck 6y ago
      Outside of searching for specific technical issues, DDG is pretty good. I use DDG for most of my searches and this is the first I've heard of search results being dominated by Pinterest, so it's at least better on that front.
  - _AzMoo 6y ago
    I use DDG search most of the time, but I find this to be untrue. DDG is pretty good, but struggles with context a lot more than Google does. For example, when searching for an error in a programming library, DDG is likely to return the library homepage, whereas google is more likely to return the specific github issue where the error is being discussed.
    - ratww 6y ago
      For text it depends [1] but for images I find DDG to range from slightly to significantly better than Google. Also, I have direct access to the image file URL without having to rely on browser extensions. [1] I wonder if the meme "DDG is not that good" is so prevalent on Hacker News because it sucks for programming stuff.
      - missedthecue 6y ago
        Yes, Google image searches produce wild results. Far-right groups have had a field day with it.
    - the__alchemist 6y ago
- mrtksn 6y ago
  >Google should be asking from a product perspective if they are providing the search results the user is most likely seeking. I am cynical. Maybe Google's own experiments show that users click more ads when they get frustrated of the Pinterest spam that is technically not spam enough to be removed from the index. What the users are going to do? Use Bing? Google's most optimised version is probably being an Ads search engine where you are presented only with the most lucrative ads that are relative to your query. Essentially Yellow pages.
  - monkeybutton 6y ago
    It's certainly going in that direction. With reverse image search being replaced with "Search with Google Lense" on mobile, the most prominent results are now all Google shopping ads.
  - nvrGiveUp 6y ago
    Bing is better than google often enough. I've stopped using Google.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    >What the users are going to do? Use Bing? duckduckgo isn't horrific. And certainly not for image searches, which is how Pinterest's pollution ends up being noticed.
    - swsieber 6y ago
      I had an experience the other day where duckduckgo worked where google had failed (an obscure java default bug). It was pleasantly surprising.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    If that's the idea, isn't it easier to just show random junk? Why pinterest?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
  With Google featuring progressively more ads and Google content at the top of the results page, it's not clear if it's still in Google's self interest to give users the best results anymore.
  - moultano 6y ago
    This is why there's an aggressive firewall between the ads and search organizations. The ranking team isn't even aware of revenue numbers by ACL.
    - texasbigdata 6y ago
      I'm sure the search team can, erm,google for the ad revenue figures in the earnings release. After reading the anti trust filing it’s hard to argue Google is anything else but evil and a lot of what it does is to hide its monopoly.
      - alisonkisk 6y ago
        You think the search team runs an experiment once per 3 months to test how their algorithm ideas impact earnings?
        not2b 6y ago
        The company isn't a charity. If a search change demonstrably has a negative effect on company earnings (even if users like it) it will almost certainly be reversed. I don't think they run an experiment once every three months, I think they are testing continuously, including A/B testing (some users get the change, others don't,).
        moultano 6y ago
        > If a search change demonstrably has a negative effect on company earnings (even if users like it) it will almost certainly be reversed. This is completely false. I've personally been involved in launching ranking changes that negatively impacted revenue substantially. I didn't find out until months later through the grapevine, and only in vague terms like "ads had to scramble." Versions of them remain in production today. Revenue projections were never considered as part of the launch decision, nor have they they been consulted as part of evaluating subsequent versions.
- jariel 6y ago
  This is a little bit like: 'McDonald's should serve healthier food, like Salads'. 'What Google Wants' and 'What We Want' have reached a crude equilibrium and it's unlikely to change that much, even if there are obvious improvements to make. Qualitative improvements beyond need generally require a very specific corporate and cultural focus. If Sergei or Larry 'came back' and mandated it, the system would move around it. Or Sundar could, maybe, pull that off, but it's not in his DNA really. The lack of material innovation in search stopped over a decade ago. Otherwise, we should be getting betas every few months, with all sorts of options, features, etc. Even simple things like 'forever blocking a site by default' would be great.
- creato 6y ago
  I think they can't do anything about it. Regulators and lawmakers in the US and EU would be very receptive to complaints from pinterest if google were to act somehow.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    Do you have references for this? I'm genuinely curious if this kind of thing is actually being done. Google's altered it's algorithm to remove low quality sites in the past and if anti-trust worries are stopping that now, well, I can't even.
    - creato 6y ago
      If google were to downrank pinterest, it would seem very similar to the foundem case: https://www.ft.com/content/88f26f10-5d3a-11e9-939a-341f5ada9d40 https://www.ft.com/content/88f26f10-5d3a-11e9-939a-341f5ada9...
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
  Yeah, Pinterest is almost always disappointing as a result: their account requirements are annoying and it tends to obfuscate the source of the image or information you’re looking for.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    A few times I've landed on Pinterest and they lock user copied (contrary to copyright law in my country AFAICT) content behind a registration-wall. They never show enough utility for new to register, they just tease on Google and then don't show what they teased. Google results would be better for me with all Pinterest results removed.
    - Chirael 6y ago
      Wasn’t there an option at one time to tell Google to hide results from a certain domain? I feel like I haven’t seen that in years though
      - feanaro 6y ago
        Just add `-site:example.org` to your query.
        joegahona 6y ago
        I have done this throughout COVID for the NYTimes' content, as it's behind a paywall.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        ashleshbiradar 6y ago
        Interestingly, if you use Brave, it lets you hop to the tor versions of sites, and since NYTimes has a tor version, if you visit that, it’s paywall free.
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  Both in Google, and in DDG, sometimes when I am looking for an image (i.e. image of a "full body workout plan") the images I find tend to be 'hosted' in Pinterest, but in reality following them links take me to Pinterest, and then back to the original source (which is some random fitness site). I find Pinterest useful as an image search engine.
- russh 6y ago
  Google has shown time and time again they do not worry about providing the search results the user is most likely seeking. They monitor ad revenue and adjust accordingly.
- tomaskafka 6y ago
  They are playing a cat and mouse game, only the mouse is quite determined as its bonuses depend on evading, and the cat is very fat and comfortable :).
- comeonseriously 6y ago
  > Google should be asking from a product perspective if they are providing the search results the user is most likely seeking. I never want Pinterest. I don't have an account. I don't want one. I will never want one.
- stelonix 6y ago
  At least for image search, I use a Firefox extension called Unpinterested. I'm very happy with my search results now. Note: I had to toggle an option to make it work only for image search, because it borked other Google results. I remember when Google added a functionality to block domains entirely from your results. They removed it soon after though; I'm guessing some big advertiser was blacklisted many times.
- thayne 6y ago
  It is basically an arms race between search engines (specifically google) and SEO. Google does change their algorithms, but with enough effort (and money) SEO proffesionals can figure out how to tweak their sites to keep gaming the system. And the casualties of this war are the authentic sites that don't spend a ton of money on SEO.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
  "That means I spend less time using google, and that in theory means less money for google." In practice, losing customers means less money for Google. Pinterest is a large Google customer. As individual users, we are very tiny bits of a very large target, but we are not customers.
- visarga 6y ago
  I think Google collects clickthorughs on the search result page and thus knows how people react to its responses. It also knows when the user is quickly returning to search after checking out a link. Pinterest is probably appreciated by people, probably of a different demographic than you.
  - cft 6y ago
    Here is some background on this: Recently, it has been revealed that Pinterest reverse-image searches Google for uploaded images and adds the Google query result to the Pinterest image page for SEO: https://www.rankscience.com/blog/pinterest-image-seo-growth-hack https://www.rankscience.com/blog/pinterest-image-seo-growth-... This degrades quality of Google image search, for example this Reddit post on removing Pinterest got 77k upvotes: Reddit r/LifeProTips to remove Pinterest from Google searches: https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/hejbl0/lpt_when_using_google_add_pinterest_sans_quotes/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/hejbl0/lpt_whe... Earlier Reddit petition to Google to remove Pinterest from search results (66k upvotes): https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/85atho/pinterest_needs_to_be_removed_from_google_imo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/85atho/pinterest_ne... Hacker News discussion of Pinterest's Google scraping: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23701998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23701998 Earlier discussion on HackerNews (1.1k upvotes): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613996 "Unpinterested" Chrome extension to combat Pinterest spam (10k+ downloads): https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/unpinterested/gefaihkenmchjmcpcbpdijpoknfjpbfe?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/unpinterested/gefa...
    - visarga 6y ago
      I agree, but if you take uninformed users (or users at random, that don't subscribe to a Google related forum) they would be happy with the Pinterest results because the results look nice at first sight and they don't have time to learn about the problem. Google using this signal would conclude that Pinterest is OK for the users.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > I seriously doubt that most pinterest results are what users are seeking. Well, yeah, since even if you click through Pinterest won't actually show you the content. Isn't that supposed to disqualify them from appearing in search results at all?
- mcv 6y ago
  Instead of playing cat and mouse with Pinterest, what would be a much better idea is to let users themselves decide what's important to them. Let us vote search results up or down, and let us block sites we don't like yet keep showing up. Those two changes would do a lot to improve user experience.
xg15 6y ago
Still odd that Google tolerates this. Isn't this exactly the kind of black-hat SEO that they are usually downranking or banning sites for? Pinterest landing pages are intentionally unusable for anyone without an account. It's hard to make a good-faith argument that those pages are the "most relevant result" for someone making a simple image search.
- Winterflow3r 6y ago
  Yep, exactly. I find that Pinterest is slowly making me less and less likely to use Google. Pinterest shows up as the dominating search result even or very specific long tail keywords where one could argue that a collection of images on a login-gated page is not helpful at all.
  - konjin 6y ago
    I don't use google for images anymore because of this. Bing is terrible, but it's better than google. Which means that google is worse than terrible.
    - jerjerjer 6y ago
      Yandex is great for images these days.
- krainboltgreene 6y ago
  > Isn't this exactly the kind of black-hat SEO that they are usually downranking or banning sites for? How is it blackhat to do exactly what Google wants?
  - ganstyles 6y ago
    Using tricks at the detriment of the user to the benefit of the service is blackhat. Pinterest is doing these tricks to their benefit at the extreme detriment to everyone but themselves.
rasz 6y ago
What they are doing to get into google search is not the problem, the problem is all their links are scams, clicking on pinterest google images link lands you on a login screen, or on a farm of similar/adjacent images. Nowhere do they have the content you were actually looking for. TLDR: they are gaming google
- chefandy 6y ago
  It is there— it usually just takes pages of scrolling. I heard a 2nd-hand account which said their product team leadership knows this annoys the hell out of people, know it's an easy fix, but they do it anyway. If that's true, I'd guess they're ignoring Goodhart's Law with their engagement metrics and need to re-focus on their UX, though I don't have any first-hand insight into it.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    Not if you don't have Pininterest account. then you can't scroll more than half a page.
cblconfederate 6y ago
One could say they are gaming it
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  The Wikipedia clones gamed it and they were deranked. Why does Pinterest get special treatment?
  - gtyras2mrs 6y ago
    I'm guessing because Pinterest buys ads from Google? They're the customers from Google's PoV.
nvrGiveUp 6y ago
I always thought that SEO errors should boost results to punish content factories. Grandmas cookies are going to be better than 24 years old copypaste cookies for big bad marketing company.
liveoneggs 6y ago
pinterest is clearly being spared seo penalty so one can only assume pro-pinterest bias at google
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
"There's no intentional or manual effort at Google to promote pinterest." But there is an effort at Pinterest to promote itself via Google. Pinterest pays Google for online ad aservices. Pinterest is a Google customer. The user is not. The bottom line at Google is not driven by showing users the "best" results for users. The bottom line is driven by customers such as Pinterest who pay Google to assist them with online advertising. Page and Brin identified this conflict of interest in their 1998 paper introducing Google, which was originally intended to be an academic endeavor, not to become an online ad services company.^1 According to the authors, (a) the interests of users and advertisers are not one in the same, (b) there are inherent effects on search results if the search engine is funded by advertising, and (c) the behind-the-scenes operation ("technical details") of search engines funded by advertising become largely non-transparent to users/competitors (a "black art"). I reckon (c) is why we get questions like this one from the OP. I have also seen these inexplicable and useless Pinterest links in Google searches. 1. https://research.google/pubs/pub334.pdf https://research.google/pubs/pub334.pdf Quotes: "To make matters worse, some advertisers attempt to gain people's attention by taking measures meant to mislead automated search engines." "Up until now most search engine development has gone on at companies with little publication of technical details. This causes search engine technology to remain largely a black art and to be advertising oriented (see Appendix A). With Google, we have a strong goal to push more development and understanding into the academic realm." "Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users." "For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers." "Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results." "But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm."
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Had anyone ever presented evidence that advertisers manipulate organic results? Former employees blow all sorts of whistles. Why has this one never blown?

blunte 6y ago

Google should be asking from a product perspective if they are providing the search results the user is most likely seeking. I seriously doubt that most pinterest results are what users are seeking. As such, Google probably should consider changes to their algorithm to compensate (cat and mouse) for pinterest's gaming. That is assuming how pinterest does it is not against any google rules... because if it were against any rules, they should be slapped down hard. When my searches result in mostly pinterest results, I give up more quickly. That means I spend less time using google, and that in theory means less money for google. Unfortunately, I do see other more regular user types operate their computers, and they are less or un-descriminating about the domain name listed under the image. So they'll head directly into the pinterest waste pond anyway.

kauju 6y ago
Just do -pinterest in your search to filter
- erichocean 6y ago
  It would be great if Google had a little "hide this domain for me permanently" next to every search result. Not only would it improve that user's own search results, it's a very strong signal that other users also might not like it, for de-ranking purposes.
  - GraemeL 6y ago
    They used to offer that functionality but removed it years ago. I've been using this userscript since then. https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-domain-search-filter-block-sites https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-d... It might be called Google Hit Hider by Domain but the author has expanded it to cover most major search engines over the years.
    - LordDragonfang 6y ago
      I've used a similar script; the problem is, for certain searches, literally every result is a pinterest link, and you end up with a blank page.
- amelius 6y ago
  It gets tiring.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Google account preferences used to have an option to exclude domains from results. About a decade (?) ago I added Burleson Consulting and expertsexchange to blocked domains and Google was instantly useful again. In 2014-ish Google moved this functionality to Chrome so I lost access to it. Not sure if it is still there.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    It's not perfect, but I use the Firefox version of this extension. Good for blocking Pinterest and those techno-babble scraper sites. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklistnot-by/cbbbhelcpfjhdcncigdlkabmjbgokmpg?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist...
- baskire 6y ago
  Or just avoid using google. The Pinterest results in google image search queries was a major driver to me using bing/ duck duck go.
  - zelly 6y ago
    Linking directly to the image file (and in fact a cached version of the full image) is one of the best reasons to use DDG. Reverse image search is also intentionally gimped, unlike non-US jurisdiction Yandex which is quite good. It's certainly for legal reasons, not technical, but Image Search has gotten progressively worse every year. It used to be godly effective 10 years ago.
    - abc-xyz 6y ago
      > Linking directly to the image file (and in fact a cached version of the full image) is one of the best reasons to use DDG. That’s possible thanks to Microsoft’s Bing API. I’m surprised Getty (who’s afaik responsible for Google removing direct image links) only went after Google and not Microsoft.
- DevKoala 6y ago
  Thank you, but still, the regular person is not finding what they seek, but what SEO experts want them to find.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Clearly we should not have no include -fakenews -porn, etc, otherwise I might as well use bing / Duckduckgo/ whatever
- thaumaturgy 6y ago
  User: This service has a problem and it's not working well. Programmer: There's nothing wrong with the service, you just have to use [magic incantation] to make it work right. I've been hoping for 20 years that this kind of exchange would stop happening. Still hoping! :-)
  - npteljes 6y ago
    Services and users have different goals. Why is the helpful technologist the problem?
    - grendix 6y ago
      Your second statement is enabling bad behavior, your first statement is insane.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        No. They're exactly right. The root problem here is incentive misalignment. Both Google and Pinterest sacrifice value they provide to extract more revenue from their users.
      - npteljes 6y ago
        Care to elaborate on the insane part? I feel sane.
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      Real answer? Because helpful technologists are the interface between less knowledgeable users and services like Google. We’re the power users and “mavens” who are both highly exposed to the product and have some understanding of what’s going wrong and how it might be made better. We also spend a lot more time talking to that product’s engineering staff than the typical user (see e.g. the fact that we’re here on HN.) When helpful technologists opt out of the problematic aspects of a product by uttering some magic incantation, we essentially remove ourselves from having to be annoyed by the product’s rough edges. This means we’re less likely to help improve the service for everyone, and we’re probably more likely to incorporate similar carelessness into the things we make ourselves.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  I just wanted to mention that excluding strings has been broken for me off-and-on over the last month at least. Not directly relevant to anything except how lame google has become.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Only a month? I don't recall the last time it actually worked. I always end up having to do -"string" and put it in quotation marks, kind of like telling Google "why, yes, this thing I put that minus sign in front of really is something I don't want to see in my results."
- smcameron 6y ago
  -site:pinterest.* (there's supposed to be an asterisk at the end, but I have to type something after the asterisk for it to show up)
maya24 6y ago
Stop using Google search. DDG works just as well
- fuzxi 6y ago
  Would that this were true, but it's not. Searching for specific technical issues especially shows DDG's weakness.
  - daveFNbuck 6y ago
    Outside of searching for specific technical issues, DDG is pretty good. I use DDG for most of my searches and this is the first I've heard of search results being dominated by Pinterest, so it's at least better on that front.
- _AzMoo 6y ago
  I use DDG search most of the time, but I find this to be untrue. DDG is pretty good, but struggles with context a lot more than Google does. For example, when searching for an error in a programming library, DDG is likely to return the library homepage, whereas google is more likely to return the specific github issue where the error is being discussed.
  - ratww 6y ago
    For text it depends [1] but for images I find DDG to range from slightly to significantly better than Google. Also, I have direct access to the image file URL without having to rely on browser extensions. [1] I wonder if the meme "DDG is not that good" is so prevalent on Hacker News because it sucks for programming stuff.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      Yes, Google image searches produce wild results. Far-right groups have had a field day with it.
  - the__alchemist 6y ago
mrtksn 6y ago
>Google should be asking from a product perspective if they are providing the search results the user is most likely seeking. I am cynical. Maybe Google's own experiments show that users click more ads when they get frustrated of the Pinterest spam that is technically not spam enough to be removed from the index. What the users are going to do? Use Bing? Google's most optimised version is probably being an Ads search engine where you are presented only with the most lucrative ads that are relative to your query. Essentially Yellow pages.
- monkeybutton 6y ago
  It's certainly going in that direction. With reverse image search being replaced with "Search with Google Lense" on mobile, the most prominent results are now all Google shopping ads.
- nvrGiveUp 6y ago
  Bing is better than google often enough. I've stopped using Google.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  >What the users are going to do? Use Bing? duckduckgo isn't horrific. And certainly not for image searches, which is how Pinterest's pollution ends up being noticed.
  - swsieber 6y ago
    I had an experience the other day where duckduckgo worked where google had failed (an obscure java default bug). It was pleasantly surprising.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  If that's the idea, isn't it easier to just show random junk? Why pinterest?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
With Google featuring progressively more ads and Google content at the top of the results page, it's not clear if it's still in Google's self interest to give users the best results anymore.
- moultano 6y ago
  This is why there's an aggressive firewall between the ads and search organizations. The ranking team isn't even aware of revenue numbers by ACL.
  - texasbigdata 6y ago
    I'm sure the search team can, erm,google for the ad revenue figures in the earnings release. After reading the anti trust filing it’s hard to argue Google is anything else but evil and a lot of what it does is to hide its monopoly.
    - alisonkisk 6y ago
      You think the search team runs an experiment once per 3 months to test how their algorithm ideas impact earnings?
      - not2b 6y ago
        The company isn't a charity. If a search change demonstrably has a negative effect on company earnings (even if users like it) it will almost certainly be reversed. I don't think they run an experiment once every three months, I think they are testing continuously, including A/B testing (some users get the change, others don't,).
        moultano 6y ago
        > If a search change demonstrably has a negative effect on company earnings (even if users like it) it will almost certainly be reversed. This is completely false. I've personally been involved in launching ranking changes that negatively impacted revenue substantially. I didn't find out until months later through the grapevine, and only in vague terms like "ads had to scramble." Versions of them remain in production today. Revenue projections were never considered as part of the launch decision, nor have they they been consulted as part of evaluating subsequent versions.
jariel 6y ago
This is a little bit like: 'McDonald's should serve healthier food, like Salads'. 'What Google Wants' and 'What We Want' have reached a crude equilibrium and it's unlikely to change that much, even if there are obvious improvements to make. Qualitative improvements beyond need generally require a very specific corporate and cultural focus. If Sergei or Larry 'came back' and mandated it, the system would move around it. Or Sundar could, maybe, pull that off, but it's not in his DNA really. The lack of material innovation in search stopped over a decade ago. Otherwise, we should be getting betas every few months, with all sorts of options, features, etc. Even simple things like 'forever blocking a site by default' would be great.
creato 6y ago
I think they can't do anything about it. Regulators and lawmakers in the US and EU would be very receptive to complaints from pinterest if google were to act somehow.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  Do you have references for this? I'm genuinely curious if this kind of thing is actually being done. Google's altered it's algorithm to remove low quality sites in the past and if anti-trust worries are stopping that now, well, I can't even.
  - creato 6y ago
    If google were to downrank pinterest, it would seem very similar to the foundem case: https://www.ft.com/content/88f26f10-5d3a-11e9-939a-341f5ada9d40 https://www.ft.com/content/88f26f10-5d3a-11e9-939a-341f5ada9...
fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
Yeah, Pinterest is almost always disappointing as a result: their account requirements are annoying and it tends to obfuscate the source of the image or information you’re looking for.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  A few times I've landed on Pinterest and they lock user copied (contrary to copyright law in my country AFAICT) content behind a registration-wall. They never show enough utility for new to register, they just tease on Google and then don't show what they teased. Google results would be better for me with all Pinterest results removed.
  - Chirael 6y ago
    Wasn’t there an option at one time to tell Google to hide results from a certain domain? I feel like I haven’t seen that in years though
    - feanaro 6y ago
      Just add `-site:example.org` to your query.
      - joegahona 6y ago
        I have done this throughout COVID for the NYTimes' content, as it's behind a paywall.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        ashleshbiradar 6y ago
        Interestingly, if you use Brave, it lets you hop to the tor versions of sites, and since NYTimes has a tor version, if you visit that, it’s paywall free.
HenryBemis 6y ago
Both in Google, and in DDG, sometimes when I am looking for an image (i.e. image of a "full body workout plan") the images I find tend to be 'hosted' in Pinterest, but in reality following them links take me to Pinterest, and then back to the original source (which is some random fitness site). I find Pinterest useful as an image search engine.
russh 6y ago
Google has shown time and time again they do not worry about providing the search results the user is most likely seeking. They monitor ad revenue and adjust accordingly.
tomaskafka 6y ago
They are playing a cat and mouse game, only the mouse is quite determined as its bonuses depend on evading, and the cat is very fat and comfortable :).
comeonseriously 6y ago
> Google should be asking from a product perspective if they are providing the search results the user is most likely seeking. I never want Pinterest. I don't have an account. I don't want one. I will never want one.
stelonix 6y ago
At least for image search, I use a Firefox extension called Unpinterested. I'm very happy with my search results now. Note: I had to toggle an option to make it work only for image search, because it borked other Google results. I remember when Google added a functionality to block domains entirely from your results. They removed it soon after though; I'm guessing some big advertiser was blacklisted many times.
thayne 6y ago
It is basically an arms race between search engines (specifically google) and SEO. Google does change their algorithms, but with enough effort (and money) SEO proffesionals can figure out how to tweak their sites to keep gaming the system. And the casualties of this war are the authentic sites that don't spend a ton of money on SEO.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
"That means I spend less time using google, and that in theory means less money for google." In practice, losing customers means less money for Google. Pinterest is a large Google customer. As individual users, we are very tiny bits of a very large target, but we are not customers.
visarga 6y ago
I think Google collects clickthorughs on the search result page and thus knows how people react to its responses. It also knows when the user is quickly returning to search after checking out a link. Pinterest is probably appreciated by people, probably of a different demographic than you.
- cft 6y ago
  Here is some background on this: Recently, it has been revealed that Pinterest reverse-image searches Google for uploaded images and adds the Google query result to the Pinterest image page for SEO: https://www.rankscience.com/blog/pinterest-image-seo-growth-hack https://www.rankscience.com/blog/pinterest-image-seo-growth-... This degrades quality of Google image search, for example this Reddit post on removing Pinterest got 77k upvotes: Reddit r/LifeProTips to remove Pinterest from Google searches: https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/hejbl0/lpt_when_using_google_add_pinterest_sans_quotes/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/hejbl0/lpt_whe... Earlier Reddit petition to Google to remove Pinterest from search results (66k upvotes): https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/85atho/pinterest_needs_to_be_removed_from_google_imo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/85atho/pinterest_ne... Hacker News discussion of Pinterest's Google scraping: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23701998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23701998 Earlier discussion on HackerNews (1.1k upvotes): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613996 "Unpinterested" Chrome extension to combat Pinterest spam (10k+ downloads): https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/unpinterested/gefaihkenmchjmcpcbpdijpoknfjpbfe?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/unpinterested/gefa...
  - visarga 6y ago
    I agree, but if you take uninformed users (or users at random, that don't subscribe to a Google related forum) they would be happy with the Pinterest results because the results look nice at first sight and they don't have time to learn about the problem. Google using this signal would conclude that Pinterest is OK for the users.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> I seriously doubt that most pinterest results are what users are seeking. Well, yeah, since even if you click through Pinterest won't actually show you the content. Isn't that supposed to disqualify them from appearing in search results at all?
mcv 6y ago
Instead of playing cat and mouse with Pinterest, what would be a much better idea is to let users themselves decide what's important to them. Let us vote search results up or down, and let us block sites we don't like yet keep showing up. Those two changes would do a lot to improve user experience.

xg15 6y ago

Still odd that Google tolerates this. Isn't this exactly the kind of black-hat SEO that they are usually downranking or banning sites for? Pinterest landing pages are intentionally unusable for anyone without an account. It's hard to make a good-faith argument that those pages are the "most relevant result" for someone making a simple image search.

Winterflow3r 6y ago
Yep, exactly. I find that Pinterest is slowly making me less and less likely to use Google. Pinterest shows up as the dominating search result even or very specific long tail keywords where one could argue that a collection of images on a login-gated page is not helpful at all.
- konjin 6y ago
  I don't use google for images anymore because of this. Bing is terrible, but it's better than google. Which means that google is worse than terrible.
  - jerjerjer 6y ago
    Yandex is great for images these days.
krainboltgreene 6y ago
> Isn't this exactly the kind of black-hat SEO that they are usually downranking or banning sites for? How is it blackhat to do exactly what Google wants?
- ganstyles 6y ago
  Using tricks at the detriment of the user to the benefit of the service is blackhat. Pinterest is doing these tricks to their benefit at the extreme detriment to everyone but themselves.

rasz 6y ago

What they are doing to get into google search is not the problem, the problem is all their links are scams, clicking on pinterest google images link lands you on a login screen, or on a farm of similar/adjacent images. Nowhere do they have the content you were actually looking for. TLDR: they are gaming google

chefandy 6y ago
It is there— it usually just takes pages of scrolling. I heard a 2nd-hand account which said their product team leadership knows this annoys the hell out of people, know it's an easy fix, but they do it anyway. If that's true, I'd guess they're ignoring Goodhart's Law with their engagement metrics and need to re-focus on their UX, though I don't have any first-hand insight into it.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  Not if you don't have Pininterest account. then you can't scroll more than half a page.

cblconfederate 6y ago

One could say they are gaming it

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
The Wikipedia clones gamed it and they were deranked. Why does Pinterest get special treatment?
- gtyras2mrs 6y ago
  I'm guessing because Pinterest buys ads from Google? They're the customers from Google's PoV.

nvrGiveUp 6y ago

I always thought that SEO errors should boost results to punish content factories. Grandmas cookies are going to be better than 24 years old copypaste cookies for big bad marketing company.

liveoneggs 6y ago

pinterest is clearly being spared seo penalty so one can only assume pro-pinterest bias at google

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

"There's no intentional or manual effort at Google to promote pinterest." But there is an effort at Pinterest to promote itself via Google. Pinterest pays Google for online ad aservices. Pinterest is a Google customer. The user is not. The bottom line at Google is not driven by showing users the "best" results for users. The bottom line is driven by customers such as Pinterest who pay Google to assist them with online advertising. Page and Brin identified this conflict of interest in their 1998 paper introducing Google, which was originally intended to be an academic endeavor, not to become an online ad services company.^1 According to the authors, (a) the interests of users and advertisers are not one in the same, (b) there are inherent effects on search results if the search engine is funded by advertising, and (c) the behind-the-scenes operation ("technical details") of search engines funded by advertising become largely non-transparent to users/competitors (a "black art"). I reckon (c) is why we get questions like this one from the OP. I have also seen these inexplicable and useless Pinterest links in Google searches. 1. https://research.google/pubs/pub334.pdf https://research.google/pubs/pub334.pdf Quotes: "To make matters worse, some advertisers attempt to gain people's attention by taking measures meant to mislead automated search engines." "Up until now most search engine development has gone on at companies with little publication of technical details. This causes search engine technology to remain largely a black art and to be advertising oriented (see Appendix A). With Google, we have a strong goal to push more development and understanding into the academic realm." "Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users." "For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Bagdikian 83], we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers." "Furthermore, advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results." "But we believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm."

alisonkisk 6y ago
Had anyone ever presented evidence that advertisers manipulate organic results? Former employees blow all sorts of whistles. Why has this one never blown?