3 ms·
> That's not the algorithm's fault per se; Yes, it is. There are good recipe sites out there with authoritative, reliable content and fast loading times. Googl
by dmurray 5y ago
> That's not the algorithm's fault per se;
Yes, it is. There are good recipe sites out there with authoritative, reliable content and fast loading times. Google says it prioritizes those things, I can identify sites that have them, and yet the algorithm doesn't favour them. That's the algorithm's fault no matter what memes about copyright law cause a proliferation of shitty websites.
- derefr 5y agoWhat I'm saying is that the "recipe" part of a recipe website is a commodity – there is no "authoritative" source for a given recipe, unless that recipe is too niche in appeal to end up widely disseminated. This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsNLzyqqINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsNLzyqqINw) has a pretty good coverage of the topic. Compare and contrast: phone-number directory listings. Who should Google cite as the authoritative source for lists of name-to-phone number associations? Nobody. All the lists are copying from each-other, curating and correcting the data taken from one-another, gathering their own original data for additions, and everything in between. Every portal overlaps every other portal, but mostly has the same stuff. Compare and contrast, in the physical world: printings of public-domain literature. If Google indexed bookstores, which printing by which publisher would you want them to rank first on a search for e.g. Pride and Prejudice?
- scim-knox-twox 5y agoTry Kagi.com, you can rank domains however you want
- loonster 5y agoWhat I really want is biased search results of my choosing. $10 a month for a personal search is a bit much. $10 a month for work related search is cheap. Give me results specific to my industry without having a super long query.
- scim-knox-twox 5y agoThat's what Kagi lenses are for. Just try...