5 ms·

The whole argument hinges on one claim: We were censored not because of content but because of who we are. Strongest evidence in support: Drop in traffic coin

by nilirl 1y ago

The whole argument hinges on one claim: We were censored not because of content but because of who we are. Strongest evidence in support: Drop in traffic coincided with google algorithm update. Biggest lack of evidence: Nothing that shows it's because of who they are and not their content. Author defended their content by pointing out the cost and labor that goes into making their content. Was the content really authentic and useful? This is hard to prove (and I suspect hard even for an algorithm to discern), and so I had a look: - Each article did have that human feel to it with photos of the author in the locations they were talking about. Articles also included small personalized evaluations about topics. So, yes, I did think it was authentic and useful. But how did it compare to the 1000s of other sites who can replicate this? Human writers aren't rare, and travel isn't a small interest to our species. And that's the crux of it: Even if you're useful and authentic, search engines have to rank you among other sites that are useful and authentic. You could be amazing and still end up on page 30 because you're not alone in being amazing on the internet. I don't know what a fair algorithm looks like, and if a fair algorithm would make everyone equally happy. For now, someone has the power to direct how the algorithm chooses. Who should have that power is a fair question, but I don't think anything will mitigate the problem of being ranked low even with quality content. It's a ranking against the rest of the internet, not just an evaluation of quality. At the moment, if two sites are somewhat equally useful, being profitable to Google probably gets you a bump.

renegat0x0 1y ago
The web isn't what it was 10 or 15 years ago. Back then, you could stumble across countless useful and unique websites on just about any topic—travel included. Today, it's different. I do think Google played a major role in shrinking the visibility of the independent web. If Google only shows 300 links per search (30 pages x 10 results), anything beyond that effectively doesn't exist for most users. Some might argue that only the top few results matter, but I disagree. For broad topics like "video games," "war," or "love," you'd expect there to be thousands of worthwhile links—not just the same recycled content from YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, or SEO-heavy content farms. As a side project, I run a hobby web crawler to explore what's still out there. That's where my perspective comes from regarding the current state of the open web: https://github.com/rumca-js/Internet-Places-Database https://github.com/rumca-js/Internet-Places-Database
mike_hearn 1y ago
It doesn't hinge entirely on that. There's a lot of ambient background context here too. The idea Google is hostile to long tail indie content isn't exactly a groundbreaking claim, it's been obvious and widely discussed for years. They've been losing the original culture for a long time. Google circa 2000-2010 was very libertarian. It believed in a large decentralized web in which Google helped all users with all queries, without passing judgement. If it was obscure and you wanted it, Google would reliably surface it in the first page of results every single time. This was the Google that believed in the indie web so much it purchased Blogger. Starting around 2010-2012 the rate at which they hired new grads went up quite sharply (I was there and saw it). The average level of experience dropped sharply. These recruits brought with them the new authoritarian politics of the university campus. Around 2015-2016 you start to see Google start to just openly engage in political activism, tossing the hard-won reputation for neutrality in the trash. Unfortunately, this new worldview was incompatible with the prior commitment to the indie web. Whereas the Google of Matt Cutts cared a lot about surfacing tiny sites, the new Google became highly suspicious of any content that wasn't from sources they deemed "reliable", "authoritative" etc [1]. They defined these terms to mean basically any large left-leaning source, without reference to objective metrics. Put simply: if it's on .gov, .edu or one hop removed then it's reliable, if it's not then it isn't. This shows up in how easy it now is to find queries where Google gives you the exact opposite of what you're asking for, no matter how clearly you specify the search terms. This would have once been considered a high severity code yellow, now it's by design. The open web won out over AOL partly because old Google fostered it, but one gets the feeling that Google now views its child with disgust. Can you imagine Google purchasing Substack, as they once did with Blogger? It's unthinkable. They'd undoubtably view it as a hive of villainy and scum. In the event they did buy it the first thing they'd do is delete most of its content. Unfortunately, you can't be both anti-misinformation and pro-open-web. These two things are irreconcilable. Either the world is complex and anyone might have insight to contribute, or it's simple and the right answer is always found via traversing a shallow hierarchy of trusted sources. So: does your random indie travel blog "demonstrate expertise" or "authoritativeness" as defined by someone who has been through the Ivy League universities? No. Are these the sorts of sites that can eventually become big and a recognized source of authoritative expertise, given enough nourishment from the watering can of unbiased search? Yes! That's how the web grew to start with. But Google doesn't care anymore and with the loss of its primary patron the open web is in its twilight years. As the author says: he was invited to Google HQ to hear an apology, and also to be told nothing will change. The new web is no different to AOL except in minor technical details, because that's how the woke generation like it. [1] e.g. https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/12395529?hl=en https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/12395529?hl=en

by nilirl 1y ago

renegat0x0 1y ago

The web isn't what it was 10 or 15 years ago. Back then, you could stumble across countless useful and unique websites on just about any topic—travel included. Today, it's different. I do think Google played a major role in shrinking the visibility of the independent web. If Google only shows 300 links per search (30 pages x 10 results), anything beyond that effectively doesn't exist for most users. Some might argue that only the top few results matter, but I disagree. For broad topics like "video games," "war," or "love," you'd expect there to be thousands of worthwhile links—not just the same recycled content from YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, or SEO-heavy content farms. As a side project, I run a hobby web crawler to explore what's still out there. That's where my perspective comes from regarding the current state of the open web: https://github.com/rumca-js/Internet-Places-Database https://github.com/rumca-js/Internet-Places-Database

mike_hearn 1y ago

It doesn't hinge entirely on that. There's a lot of ambient background context here too. The idea Google is hostile to long tail indie content isn't exactly a groundbreaking claim, it's been obvious and widely discussed for years. They've been losing the original culture for a long time. Google circa 2000-2010 was very libertarian. It believed in a large decentralized web in which Google helped all users with all queries, without passing judgement. If it was obscure and you wanted it, Google would reliably surface it in the first page of results every single time. This was the Google that believed in the indie web so much it purchased Blogger. Starting around 2010-2012 the rate at which they hired new grads went up quite sharply (I was there and saw it). The average level of experience dropped sharply. These recruits brought with them the new authoritarian politics of the university campus. Around 2015-2016 you start to see Google start to just openly engage in political activism, tossing the hard-won reputation for neutrality in the trash. Unfortunately, this new worldview was incompatible with the prior commitment to the indie web. Whereas the Google of Matt Cutts cared a lot about surfacing tiny sites, the new Google became highly suspicious of any content that wasn't from sources they deemed "reliable", "authoritative" etc [1]. They defined these terms to mean basically any large left-leaning source, without reference to objective metrics. Put simply: if it's on .gov, .edu or one hop removed then it's reliable, if it's not then it isn't. This shows up in how easy it now is to find queries where Google gives you the exact opposite of what you're asking for, no matter how clearly you specify the search terms. This would have once been considered a high severity code yellow, now it's by design. The open web won out over AOL partly because old Google fostered it, but one gets the feeling that Google now views its child with disgust. Can you imagine Google purchasing Substack, as they once did with Blogger? It's unthinkable. They'd undoubtably view it as a hive of villainy and scum. In the event they did buy it the first thing they'd do is delete most of its content. Unfortunately, you can't be both anti-misinformation and pro-open-web. These two things are irreconcilable. Either the world is complex and anyone might have insight to contribute, or it's simple and the right answer is always found via traversing a shallow hierarchy of trusted sources. So: does your random indie travel blog "demonstrate expertise" or "authoritativeness" as defined by someone who has been through the Ivy League universities? No. Are these the sorts of sites that can eventually become big and a recognized source of authoritative expertise, given enough nourishment from the watering can of unbiased search? Yes! That's how the web grew to start with. But Google doesn't care anymore and with the loss of its primary patron the open web is in its twilight years. As the author says: he was invited to Google HQ to hear an apology, and also to be told nothing will change. The new web is no different to AOL except in minor technical details, because that's how the woke generation like it. [1] e.g. https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/12395529?hl=en https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/12395529?hl=en