4 ms·

I think the article and the arguments presented don't really make much sense, but I do find interesting that it says the article was published on Oct 5, 2022, y

I think the article and the arguments presented don't really make much sense, but I do find interesting that it says the article was published on Oct 5, 2022, yet there are comments going back as far as November 2019.

laborcontract 4y ago
Good catch. This is a SEO trick they probably do every year to convince google that their information is timely. Edit: Yep. https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a29802208/helmet-laws-safety/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://www.bicy...
- i_am_proteus 4y ago
 Is Google's search team really this naïve? Google keeps cached versions of sites it crawls. An algorithm to catch these date changes would not be difficult to implement.
 - chrisbaker98 4y ago
 It might not necessarily be about tricking Google's algorithm. It could also be to make users stick around. People might be less likely to read an article (and potentially click another link on the site and generate another ad impression) if see that the article is "old".
 - laborcontract 4y ago
 Most people make cursory updates to the body of the text as well. Like my sibling comment said, updating the date also helps your search engagement by showing a more recent date. That said it’s considered best practice to show the original and updated date.
 - i_am_proteus 4y ago
 I think the entire point is that it shouldn't "help search engagement" if it's an older article that's been "updated for present year" just to game search results. >cursory updates to the body of the text Still pretty straightforward to algorithmically determine if this has happened.
 - User23 4y ago
 It’s interesting that a search engine would choose to encode recency bias.
 hombre_fatal 4y ago
 Why would that be surprising? When people search for something, they tend to want more recent info, more recent coverage, more recently made lists, etc.
 User23 4y ago
 For some things sure. For others, for example recipes, newer is not necessarily better.
- goldcd 4y ago
 Yep - they're not quite keeping up though. Original 2019: "the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended last week" Then at some point it was last year - and they've just left it like that for new next couple of years. Only other real change is that the author used to work for "Transportation Alternatives and Families for Safe Streets" - and now doesn't.
taeric 4y ago
The article seems clearly from 2020. It leads with a concern over something from "last year" that is dated 2019. On its topic, I was expecting to mostly disagree. That said, the case is compelling. To condense, it is basically saying don't turn it into a partisan conflict between riders and police. That plays out in predictably bad ways for communities.

laborcontract 4y ago

Good catch. This is a SEO trick they probably do every year to convince google that their information is timely. Edit: Yep. https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a29802208/helmet-laws-safety/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://www.bicy...

i_am_proteus 4y ago
Is Google's search team really this naïve? Google keeps cached versions of sites it crawls. An algorithm to catch these date changes would not be difficult to implement.
- chrisbaker98 4y ago
  It might not necessarily be about tricking Google's algorithm. It could also be to make users stick around. People might be less likely to read an article (and potentially click another link on the site and generate another ad impression) if see that the article is "old".
- laborcontract 4y ago
  Most people make cursory updates to the body of the text as well. Like my sibling comment said, updating the date also helps your search engagement by showing a more recent date. That said it’s considered best practice to show the original and updated date.
  - i_am_proteus 4y ago
    I think the entire point is that it shouldn't "help search engagement" if it's an older article that's been "updated for present year" just to game search results. >cursory updates to the body of the text Still pretty straightforward to algorithmically determine if this has happened.
    - User23 4y ago
      It’s interesting that a search engine would choose to encode recency bias.
      - hombre_fatal 4y ago
        Why would that be surprising? When people search for something, they tend to want more recent info, more recent coverage, more recently made lists, etc.
        User23 4y ago
        For some things sure. For others, for example recipes, newer is not necessarily better.
goldcd 4y ago
Yep - they're not quite keeping up though. Original 2019: "the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended last week" Then at some point it was last year - and they've just left it like that for new next couple of years. Only other real change is that the author used to work for "Transportation Alternatives and Families for Safe Streets" - and now doesn't.

taeric 4y ago

The article seems clearly from 2020. It leads with a concern over something from "last year" that is dated 2019. On its topic, I was expecting to mostly disagree. That said, the case is compelling. To condense, it is basically saying don't turn it into a partisan conflict between riders and police. That plays out in predictably bad ways for communities.