6 ms·

There's a lot of Google hate on HN, and much of it is deserved, but I think this particular trend of blaming Google for the prevalence of useless clickbait arti

There's a lot of Google hate on HN, and much of it is deserved, but I think this particular trend of blaming Google for the prevalence of useless clickbait articles is a bit much. The real answer to this question is that walled-garden social media took over everything. The much-pined-for "Old Google" worked because people used to actually create content on their own sites, and not just post it on walled garden monolithic social sites like Facebook or Twitter.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
I disagree. The fact that Google has such a power over the shape of web traffic, along with a few other websites, absolutely re-shapes the Internet to fit whatever its standards make a website rank well. It's in many ways almost exactly the same process as natural selection. Whatever works gets traffic and gets copied by other websites, whatever doesn't fades away.
- alexalx666 4y ago
  yes but we can build our own query tools, for ex. Im using `$ so graphql vs sql` and such terminal commands more and more these days
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Oh yeah, this is primarily a problem for Google. They're sort of stuck being chased by the shadow they cast. I've had very little problems cutting through the SEO spam running an independent search engine, but then I don't shape traffic like they do.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Sorry, unrelated, but your comment hit a pet peeve of mine. I love GraphQL, and I think it has a number of features that make it better and more usable for most APIs than a RESTful interface. The thing I despise about GraphQL is they put "QL" in the name, so legions of software developers think that it is somehow comparable to SQL, or somehow is a generic query language for data. GraphQL has absolutely nothing to do with SQL. Comparing "GraphQL vs SQL" is like comparing "HTML vs Java".
    - alecbz 4y ago
      > somehow is a generic query language for data. In what sense is GraphQL not a generic query language for data?
      - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
        because it's not? it's got no "where" clauses or transforms built in and anything of the sort had to be custom built. you can't query any data in the database, only what the API chooses to expose. it's anything but generic. even pagination isn't standardized
      - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
        GraphQL is a format and contract for exposing APIs, just like REST is a structure for exposing APIs, just like SOAP is a format and structure for exposing APIs, just like gRPC is a format for exposing APIs. Those are all the right analogies for comparing GraphQL. GraphQL doesn't say anything about how the underlying data is queried - at the end of the day it's just a bunch of resolver functions that you can implement however you want.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- bagacrap 4y ago
  I think the analogy to natural selection is apt. So is it really Google's fault? Seems like a consequence of a fitness function. And even if there were 4 competitive search engines in the world, each spammy site would optimize for one (or would even have 4 versions that each optimized for a single search engine).
  - luckylion 4y ago
    If nature was a conscious entity that optimized for some goal, I think we'd say it would be at fault. I'm sure it's not Google's intention to ruin the web, it's just something they happily accept as a by-product of their optimization strategy towards maximum value extraction via ads. Like some chicken farmers happily accepting creating chicken hell because it lowers cost. I don't think they set out to torture chickens and go "hey, I'll start a chicken farm as a cover story".
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    If you had multiple search engines, say four of them like in your example, then the rewards for successfully specializing in either one of them would be a fourth what it is now, meanwhile you would have to put in four times the work to maintain four versions of the site, you would have to conduct four times as much research to maintain your advantage. The economies tip to make specialization less rewarding. Just as in nature, monoculture rewards specialization, whereas ecological diversity rewards generalization. Not that specialization doesn't exist in diverse ecosystems, it's just not as devastating.
jrochkind1 4y ago
I do wonder how things would be different if facebook posts (instagram, tiktok, etc) were exposed to Google... I'm not sure they'd be better though.
didip 4y ago
I disagree because it’s 100% within Google power to purge junk websites, see Panda in 2011. But they didn’t want to do that anymore. Why? Because of ads money. To drive the point home, it is not that difficult for Google to have a junk score and simply phase out the junkiest of junks. But they didn’t even want to do that.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Feels like they'd be much more liable to get in trouble for anti-competitive behavior today than they were in 2011, given that they are in a very different position now compared to then.
- summerlight 4y ago
  Have you heard about the concept antitrust regulation? This is the real thing.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  If Google purged sites at their own digression to such a degree, then HN would just be complaining about that instead.
  - amf12 4y ago
    More to this, no algorithm can accurately detect spamy websites. There is bound to be some inaccuracy and bias. Cue to posts on HN lamenting that "Google purged my website".
- markdown 4y ago
  Purging junk sites doesn't do anything for the creation of new sites and articles from real human beings sharing their lives and experiences because they want to and not as an excuse to embed affiliate links. All those real humans only post in the walled gardens.
codexon 4y ago
The reason why there's more content on walled garden social media instead of personal websites is in no small part Google's fault and not just because of Facebook and Twitter. Google released several updates (such as "Panda") that greatly lowers the rank of domains that aren't linked to by major domains they deem to be trusted, such as those with edu or gov TLDs or whatever whitelist of domains they decided to add. There have also been updates that specifically lowers the rank of websites that are running forum or blog software. This was probably done to fight spammers but it has effectively killed off the long tail of topics. This is admittedly speculation since the inner workings of Google search are not released to the public. But these findings have been corroborated by others on the internet. I used to have a blog and several forums that used to rank highly for some niche keywords and over the years the search rankings started to drop off the front page while a single reddit comment with no content mentioning the same keywords would be #1. I'd say that Google is very much to blame for this situation as they took the easy way out to fight spammers.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > This is admittedly speculation since the inner workings of Google search are not released to the public. No, no, Eric Schmidt openly said that "Brands is how you sort out the 'mess'" (in search). And he started prioritizing big brands in search results and disappearing everyone else. Panda even wiped out individual webmasters or small software houses - they were adding small back links to the websites that they built for their clients, per google's OWN recommendations, for years. Then google turned around and suddenly penalized all of those legitimate links while 'sorting out the spam'. millions of small businesses, developers, software houses found themselves with zero traffic within a day. their hard earned traffic coming from legitimate business clients. whose sites were also affected similarly. This caused the rise in internet marketplaces. from amazon to elance, upwork. because the small businesses and individuals were now totally invisible in search results and instead 'brands' dominated. a side effect was killing of independent content in search results and forcing everyone to have to post in social networks for visibility, forcing content creators out of their own blogs into social networks. Which exacerbated the damages that algorithms because now everyone had to obey individual corporations' unaccountable algorithms. So yes, google has created this mess to a very large degree. Their nonchalant, uncaring attitude towards their users, customers that plagues all of their products crippled search as well. By saying "Brands is how you sort out the mess" and enforcing it top-down, one single ceo single handedly decided the fate of millions of small businesses, blogs, professionals. In a totally unaccountable way with no input from anyone affected.

marginalia_nu 4y ago

I disagree. The fact that Google has such a power over the shape of web traffic, along with a few other websites, absolutely re-shapes the Internet to fit whatever its standards make a website rank well. It's in many ways almost exactly the same process as natural selection. Whatever works gets traffic and gets copied by other websites, whatever doesn't fades away.

alexalx666 4y ago
yes but we can build our own query tools, for ex. Im using `$ so graphql vs sql` and such terminal commands more and more these days
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Oh yeah, this is primarily a problem for Google. They're sort of stuck being chased by the shadow they cast. I've had very little problems cutting through the SEO spam running an independent search engine, but then I don't shape traffic like they do.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Sorry, unrelated, but your comment hit a pet peeve of mine. I love GraphQL, and I think it has a number of features that make it better and more usable for most APIs than a RESTful interface. The thing I despise about GraphQL is they put "QL" in the name, so legions of software developers think that it is somehow comparable to SQL, or somehow is a generic query language for data. GraphQL has absolutely nothing to do with SQL. Comparing "GraphQL vs SQL" is like comparing "HTML vs Java".
  - alecbz 4y ago
    > somehow is a generic query language for data. In what sense is GraphQL not a generic query language for data?
    - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
      because it's not? it's got no "where" clauses or transforms built in and anything of the sort had to be custom built. you can't query any data in the database, only what the API chooses to expose. it's anything but generic. even pagination isn't standardized
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      GraphQL is a format and contract for exposing APIs, just like REST is a structure for exposing APIs, just like SOAP is a format and structure for exposing APIs, just like gRPC is a format for exposing APIs. Those are all the right analogies for comparing GraphQL. GraphQL doesn't say anything about how the underlying data is queried - at the end of the day it's just a bunch of resolver functions that you can implement however you want.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
bagacrap 4y ago
I think the analogy to natural selection is apt. So is it really Google's fault? Seems like a consequence of a fitness function. And even if there were 4 competitive search engines in the world, each spammy site would optimize for one (or would even have 4 versions that each optimized for a single search engine).
- luckylion 4y ago
  If nature was a conscious entity that optimized for some goal, I think we'd say it would be at fault. I'm sure it's not Google's intention to ruin the web, it's just something they happily accept as a by-product of their optimization strategy towards maximum value extraction via ads. Like some chicken farmers happily accepting creating chicken hell because it lowers cost. I don't think they set out to torture chickens and go "hey, I'll start a chicken farm as a cover story".
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  If you had multiple search engines, say four of them like in your example, then the rewards for successfully specializing in either one of them would be a fourth what it is now, meanwhile you would have to put in four times the work to maintain four versions of the site, you would have to conduct four times as much research to maintain your advantage. The economies tip to make specialization less rewarding. Just as in nature, monoculture rewards specialization, whereas ecological diversity rewards generalization. Not that specialization doesn't exist in diverse ecosystems, it's just not as devastating.

jrochkind1 4y ago

I do wonder how things would be different if facebook posts (instagram, tiktok, etc) were exposed to Google... I'm not sure they'd be better though.

didip 4y ago

I disagree because it’s 100% within Google power to purge junk websites, see Panda in 2011. But they didn’t want to do that anymore. Why? Because of ads money. To drive the point home, it is not that difficult for Google to have a junk score and simply phase out the junkiest of junks. But they didn’t even want to do that.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Feels like they'd be much more liable to get in trouble for anti-competitive behavior today than they were in 2011, given that they are in a very different position now compared to then.
summerlight 4y ago
Have you heard about the concept antitrust regulation? This is the real thing.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
If Google purged sites at their own digression to such a degree, then HN would just be complaining about that instead.
- amf12 4y ago
  More to this, no algorithm can accurately detect spamy websites. There is bound to be some inaccuracy and bias. Cue to posts on HN lamenting that "Google purged my website".
markdown 4y ago
Purging junk sites doesn't do anything for the creation of new sites and articles from real human beings sharing their lives and experiences because they want to and not as an excuse to embed affiliate links. All those real humans only post in the walled gardens.

codexon 4y ago

The reason why there's more content on walled garden social media instead of personal websites is in no small part Google's fault and not just because of Facebook and Twitter. Google released several updates (such as "Panda") that greatly lowers the rank of domains that aren't linked to by major domains they deem to be trusted, such as those with edu or gov TLDs or whatever whitelist of domains they decided to add. There have also been updates that specifically lowers the rank of websites that are running forum or blog software. This was probably done to fight spammers but it has effectively killed off the long tail of topics. This is admittedly speculation since the inner workings of Google search are not released to the public. But these findings have been corroborated by others on the internet. I used to have a blog and several forums that used to rank highly for some niche keywords and over the years the search rankings started to drop off the front page while a single reddit comment with no content mentioning the same keywords would be #1. I'd say that Google is very much to blame for this situation as they took the easy way out to fight spammers.

unity1001 4y ago
> This is admittedly speculation since the inner workings of Google search are not released to the public. No, no, Eric Schmidt openly said that "Brands is how you sort out the 'mess'" (in search). And he started prioritizing big brands in search results and disappearing everyone else. Panda even wiped out individual webmasters or small software houses - they were adding small back links to the websites that they built for their clients, per google's OWN recommendations, for years. Then google turned around and suddenly penalized all of those legitimate links while 'sorting out the spam'. millions of small businesses, developers, software houses found themselves with zero traffic within a day. their hard earned traffic coming from legitimate business clients. whose sites were also affected similarly. This caused the rise in internet marketplaces. from amazon to elance, upwork. because the small businesses and individuals were now totally invisible in search results and instead 'brands' dominated. a side effect was killing of independent content in search results and forcing everyone to have to post in social networks for visibility, forcing content creators out of their own blogs into social networks. Which exacerbated the damages that algorithms because now everyone had to obey individual corporations' unaccountable algorithms. So yes, google has created this mess to a very large degree. Their nonchalant, uncaring attitude towards their users, customers that plagues all of their products crippled search as well. By saying "Brands is how you sort out the mess" and enforcing it top-down, one single ceo single handedly decided the fate of millions of small businesses, blogs, professionals. In a totally unaccountable way with no input from anyone affected.