3 ms·

> 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 sq

by 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
    Great question, so the substack has zero affiliate links :) The website is partially funded through affiliate links, as that pays for about 50% of our server and software costs each month. Let me know if you have any questions on our business model, its a tough one and outline here: https://support.shepherd.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406508624913-What-is-your-business-model https://support.shepherd.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406508624913... I'm sad to see Google degrade, but I get plenty of traffic from other sources and we have a lot of direct traffic. My intense hope is that Google can fix themselves but given what we are seeing on the indie web that does not seem to be the case...
- bwb 2y ago
  It isn't the worst result for sure; it is probably the strongest result on the page beyond the one ahead of it. But it is 14 years old and not the best source in this situation. Can you read the entire post? I go through each of the top 10, the board game post was ranked 9th.
  - evanelias 2y ago
    > it is 14 years old Yes, but the Battle of Midway was 82 years ago, and it stands to reason that many good books on the battle already existed 14 years ago. > and not the best source in this situation That's subjective, which was one point I was trying to make in my comment. > Can you read the entire post? I did. I was compelled to comment due to your "Really Google?" snark, combined with the additional overwhelming snark in your comment upthread, when you're responding to a Googler who is just trying to help you. And now you're here asking me if I read your entire post, which is explicitly against the HN guidelines. ("Please don't comment on whether someone read an article.") I have more thoughts on the topic of ranking, but it really doesn't seem worthwhile to comment further given the tone of these responses!
    - bwb 2y ago
      Hah, I like a little humor, but it doesn't sound like we are not a personality match so yes, I do recommend you skip it :) The Googler wasn't helping in anyway; in fact, it is clear they don't even understand search with such odd concepts such as "looks a lot like spam when you squint." And a total misunderstanding of what is happening since they don't work in the search department.
    - bwb 2y ago
      btw, this might be helpful as it goes deep on the problem, and why this is a problem that Google also recognizes is hurting a TON of indie publishers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_6FqA87Lfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_6FqA87Lfc

by bwb 2y ago

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
  Great question, so the substack has zero affiliate links :) The website is partially funded through affiliate links, as that pays for about 50% of our server and software costs each month. Let me know if you have any questions on our business model, its a tough one and outline here: https://support.shepherd.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406508624913-What-is-your-business-model https://support.shepherd.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406508624913... I'm sad to see Google degrade, but I get plenty of traffic from other sources and we have a lot of direct traffic. My intense hope is that Google can fix themselves but given what we are seeing on the indie web that does not seem to be the case...
bwb 2y ago
It isn't the worst result for sure; it is probably the strongest result on the page beyond the one ahead of it. But it is 14 years old and not the best source in this situation. Can you read the entire post? I go through each of the top 10, the board game post was ranked 9th.
- evanelias 2y ago
  > it is 14 years old Yes, but the Battle of Midway was 82 years ago, and it stands to reason that many good books on the battle already existed 14 years ago. > and not the best source in this situation That's subjective, which was one point I was trying to make in my comment. > Can you read the entire post? I did. I was compelled to comment due to your "Really Google?" snark, combined with the additional overwhelming snark in your comment upthread, when you're responding to a Googler who is just trying to help you. And now you're here asking me if I read your entire post, which is explicitly against the HN guidelines. ("Please don't comment on whether someone read an article.") I have more thoughts on the topic of ranking, but it really doesn't seem worthwhile to comment further given the tone of these responses!
  - bwb 2y ago
    Hah, I like a little humor, but it doesn't sound like we are not a personality match so yes, I do recommend you skip it :) The Googler wasn't helping in anyway; in fact, it is clear they don't even understand search with such odd concepts such as "looks a lot like spam when you squint." And a total misunderstanding of what is happening since they don't work in the search department.
  - bwb 2y ago
    btw, this might be helpful as it goes deep on the problem, and why this is a problem that Google also recognizes is hurting a TON of indie publishers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_6FqA87Lfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_6FqA87Lfc