The state of recipe sites is 100% driven by Google. Those sites add the fluff because that is what Google rewards. The actual recipe quality doesn't matter. If

The state of recipe sites is 100% driven by Google. Those sites add the fluff because that is what Google rewards. The actual recipe quality doesn't matter. If I use my example, the page contains: * Bio of the author - Google SEO rewards content written by "real humans", so this is there to appease the bot. * Giant images of overnight oats - This helps the page rank highly on Google Image Search. * Fluffy paragraphs - "The beauty of overnight oats is that you can make them as simple or creative as you’d like. The base recipe is delicious, and filling all on its own. But if you’d like to spruce it up, you can add a variety of toppings and mix-ins, including fresh fruit, nuts, seeds, spices, jams, and more". Is that supposed to be text written for other humans? Google rewards original content, which means recipe sites need to include massive paragraphs of filler to appear like an authoritative source. * Ads - Gotta make the money. * More fluff "Here’s a few reasons why you should to whip up this recipe today…" - Again, this is not text written for humans. * Repeat the fluff, pictures and ads approximately 5 times. * Common questions "Do you have to use yogurt?" - Trying to appeal to Google Instant Answer searches. * Recipe - Finally! * Recipe rating - This allows the site to put a star rating and review count on Google, again, for SEO So, 95% of the content and functionality of that page is an attempt to convince Google into sending traffic, or ads generating revenue, rather than serving the end user. Content on the web has dramatically changed from 20 years ago because publishers are creating content for a broken machine and not for other humans. This negative feedback loop is hurting the web, and not just Google. This leaves the door open for upstarts like ChatGPT or TikTok to gain mindshare.