२१ मे, २०१४
Did Google screw Metafilter?
Google must fend off websites that game its ranking system, but did Metafilter get caught in the crossfire? Sad! I don't think there's anything on line that I've been as devoted to for as long as Metafilter. At least it seems that it will continue to limp along, unlike Television Without Pity, my other longtime favorite, which has died.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४ टिप्पण्या:
Having a pretty long history of SEO (Search Engine Optimization) work, I can tell you that I'm sure that MetaFilter was "caught up" in that.
Why? Because MetaFilter is essentially a link aggregation site not unlike the others who were "caught up" in it.
While the quality of conversation around those links may arguably be better, it's not serving up orginal content itself - just conversations about the content from other sites. Therefore, in the eyes of search engines like Google, it's not going to be ranked as highly as the original content being discussed is.
That's how it should be.
No, Google did not screw MetaFilter. Auerba.ch's probing of search engines seems pretty naive for a guy who claims to be a software engineer.
Take his example "typology of joy" (searched without quotes). He wants the MetaFilter page "A typology of joyful pursuits" listed near the top of the results. To somebody interested in a typology of joy, the MetaFilter page isn't terribly useful. The Wikipedia entry on Happiness (found with the search term "joy") contains most of the same information, plus a whole lot more.
Part of Auerba.ch's problem is linguistic register. Even without using Google's Verbatim setting, Google responds as if you'd probably rather read stuff by people who say "typology" instead of "kinds" and "joy" instead of "happiness," and that means scholars and Christians, or gasp, Biblical scholars, will be heavily represented in the results.
When I google "types kinds joy happiness" (no quotes, pws=0, i.e. not personalized results), Google shows me a pretty good mix of relevant pages, with plenty of pop psychology and more Buddhism than Christianity, probably because it's in the nature of Buddhist discourse to categorize such things. Duckduckgo's results are also interesting, and Bing's are more on target. Where in the results is the MetaFilter page called "A typology of joyful pursuits?" I couldn't tell you, but that page is starting to look pretty lame in comparison to the first twenty hits from any of these searches.
To really find stuff with Google you need to be comfortable with its operators (OR, quote marks, domain search, etc.), and you need to have some sense of what it is you're looking for. If you want a typology of joy, Google will help. If you want a typology of joyful pursuits, Google will gladly show you the MetaFilter page by that name.
File under "MetaFilter Bubble." Google's working fine.
While the quality of conversation around those links may arguably be better, it's not serving up orginal content itself - just conversations about the content from other sites
That describes the main site pretty well, and I don't think mathowie is questioning that ranking. But the AskMe subsite is almost entirely original content and discussion. That's been the big driver of search traffic to the site, that's where all the ad revenue came from, and that's the one that dropped precipitously.
Ann, I know My Dinner With Andre is one of your favorites. I found a parody of it by Andy Kaufman. Through MetaFilter of course.
http://tinyurl.com/ptzhwy8
Years ago I used to peruse MetaFilter frequently. Then I decided to go without a PC to see what THAT would be like. When I went back to PC-ing I had forgotten about MetaFilter and never went back – until now. It hasn't changed!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा