They probably look at the metrics and see that a lot of people are going to the Pinterest results. That the results are garbage and undermine the Google images search experience is much harder to measure.
If only there was a way to track the number of seconds they spent on pinterest until the back button was hit and... factor that in as a feature in ML. voila.
I don't think it's that simple. When a user goes back to image search results, is it because they are unsatisfied with the result they clicked on, or are they looking for even more, hoping to compare? And when a user closes out instead of doing back, is it because they got what they wanted or because the results were so garbage they gave up? Based on my own usage of image search results I don't think you would be able to tell when I was happy with the results or when I wasn't. But you can probably tell that my usage of image search went down when it started getting shitty due to this spam.
What are your use-cases for image search? Mine are pretty straightforward; find a higher quality/uncropped version or to find the source (article, recipe, or photo set). Use case #1 I click through save and exit. Use case #2 I engage like I would for web (text) search.
#1 might be confused for not finding the intended result, but could be discerned after looking a bit more.
Also, if a lot of people add in "-site:pinterest.*" (or click on pinterest sites but come back, then find the intended result) that might be a hint it's not adding real value.
I think my use cases are pretty varied, anything from looking for pictures of a place I'm considering going hiking, looking for different views of a product I'm considering purchasing, looking for other examples of an artists art, to trying to figure out where some image originated
No one said it had to do with AI. The point being made above is that while you and me may dislike Pinterest, the data may be showing that to most users, it's actually very valuable.
If anything, ML would be able to detect my and your use cases and intelligently hide Pinterest for us while hiding it for others. So chances are they aren't using ML yet which is why it's just favoring the majority rather than us (the minority).
It could be better than what we have now, assuming somewhat smart AI. Right now, data gives plausible deniability, and is the universal scapegoat - you get to do whatever you want, backing this up with misapplied A/B tests and telemetry, with zero statistical rigor. And if someone complains about your decisions, you point to these tests and that telemetry, and cry "we're a data driven company, and the data proves we're right".
I mean, it would help to be honest about the metrics that the A/B tests are evaluated against. If you optimize purely for growth and engagement, then your test results will reflect that - even moreso if your tests are scientifically sound.
I'm continually surprised how companies manage to sell "let's try to keep users glued to the screen as long as possible" as doing something for the general good.
I have little hope that the people not understanding their data today and lacking any statistical rigor will be able to train an AI to do better. Figuring out whether an AI gives you garbage results seems to be a harder problem than figuring out whether your own results are garbage.
But isn’t this a sign that it’s actually useful for people? At the same time I have to admit that google image search is probably their worst vertical.
If people are actually navigating to the results and not bouncing immediately due to the login wall that is a sign that people are finding them useful.
Is it that weird to believe that lots of people have Pinterest logins?
With image search more than other types of search IMO, because the source of the image is less prominent than the image itself, so ignoring specific domains is harder. I've clicked Pinterest links over and over in google search when on my phone when I had no interest in them, but it's hard to avoid because it isn't always clear what is what.
In your opinion, is this a growth hack you'd suggest one of your customers try? Or does it cross a line in your opinion?
"SEO Optimization" is difficult because it's such an imperfect science (or perhaps not, based on your company name!) What are a couple examples or anecdotes of SEO "hacks" / optimizations that are least obvious or things most people wouldn't think of, that have had the most significant impact on SEO?
"Growth hack" is an industry euphemism for "unethical practice." You can tell it doesn't literally mean "growth hack" because it's being applied here to the website that Alexa currently ranks #152 worldwide and the typical excuses about how you need to get a little dirty when you're a tiny business just getting started don't remotely hold water.
Not all growth hacking is unethical. WePay's $100 bills in a big block of ice dropped off at the PayPal conference comes to mind. Or Dropbox giving you extra free quota for going through their tutorial, installing on a new device, or inviting a friend (where the friend also gets extra free quota).
I don't about the other ones, but giving you extra when you get someone else to join is unethical. MCI started this trend with their "friends and family" promotion, and it really pissed people off. People who don't use the system hate being pestered by friends and family to join something they don't want or need.
I've got something I've always been curious about. If the website was penalized by Google, is it possible to rank _after_ the penalty is lifted?
Edit: the story behind this question. A friend of mine has a local business. He once paid an SEO agency to do optimizations for his website. After a while, the website was penalized because of some shady stuff the agency did (paid links?). The penalty is long gone, but it looks like Google never forgets anything, so the website is sitting there on 5+ pages for pretty much any keyword.
Yep, this is called a "manual action" by Google, and they'll often tell you exactly what you're doing that they find offensive. Usually this involves buying spammy backlinks. You can resolve the issue and ask them to re-evaluate your site by submitting a Reconsideration request.
Engagement on links clicked in Gmail is likely a ranking factor in Google search.
We've done studies with popular e-mail newsletters that showed URLs performing better in search on days when they've been sent out to hundreds of thousands of people.
At the end of the day, Google is a private company. They get to set the rules and police search results how they see fit. I don't think Pinterest is doing anything unethical. I do think it is spammy, though.
But is spamming not in its essence 'unethical'? It might not be illegal, but it is morally at least questionable and many will say it's unambiguously immoral.
I just started a new job where the company is heavily invested into SEO. Being new to the subject, what resources would you suggest for a webdev to first learn the technical fundamentals and then to get deep into the weeds?
RankScience (YC W17) is hiring full-stack web developers. This is a remote position.
Experience with JavaScript, PHP, and Python preferred. Looking for talented folks with high EQ and an interest in user experience and building products end-to-end.
Please reach out to jobs@rankscience.com if interested and mention HN!
Crazy that Soundforge was built with such a small team.
Playing around with Soundforge as a teenager in 1998 and looping samples together was super inspiring for me. Anyone could make professional sounding music from their computer, and using it also piqued my interest in building software.
>> Most SEOs I've met at serious companies are almost always very technical people.
Companies of a certain scale can afford to have engineering teams focused on SEO, and they should! Most companies can't afford this, though, and the vast majority of people in the SEO industry are not technical.
Also, who's better at solving ever-changing puzzles with many variables: humans or software? : )
Pagespeed is a ranking factor, but it's far from the most important one. I would think deeply about what might make humans engage with your competitor's site for longer than yours.
SEO also includes: "what meta description can I surface on a SERP that has the highest clickthrough?" so in that sense, it's an A/B testing/software problem.
Thanks for the reply. Would you mind being more specific about what specific aspects of the "automated" tests are "automated"?
E.g., in the CoderWall example, is it propagating of the title tag change to all the pages in the test group that's "automated"?
At least to my ears, "automated" suggests that there are tests that are selected and run completely without human intervention. (Which is hard to imagine in the SEO space.) Is that in any way accurate?
