5 ms·
i cant remember where i read this, but something about how google ranks site that have google ads higher than sites that dont. makese sense, its evil, but make
by w-ll 3y ago
i cant remember where i read this, but something about how google ranks site that have google ads higher than sites that dont. makese sense, its evil, but makes sense, thats why we get all this scrapped spam. is there any more info on this?
- mixdup 3y agothis is like focusing on one single problem as being the cause of the decline of the United States. It's actually a lot of things combining and there's not going to be one fix
- w-ll 3y agowtf decline of the United States are you talking aboout
- Nextgrid 3y agoIntentionally ranking sites with Google ads higher would be a huge antitrust liability, so no way they're doing that. On the other hand, they can achieve virtually the same outcome while keeping plausible deniability by just not doing anything that would downrank sites with ads (of which a significant chunk is likely to be Google's). Spam sites often include ads.
- w-ll 3y agoi dont think they public disclose that fact
- Nextgrid 3y agoIt doesn't need to be public to become an antitrust liability. Internal written material can still come up during discovery, potentially even in unrelated cases. Therefore the safest option is to never openly discuss it or intentionally do it and instead use other means to achieve the objective (don't intentionally rank spam higher, just defund/cancel any projects that would make it rank lower).
- jmye 3y ago> Internal written material can still come up during discovery, potentially even in unrelated cases. Yup, and I think we've seen how careless and thoughtless Google is, as an organization, with internal comms in the Epic case. It would be shocking if it hadn't been discovered in that, or a prior, lawsuit.