Google Kneecaps Loads Of Very Big Websites After SEO Change

I’m kind of conflicted about this. On one hand it’s dangerous that the public’s access to information is so tightly coupled to a single organizations decisions, and I can see the danger in Google making a change like this.
On the other hand, clickbait and SEO gaming has gone on so long that using a site like Google has become significantly less useful to actually finding information, and if a site like Kotakus traffic is down by 60% as a result—is that due to Google being dangerous, or Kotaku having a pile of garbage content meant to game the system and bring in traffic?
For what it’s worth I’m using Kotaku as an example because the article used Kotaku as an example—I have no actual opinion or evidence around the actual content on that particular site.
- It's an example of why monopolies are harmful. They create distorted economies that don't serve consumers. Like ecosystems overcome by a monoculture, monopolies are inherently less resilient, less functional and prone to sudden disruption.
  
  How exactly would it be any different without Google / SEO. Parsing of website content to determine topics would be a shit show historically, or ridiculously computation heavy now that LLMs could conceivably do a decent job at classifying content. So Google created a way for sites to tag the kind of content they have. Pretty much any search engine would need the same kind of mechanism.
  And content providers are always going to be incentivized to be the top search result, which means targeting search algorithms. That's just the nature of the beast.
  If there were multiple SEO implementations, that just means more work to target multiple algorithms. And the content owners with more resources, hundreds of developers, would ultimately win because they can target every algorithm.
  I really don't see how Google as a "monopoly" changes these basic fundamentals.
- On the other hand, clickbait and SEO gaming has gone on so long that using a site like Google has become significantly less useful
  That's the same old game of "whack-a-mole" that every search engine since the beginning of the internet has had to play.
  Search engines try to provide useful results to keep users trusting them enough to keep coming back, and advertisers keep trying to use SEO to manipulate themselves to the top of the search results
- When a handful of monopolies decide that no factchecking will be seen by anybody, anymore,
  and only profitable-to-their-dictatorship disinformation will be seen,
  then humanity will not have any means of countering that:
  it will be too late.
  We are "the frog dropped into the slowly-heating pot of water".
  People pretend that monopoly is "maybe" harmful, economically, but it is an existential-threat to countries, and with globalization, now to civil-rights as a valid-category.
  _ /\ _

Google search has enshittified far faster than I ever thought possible. It used to work like magic. Too bad capitalism dictates that usefulness has a ceiling.
- I've switched to Kagi recently and honestly it's better than Google ever was. You can assign weights to sites to see more or less of them in your results, it automatically cuts the listicle crap out, it has various built in filters for specific things like forums or scientific studies.
  Downside: it's $10/mo. But I'm at the "I'd rather pay with money than data" stage of my life. Especially if it actually makes the experience fucking usable again.
  
  Another happy Kagi user here, it’s great.
  
  I'm at that point as well I think. Thank you for the suggestion!
  
  There was something bad with Kagi.
  https://hackers.town/@lori/112255132348604770
- The world is a much worse place with bad search. We need a search system that is treated like a utility and paid based on success not ad views.

This sort of thing is why Google's monopoly on the internet is so dangerous.
- Because they are making so that we get less results that are just cheating the system to show up at the top?
  SEO is a bastardization of a useful tool, solely meant to game the system artificially
  
  SEO is only feasible in the first place because we have one dominant search engine instead of a bunch of equally-prominent ones with different algorithms that would need to be optimized for differently (and maybe even mutually-exclusively).
  
  Well, yes, but in a broader sense, they have way too much of a stake in the control of global communications altogether. Even just a hiccup on their servers or slight change to their system has a global impact, as obviously evidenced here. The world is dangerously reliant on a centralized private company for daily functioning.
  Such a powerful entity shouldn't be controlled by private parties and needs to be governed in a way that the benefit of the people is kept paramount.
  
  Because they are making so that we get less results that are just cheating the system to show up at the top?
  No, because they are failing to hide low quality search results. Something the would invest more money in if an alternative search engine existed.
  There are so many websites now that just shouldn't exist at all. And they wouldn't exist if Google didn't send tons of traffic their way.
  
  If there were more search systems/engines there would be a wider variety of ways search results are optimized. Meaning SEO would have a greater level of diminishing returns. Having a single player creates a single point of weakness in search.
  
  to be fair, they specifically target the way google ranks these websites. If google would rank them with less impact of what the website "bastardizes", this could be generally less of an issue in the first place.
- Because they down ranked sites blatantly shoveling shit for the sole purpose of gaming their algorithm?
  
  sites blatantly shoveling shit for the sole purpose of gaming their algorithm
  That's the definition of SEO right there.

Good. Websites are spammy garbage now. I can't fucking believe how shitty the experience is when I'm not using a browser with uBlock origin.
If this is a way to punish that, punish away.

Who wrote this? I’m supposed to be upset that a bunch of big websites are lower on Google results? Why should anyone besides their shareholders care?
Edit: Oh, he co-founded the website hosting this article. So he does indeed have a vested personal interest.
- I see it as just more proof that Google's shit is becoming increasingly useless. So much so, it doesn't even give results for the big boys who pay to stay number 1. Can't find the niche things, can't find the big obvious things... What the fuck does it find?
- It's not as if Google's results have improved in that time span. They are significantly worse now.

That big list of sites looks suspiciously like the big list of shit I have to scroll past in order to find actually relevant results.
I welcome this change.

I don't see pinterest on this list.

Pornhub, xtube, I know these names better than Google knows my own grandmother's. Youporn, xxn, redtube, panty jobs, homegrown Simpsons stuff....
Edit: This isn't my fault it's the source articles for using that image.
- That’s one of the most trash articles I’ve ever read.

Does anyone know the best lemmy community to ask about SEO and web/finance tech in relation to a small business? I have a small business that is doing very well, but SEO and word of mouth is a direct contributor to its success, and I think I'm getting screwed over in cost by the company I've been paying to run my site building, hosting and, SEO.
- You can dm me if you want. I ran an agency that did SEO for a several years before I sold it in 2021. I’m can’t provide you with much in the ways of strategy anymore but I can give you an idea if your current provider is doing reputable work or not
- you can also DM me. Lead gen manager for a $5MM software company, 11 years experience digital marketing.
- Considering the general types that actually use lemmy, you're on the wrong platform for that kind of community. No offense
  
  I would assume that the amount of people working in the IT-sector far outweighs any other job occupation.

But google is NOT a monopoly. Right?

What the heck is Dexerto?