2 ms·
It’s not so much that Google returns irrelevant results as it is that Google returns results that are optimized for taking as long as possible to glean the info
by brookst 3y ago
It’s not so much that Google returns irrelevant results as it is that Google returns results that are optimized for taking as long as possible to glean the information you’re looking for.
Recipes are the classic example. Because Google upranks sites that people spend more time on after a click, most recipe searches yield pages that start with the history of flour milling and what milk is, before eventually getting to the desired recipe 5000 words later.
- dangus 3y agoI don’t agree that Google is optimizing for time wasting, either. The faster they get you to click an ad link the faster they get paid. The phenomenon with recipes that you mention has nothing to do with Google: it has more to do with copyright. You can’t copyright a recipe, but you can copyright written commentary about cooking a recipe. The recipe blogs also need enough content to place ads around.
- KMag 3y agoFrom my memory working on web indexing at Google roughly 15 years ago, there was a step function for detecting "short clicks" that indicated a page was irrelevant for that query. As long as the user spent above some minimum before returning to Google, increased time on the site didn't indicate higher quality. So, the real optimum is ranking for one or more popular searches (regardless of relevance), looking vaguely interesting, and just confusing enough that it takes a couple of seconds to realize this isn't the page you wanted. Either that, or being exactly what someone wants for one of the popular searches. Though, things may have changed, and my memory definitely has faded. Also, plenty of SEOs may have misunderstood short clicks as a quality signal, so even if maximizing time on site doesn't help, I wouldn't be surprised if SEOs still recommend it.