| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(comments)
原始链接: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44124820
一个旅游网站所有者（travellemming.com）声称谷歌正在使用人工智能审查独立网站，导致其流量大幅下降。他们认为这种审查是由于网站的身份，而不是内容质量，并指出算法更新的时间点。虽然该网站拥有真实、有用的旅游内容，但在众多类似网站中却难以获得排名。评论者们讨论了谷歌对独立内容日益增长的敌意，这与谷歌早期提倡多元化、甚至包括默默无闻来源的自由主义理念背道而驰。一些人认为谷歌优先考虑盈利能力和政治上倾向的“权威”来源，而不是开放网络原则。另一些人则指出谷歌的G+失败是其当前战略背后的驱动力。审查的定义存在争议，一些人认为谷歌的算法变化实际上是对小型网站的“暗禁”。人们担心人工智能驱动的搜索结果将导致互联网趋于同质化，多样性降低。
相关文章
原文
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.
reply