this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
602 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

60056 readers
3562 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I guess we all kinda knew that, but it's always nice to have a study backing your opinions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] solarvector@lemmy.zip 161 points 11 months ago (3 children)

What fight? Google is making money, and nearly everyone is playing Google's game following their tune. Google is definitely not losing.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 118 points 11 months ago (4 children)

A lot of people dont remember pre-google these days.

Normal search engines worked, but Google was better results.

Now that every website is gaming SEO and the top half of search results is ads that pay to be first...

Google isn't that much better. I went to DuckDuckGo recently. The only thing Google does better is local results. But that's because Google always knows where I am and where I've been.

There's no longer a reason to use Google as a search engine, except habit.

Pretty much same with chrome

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 11 months ago

The main thing that got me switching to Google back then wasn't the better results, but their promise not to collect or use our data.

That all changed after 9/11, but by then Google had grown so huge it was hard to avoid them.

Even so, I still went back to Webcrawler and the others quite a lot and never really consistently used one search engine faithfully.

[–] BaroqueInMind@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

DDG uses Bing as the search API, and I don't see any evidence that it doesn't use SEO as well.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 35 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Just to be clear; “SEO” or “Search Engine Optimization” is a technique marketers use to craft web pages in a way that tricks search engine crawlers into considering them more relevant. It is not something search engines themselves do, and in many cases they actively fight against it.

So, it’s not whether or not DuckDuckGo uses SEO, it’s whether or not they’re susceptible to it.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

To add to that, Google is the big one.

So everyone tries to get around googles SEO prevention measures.the little guys just have to do literally anything different

[–] bellsDoSing@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Coincidentally, I happen to have been reading into SEO more in depth this week. Specifically official SEO docs by google:

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/seo-starter-guide

To be clear, SEO isn't about tricking search engines per se. First and foremost it's about optimizing a given website so that the crawling and indexing of the website's content is working well.

It's just that various websites have tried various "tricks" over time to mislead the crawling, indexing and ultimately the search engine ranking, just so their website comes up higher and more often than it should based on its content's quality and relevancy.

Tricks like:

  • keyword stuffing
  • hidden content just visible to crawlers
  • ...

Those docs linked above (that link is just part of much more docs) even mention many of those "tricks" and explicitely advise against them, as it will cause websites to be penalized in their ranking.

Well, at least that's what the docs say. In the end it's an "arms race" between search engines and trickery using websites.

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I remember pre-Google. There were a few human curated sites back then (like DMoz and Yahoo). I'm thinking that might be a way to combat spam and AI sites. As a side bonus, maybe it will help de-Google the planet.

I'm looking for a Wikipedia-but-for-the-web, where human curators find real web content for me. I found Curlie.org, and tried to sign up for it, but never got a response back on my sign-ups. Still I'm hopeful for something like that.

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yahoo was DMOZ (its directory used DMOZ data).

DMOZ had 100k volunteers curating the content at some point, and had a whole complex process to prevent abuse and so on. It will be hard to get going again.

But yeah, who would've thought that a mere decade after being discontinued it would become relevant again.

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's no longer a reason to use Google as a search engine, except habit.

I need to rollback to Google from DDG because the latter seems to refuse to understand that I want to find specific words with ""

And DDG isn't perfect either, I need to add Reddit as well more than I'd like to.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Google ignores "" too these days.

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Really? I haven't noticed that...

[–] huginn@feddit.it 70 points 11 months ago

The Google ads team is functionally all of the company's revenue.

Google search still remains their most used product offering with most of their ad revenue (58.1% in 2022).

Google leadership is terrified that anyone could eat their lunch, because they know the search offering is getting worse and worse.

The origin of Google was taking out complacent search companies that had gotten comfy.

I'm pretty sure when I was laid off (1 year ago yesterday ❤️❤️ thanks Google) it was because they saw LLMs as a threat they hadn't taken seriously enough... Combined with that asshole billionaire being pissy that Google was only making 1.2 million per employee instead of 1.3 million.

[–] T4UTV1S@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

With the end result of enshittification, people will migrate if their experience is bad enough. Google wants to strike a balance between making as much money as humanly possible and making the search experience at least decent enough to retain the majority of their users.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I would venture a guess that most people aren’t even realizing that their results are crap. I can’t even see them realizing it until after, I don’t know, all of the products they found via Google search and purchased wound up being gimmicky crap like MyPillow? Even then, I would be really surprised if they figured out what was going on.

[–] T4UTV1S@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

True, if you look at YouTube, it's been getting worse and worse over time and yet people still go there, but that's also due to there being not that many good alternatives that have a bunch of content. Google has a ton of other good alternatives to compete with, so they're betting on the laziness factor and probably that people don't know better.