4 ms·

I have no specific information here, never seen/used Shepherd until I saw a list on there a few days ago. Disclaimer, I work for Google, but not on anything rel

I have no specific information here, never seen/used Shepherd until I saw a list on there a few days ago. Disclaimer, I work for Google, but not on anything related to this space, and this is based on my previous job where we did some SEO for an ecommerce site. The example list given just looks a lot like spam when you squint. It's a list of affiliate links to buy products, and there are many HN threads talking about the abundance of affiliate link aggregators being a blight on the web. The commentary does look useful, but distinguishing between good commentary and bad commentary is hard, whereas distinguishing between a site designed to extract affiliate commission vs one more about the content is easier. The comparison given to the other results here is frustrating, I know, but probably not a valid experiment. All the major search engines change results based on the user using them, or the IP address, or the region, or whatever, so it's impossible to know what others see. The developer of a book-focused shopping site is likely to get very skewed results for a book related query. My results were noticeably better. The author says that a Bookshop.org list they created that links back to Shepherd is ranking #2, and this kinda makes sense to me. Bookshop.org sells the books, it makes sense that would rank above a site that only links to (and makes money from) sites that sell books. SEO, and people getting annoyed at not ranking, has been a thing for 25+ years, I don't think this instance is any different.

smallerize 2y ago
(That's not what dearth means.)
- Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
  portmanteau of "dithering" and "blight" and "earth"
- danpalmer 2y ago
  Whoops, thanks.
strunz 2y ago
Do you use Google anymore? It has gotten so bad, I regularly can't find things on it anymore, no matter how I search for things it will keep showing the same results. You seem to have blinders on. How do you explain the site getting less and less traffic over time?
- beefnugs 2y ago
  If they wanted to fix it they would. Most likely someone came up with the great idea of "Hey if search sucks, some losers will pay for AI hoping that fixes it, we are so smart"
- itake 2y ago
  I don't now if the bad results are because no one has written about the topic I want to learn or google search results are just terrible..
- danpalmer 2y ago
  I do, and I don't find it too bad. I switched from DDG back to Google recently because I realised I had to use !g on most of my searches.
  - musicale 2y ago
    One day I tried a Google search and noticed that everything "above the fold" on the first page was either a Google property, an advertisement, or both. I stopped using Google for web search, but I still use it for Google search.
    - danpalmer 2y ago
      Part of me wonders if the ad market is just radically different on Google in the US or other parts of the world, or if I just make very non-commercial searches. I don't see many ads, unless I'm actively going to Google Shopping essentially in search of them. I do see the Google info box style results, but I find these to be one of the most useful parts and it's one of the reasons I like using Google for things that are basic facts, media fact finding (like "who was that person in that show" style queries), etc.
stevage 2y ago
> SEO, and people getting annoyed at not ranking, has been a thing for 25+ years, I don't think this instance is any different. "People have always complained about X" is always a bad argument: it's entirely possible that X has gotten much worse, and yes, there were complaints before and after. In this case, there is a very loud chorus of people saying Google has gotten much worse in the last few years, and it certainly matches my experience.
thayne 2y ago
> The author says that a Bookshop.org list they created that links back to Shepherd is ranking #2, and this kinda makes sense to me. Bookshop.org sells the books, it makes sense that would rank above a site that only links to (and makes money from) sites that sell books. In other words google is giving preference to a site that probably pays them for ads to a site that is effectively a competitor (since the site would make revenue from affiliate links that google might have gotten from ads, especially if the user liked the site and went directly there for future book recommendations). Also, if I am searching for the "best" of something, I want something with commentary, not a list from a vendor without relevant information for choosing the right product.
shark1 2y ago
Honest question: Would you say Google Search is getting better and better?
bwb 2y ago
> The example list given just looks a lot like spam when you squint. I had to do some deep breathing before responding (creator of Shepherd here) :) When I squint while reading a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, it looks like every other book with words everywhere. When my wife really squints, she says I "look" like Brad Pitt. I say these things with humor... as the core of what Google is supposed to do is determine what is good content and what is spam. Is that hard? Yes, but you have a lot of smart people and are swimming in money. The point here, and with all the other posts by indie publishers, is that Google has destroyed them while elevating much worse results (they used to rank just fine along with other accurate results). I am just one example of many, and sadly better than most because books are a passion and not that commercial. For indie websites scientifically reviewing air purification systems, they are destroyed, and now you just get Forbes spam where nobody reviewed it. My suggestion for Google is to stop squinting :)
- evanelias 2y ago
  > with all the other posts by indie publishers, is that Google has destroyed them while elevating much worse results While I agree with your overall premise, some of this seems very subjective, re: "much worse results". For example, in your post when you list the pages outranking your site for "best books on Battle of Midway", you say this about being outranked by a forum thread on BoardGameGeek: "A 2010 post on a Board Game forum asking for good books about the Battle of Midway. Really Google?" BoardGameGeek is pretty much the most important site for the entire board game / tabletop gaming hobby. It's been around for 25 years, and it is most definitely part of the independent web. The thread in question is on BGG's main wargaming forum; wargaming has been a thing for many decades and has significant crossover among officers of the military / ex-military. The thread includes a lot of organic book recommendations from real people, with no affiliate links. Despite the thread being from 2010, I would expect this page absolutely should rank pretty well for this search query! So why the "Really Google?" snark, especially when describing a fellow independent web site?
  - azemetre 2y ago
    Yeah, it's hard to take OP seriously when it just comes across as sour grapes. Especially when their substack just seems to be a means to serve affiliate links.
bwb 2y ago
Also, to add to this... One idea I've had is that it would be interesting if Google created a webmaster partner program to help build the web they want to see. Webmasters could join and embed Google's code into their website, and Google could get access to engagement stats and anything else to help them determine positive reactions by users (instead of pretending they are not pulling it from Chrome - see DOJ trial). At YouTube, Google does a great job of helping creators, telling them specifically what they want, and promoting high-quality content that people love. I'd love to see Google get the data they need so they can do that.
- techjamie 2y ago
  Is this not literally what Google Analytics is? I'm not sure if they're using it for everything you're hoping to have, but it seems like it basically performs that function.
  - bwb 2y ago
    They they are not allowed to use the data... which seems weird given Chrome and DOJ details. But I've never seen any details of them using it, and every statement is they don't use it.
- deprecative 2y ago
  YouTube is flooded with AI narrated shorts content. Are you experiencing a different reality? It seems like when I try to venture out of my bubble I'm getting AI videos (not about the topic but zero effort prompt daisy chaining) now even outside of shorts (that I wish I could disable completely, I never mean to hit the button).
  - bwb 2y ago
    Weird, I've gotten nothing like that but I never do shorts since they are just sugar and no filling.
    - deprecative 2y ago
znpy 2y ago
your comment made me remember about this post: - Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023) / https://theluddite.org/#!post/google-ads https://theluddite.org/#!post/google-ads - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40184673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40184673 (HN comments) I'm specifically thinking about this line: > It's a list of affiliate links to buy products, and there are many HN threads talking about the abundance of affiliate link aggregators being a blight on the web. This is a pattern that was made hugely popular specifically by google, by the way

smallerize 2y ago

(That's not what dearth means.)

Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
portmanteau of "dithering" and "blight" and "earth"
danpalmer 2y ago
Whoops, thanks.

strunz 2y ago

Do you use Google anymore? It has gotten so bad, I regularly can't find things on it anymore, no matter how I search for things it will keep showing the same results. You seem to have blinders on. How do you explain the site getting less and less traffic over time?

beefnugs 2y ago
If they wanted to fix it they would. Most likely someone came up with the great idea of "Hey if search sucks, some losers will pay for AI hoping that fixes it, we are so smart"
itake 2y ago
I don't now if the bad results are because no one has written about the topic I want to learn or google search results are just terrible..
danpalmer 2y ago
I do, and I don't find it too bad. I switched from DDG back to Google recently because I realised I had to use !g on most of my searches.
- musicale 2y ago
  One day I tried a Google search and noticed that everything "above the fold" on the first page was either a Google property, an advertisement, or both. I stopped using Google for web search, but I still use it for Google search.
  - danpalmer 2y ago
    Part of me wonders if the ad market is just radically different on Google in the US or other parts of the world, or if I just make very non-commercial searches. I don't see many ads, unless I'm actively going to Google Shopping essentially in search of them. I do see the Google info box style results, but I find these to be one of the most useful parts and it's one of the reasons I like using Google for things that are basic facts, media fact finding (like "who was that person in that show" style queries), etc.

stevage 2y ago

> SEO, and people getting annoyed at not ranking, has been a thing for 25+ years, I don't think this instance is any different. "People have always complained about X" is always a bad argument: it's entirely possible that X has gotten much worse, and yes, there were complaints before and after. In this case, there is a very loud chorus of people saying Google has gotten much worse in the last few years, and it certainly matches my experience.

thayne 2y ago

> The author says that a Bookshop.org list they created that links back to Shepherd is ranking #2, and this kinda makes sense to me. Bookshop.org sells the books, it makes sense that would rank above a site that only links to (and makes money from) sites that sell books. In other words google is giving preference to a site that probably pays them for ads to a site that is effectively a competitor (since the site would make revenue from affiliate links that google might have gotten from ads, especially if the user liked the site and went directly there for future book recommendations). Also, if I am searching for the "best" of something, I want something with commentary, not a list from a vendor without relevant information for choosing the right product.

shark1 2y ago

Honest question: Would you say Google Search is getting better and better?

bwb 2y ago

> The example list given just looks a lot like spam when you squint. I had to do some deep breathing before responding (creator of Shepherd here) :) When I squint while reading a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, it looks like every other book with words everywhere. When my wife really squints, she says I "look" like Brad Pitt. I say these things with humor... as the core of what Google is supposed to do is determine what is good content and what is spam. Is that hard? Yes, but you have a lot of smart people and are swimming in money. The point here, and with all the other posts by indie publishers, is that Google has destroyed them while elevating much worse results (they used to rank just fine along with other accurate results). I am just one example of many, and sadly better than most because books are a passion and not that commercial. For indie websites scientifically reviewing air purification systems, they are destroyed, and now you just get Forbes spam where nobody reviewed it. My suggestion for Google is to stop squinting :)

evanelias 2y ago
> with all the other posts by indie publishers, is that Google has destroyed them while elevating much worse results While I agree with your overall premise, some of this seems very subjective, re: "much worse results". For example, in your post when you list the pages outranking your site for "best books on Battle of Midway", you say this about being outranked by a forum thread on BoardGameGeek: "A 2010 post on a Board Game forum asking for good books about the Battle of Midway. Really Google?" BoardGameGeek is pretty much the most important site for the entire board game / tabletop gaming hobby. It's been around for 25 years, and it is most definitely part of the independent web. The thread in question is on BGG's main wargaming forum; wargaming has been a thing for many decades and has significant crossover among officers of the military / ex-military. The thread includes a lot of organic book recommendations from real people, with no affiliate links. Despite the thread being from 2010, I would expect this page absolutely should rank pretty well for this search query! So why the "Really Google?" snark, especially when describing a fellow independent web site?
- azemetre 2y ago
  Yeah, it's hard to take OP seriously when it just comes across as sour grapes. Especially when their substack just seems to be a means to serve affiliate links.

bwb 2y ago

Also, to add to this... One idea I've had is that it would be interesting if Google created a webmaster partner program to help build the web they want to see. Webmasters could join and embed Google's code into their website, and Google could get access to engagement stats and anything else to help them determine positive reactions by users (instead of pretending they are not pulling it from Chrome - see DOJ trial). At YouTube, Google does a great job of helping creators, telling them specifically what they want, and promoting high-quality content that people love. I'd love to see Google get the data they need so they can do that.

techjamie 2y ago
Is this not literally what Google Analytics is? I'm not sure if they're using it for everything you're hoping to have, but it seems like it basically performs that function.
- bwb 2y ago
  They they are not allowed to use the data... which seems weird given Chrome and DOJ details. But I've never seen any details of them using it, and every statement is they don't use it.
deprecative 2y ago
YouTube is flooded with AI narrated shorts content. Are you experiencing a different reality? It seems like when I try to venture out of my bubble I'm getting AI videos (not about the topic but zero effort prompt daisy chaining) now even outside of shorts (that I wish I could disable completely, I never mean to hit the button).
- bwb 2y ago
  Weird, I've gotten nothing like that but I never do shorts since they are just sugar and no filling.
  - deprecative 2y ago

znpy 2y ago

your comment made me remember about this post: - Google made me ruin a perfectly good website (2023) / https://theluddite.org/#!post/google-ads https://theluddite.org/#!post/google-ads - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40184673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40184673 (HN comments) I'm specifically thinking about this line: > It's a list of affiliate links to buy products, and there are many HN threads talking about the abundance of affiliate link aggregators being a blight on the web. This is a pattern that was made hugely popular specifically by google, by the way