The same thing happens every 3-5 years. HowStuffWorks, About.com (now like 10 different domains), many IAC acquired properties, RedVenture sites, even random sites like LiveStrong.com will be wildly prominent when the domains historically aren't relevant or authoritative for a given niche.
Even recently, sites like CNN were using subdomains with affiliate offers managed by third parties(1). These sites weren't being de-ranked algorithmically-- someone at Google would have to apply a manual action to remove them from the SERPs. What incentive would there be to do so if a prior agreement was in place?
Google doesn't really care about discoverability for smaller domains that may have good content. They are either being risk averse (avoiding potential spammers, junk AI content) by favoring trusted domains, favoring brands who are likely to spend on display or search ads, or maybe a combination of these.
It's really frustrating. I currently want to buy a mattress and a refrigerator. The results for those are so awful as to be useless.
A lot of classic software essentially worked more like a database. In the last 10-15 years it's all moving to an algorithm.
Here is what I mean. Photos apps used to let you search through your photos using filters.
The same kinds of things are happening on the web which already happened to apps (desktop and mobile).
In the modern world, some marketing company wants to tell YOU which of YOUR photos you wanted, so they can sell you some prints, harvest your data, or something.
I would like any apps that have to do with collections of files, photos, music, etc to be more of a deterministic DATABASE and less of a nondeterministic algorithm.
> A lot of classic software essentially worked more like a database. In the last 10-15 years it's all moving to an algorithm.
You just described what I missed about the older software. Older software gives users control over sorting and show data in a tabular format. Modern software sorts data with an algorithm, with ads mixed in, and shows data in a card format, making it a lot less usable.
Exactly. My related observation: half of the SaaS products I see would be more useful and ergonomic for the user if they were implemented as an Excel sheet.
(I actually worked for one of such "better off as an .xls file" startup in the past, and its main competitor was an incumbent that sold the same stuff as an Excel extension. Trying to replace that with a React app is not a worthwhile use of life.)
Algorithms are fine. I'll happily apply the most advanced ones I can get. The problem is with who applies them to what - as you and GP said, it's about user control - or, currently, lack of.
Excel is great until it you need to do something that takes up more space than a single screen. Then it isn't.
Sending sqlite databases to the users which they can interact with using both sql and a viewer is where it's at.
> Older software gives users control over sorting and show data in a tabular format
I'm old and tend to agree, but I suspect this is similar to "you used to have a knob on the TV that showed the channel it's on".
That immediately made me think of the digital TV switchover. The elderly father of a friend of mine would spend much of his time in front of the TV, and could operate it without assistance, thanks to the simple 1:1 mapping between buttons and functions.
After the digital switchover, there was now a set-top box, and electronic program guide and three-figure channel numbers thrown into the mix, as well as stateful aspect such as whether the TV was set to AV or still trying to use its now-obsolete tuner.
For someone with poor eyesight, limited feeling in his fingers and limited ability (and admittedly willingness, too) to build a mental model of how the menus worked and how they can be navigated, it spelled the end of his unsupervised access to TV.
The big difference for me between database-query-driven and algorithmically-driven is that the latter makes it very hard to know when you've completed an exhaustive search. Indeed for the likes of meta and tiktok that's a feature, not a bug, since their goal is to keep you engaged and plugged into "their" content forever.
Not every change is for the better. You gotta admit that TVs used to be able to switch channels much faster then they do now. And analogue controls in cars are safer and better then touch screens for everything.
A lot of change is for the better, but quite a lot is a regression.
Deterministic software puts the user in control of the product. Nondeterministic algos put the products in control of the user. Naturally companies want the latter and under guises of the ‘now better’ give the user worse and charge them more. A new generation isn’t even aware they’re being fleeced because they don’t have anything to compare with. And the frog boils slowly…
This entire thread reads like multiple people circling around product opportunities. There are users out there who want control and will pay for something no-frills. You might not get big VC money to build this, but you could build this.
Reminds of Windows and search. I am not anymore even sure if there is some nice dialog where I could put some pattern and folder or list of folder and have it run through it for me...
Mattresses have been especially bad for a long time. For refrigerators, you can look at consumer reports and wirecutter--and you can reasonably do some evaluation at your local big box appliance store. I wouldn't buy based on a random web search though.
It has always felt to me that Wirecutter focuses on only one end of the Pareto curve ("what is the very best XXXX that money can buy, within reason") and ignores the middle of the curve where most people are actually shopping ("what is the best XXXX that I can get for $XXX"). It also seems to reliably ignore brands from Mainland China (Hisense, Midea, etc). I guess It makes obvious sense to court rich (or at least price-insensitive) readers.
Whether or not it started that way, yes, it makes sense to recommend brands that New York Times subscribers are familiar and comfortable with. I'll buy a GE Profile refrigerator or Bosch dishwasher. Not some Chinese brand I've never heard of and have no idea what the service situation will be with. Makes perfect sense to me and I'm in that demographic. Especially with major appliances and things I can buy at the local big box store seems to make perfect sense to not buy things you have to go to Alibaba to obtain.
It's not about being price insensitive but recommending things that are relatively mainstream and that don't seem risky, especially for major purchases that have to be installed and potentially serviced.
(Did have a service issue on my recent GE Profile refrigerator but it took one phone call and was a no-brainer.)
But you're probably right in general. Wirecutter mostly doesn't recommend unknowns it thinks are potentially bargains. Which I probably wouldn't do in its position either.
Oh, I had that very model and it very quickly got moldy in places that I couldn’t easily clean. Absolutely wouldn’t recommend it…
> Mattresses have been especially bad for a long time.
Yes. Refrigerators, at least, are made by a relatively small number of companies with established brands. They have EnergyStar ratings, and there's some objective evaluation.
For mattresses, the whole industry is a scam. Mattresses actually cost about US$50 to US$80 in bulk. Search Alibaba. Almost all consumer-facing companies are resellers. Markups are huge. Essentially all the mattress review sites are paid promotions.
if there is a trial period better get cheapest and highly reviewed mattress. Even if it's a scam you get to know it within x days and can return it.
I try to buy natural materials like latex or cotton - which cannot and are not mass produced (difficult to roll and transport from across the world)
Wirecutter's gone downhill after the NYT purchase as well. The Spruce seems somewhat better (but is also part of a huge web site family, so caveat emptor)
Either you do deep research, or you find a trusted friend to advise you. The Internet is largely useless at this point.
I think Wirecutter is still a decent source; they probably won't steer you too far wrong if you're not too picky. But nothing, including your trusted friends, is an all-knowing oracle if only because their tastes and priorities are probably different from yours. Certainly pre-Internet there were few enough reliable sources of recommendations--maybe some specialist magazines but even those were far from perfect.
> or you find a trusted friend to advise you
I think there's an opportunity here for a review platform that only shows you reviews from individuals that you personally trust. "Find a trusted friend" but for the internet.
The problem with reviews from individuals (trusted friends or complete strangers), is that for major purposes they only get to deeply evaluate a single product. So they could tell you if they are happy with the fridge they bought, but they wouldn’t be able to do a detailed comparison between multiple fridges.
This will lead to you getting a product that’s good enough, but there may be a superior quality/value option that you don’t know about
Yeah, but it might be a satisficing approach. Most of us don't really need to optimize an appliance purchase, just not get screwed.
Could have been an interesting application for social networking. (Friend of a friend)^n. I’d probably trust most of my friends, and most of their friends, not to be bots. Probably want to see the links, past that.
I got a mattress last year using Consumer Reports rec for most the mattress with the least synthetic chemicals. I am not going to say its name lest it look like I am shilling for them. I will say, it has been great.
If I want to buy something like that I set an alert on slickdeals.net Like everything else it used to be better years ago, but there are still some genuine great deals and lots of insight if you’re willing to sift through the comments.
When I was looking for a fridge a year or so ago I heard that Samsung was trying to fix their bad appliance rep and quality of parts had gone up, but I went with a different brand.
There’s been an issue the last few years of fiberglass escaping through the cover on memory foam mattresses. If I was mattress shopping I’d probably still get foam, but look for one without fiberglass or find some kind of allergy cover to at least contain it.
The only signal I use is warranty. So I tend to go to Costco, and avoid Samsung.
It's not a bad idea to pair that with lawsuits related to such warranties.
Costco and Samsung are big enough that you can achieve reasonable signal.
When your local car dealer offers you a full drivetrain warranty though (assuming it's a full warranty and not one of the other ways people are often fleeced), will they honor it when the lemon they sold you breaks the first time? the 2nd? the 3rd? Will they, instead, note that most people buying that car don't have much money (or, if you used any form of dealer financing, know for a fact you don't have much money) and require you to retain a lawyer and sue them to recover any damages?
Not sure if your car example was meant to be general or specific, but Lemon Laws are extremely common across the states and are very easy to take advantage of without needing to retain a lawyer. For example, in Texas you fill out a form, pay a $35 filing fee, then bring your evidence to mediation.
It's a bit of both. Generally the idea holds. The example isn't that bad either. O(100k-1M) people have dealer-fraud related problems every year in the US, usually without happy outcomes. A few ways this might happen relating to my use of the word "lemon" include:
1. Colloquial use of "lemon" differs from the legal definition. In the given example, this might include a 15yr old vehicle (far outside any normal "manufacturer's" warranty) with numerous defects both known to the dealer and lied about to the consumer. The dealer would likely lose any civil complaint, but in Texas, and most states, this doesn't count as a "lemon." You're protected, if at all, by the fact that the salesperson warranted a thing, and perhaps any actual written "warranty" (really insurance, not that it necessarily matters) the dealer might have sold you. You usually waive the warrant of merchantability, so the fact that the car is a dud isn't enough by itself for you to have any damages (all state-specific, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction).
2. Picking on Texas, since you brought it up, if you only bring the car in 3 times for a major defect covered under the lemon law, it's not a lemon yet. If the dealer refuses to deal with you on the 3rd instance then you'll have to sue with some other justification.
3. In the vast majority of states, you don't have an automated (minus filing fees) hearing process pertaining to lemons. Even in those which do, you're much more likely to succeed with the help of an attorney. In either case, in most states, attorney's fees are not part of the damages you can claim, and when squabbling about a $5k used car it can easily cost more in attorney fees (plus incidentals like renting a car and missing work for the actual hearings -- usually not covered even in states granting damages for incidentals (including rentals and missing work in other contexts) arising from the lemon), often making it not even worth pursuing.
...
Usually, even with moderate legal protections, you don't want to enter into an agreement where you expect to have to rely on those protections. Your best-case scenario is that you waste a bunch of time and still have only as many resources as you started with. You'll usually do even worse. Why take a losing gamble?
Samsung appliances are awful. I'd rather do my own dishes or put my food in a cooler.
Having bought a mattress recently, it might be worth going to a mattress store. The sales process sucks, but if you want to find a mattress you like, it's hard to beat actually laying down on one.
It also can help you identify the kind you like (coil, latex, etc) and composition you like (layer style and thickness).
Then you just search for those two things online.
That's how I found an amazing natural latex cooling mattress online.
And the best part is that most online mattress retailers have 90 day try out periods. We didn't like our first one, and instead of having us ship it back they told us to donate it and sent us the next to try. So now we have a really nice spare bedroom mattress as well as the perfect mattress in our bedroom.
May I ask why you use search engine for buying something like a mattress or refrigerator? I dont mean to sound that as an insult. I'm genuinely curious. I or anyone I know of will just go to a nearby store and checkout these items to buy. For things like these one would already know who sells these items, even online. So why not directly checkout those stores, either online or physical?
Try naplab.
How do we know you're not an ad?
>The same thing happens every 3-5 years. [...] Google doesn't really care about discoverability for smaller domains that may have good content.
What's galling is that (ostensibly) they used to care. So much for "organizing the world's information" and "don't be evil".
Well they are certainly organizing the world's information, and continue to be incentivized to do so. Deeply. For advertisers.
I get flashbacks to the exodus of Digg, when the admins basically said "Look, we get a lot of junk content and a lot of common source content so we are going to start fast tracking the common source content from trusted providers"
We all know how that went over.
Investopedia is another one. Same for bankrate.com Other ones included wikihow and genius.com
??? I've always found wikihow superbly curated, clear, direct, readable, with simple clear diagrams and almost no fluff. At least for how-to-do guides, not buying.
Can you post a link to a low-quality wikihow article or two?
Forbes as a whole basically sold its soul for clicks. It used to be one of the three top business magazines depending on your preferences. After the web became dominant, at some point after Malcolm Forbes died, you ended up with a ton of blog writers--with plenty of biases and axes to grind--and essentially advertorial content.
One of the Forbes "contributors", Gordon Kelly, used to generate an enormous volume of posts for every single minor Apple software release, in addition to regurgitating every rumor published by Mark Gurman and other journalists.
Apparently he passed away last year, after "authoring 2,511 articles in sum and accumulating over 174 million page views in just one year, 33 million of which were gained within a single month."
It's a really good example of why one should not name your company after your surname. At some point if you sell your company, you are putting the surname of all your descendants in the hands of some other entity outside of your/their direct control.
>It's a really good example of why one should not name your company after your surname.
That relationship can work in the opposite way sometimes. John McAfee seemed to be getting a gleeful kick out of embarrassing the security company that had invested in the right to use his name.
Usually because he was doing zany and sketchy and potentially criminal, while expertly courting media attention. But he also used that power for good sometimes by criticizing their bad products.
Jardine is still a name in trading, at least in the west, not China, where they are not fondly remembered for their 19th-century "import activities".
For the amount of money involved, and all joking aside, you can have my first and last name. You can name a horrible flesh eating disease after me. It doesn't matter.
I get the feeling the family doesn't care while they lounge around on their stacks of cash?
I’m pretty sure in the grand scheme of things the Forbes family is still perfectly OK with the association
>I’m pretty sure in the grand scheme of things the Forbes family is still perfectly OK with the association
The writers, editors and other business partners who built their reputation by contributing to Forbes previous good reputation are probably very not OK with it
The question was whether to name it after a person or not. Those people would be equally upset if it was named Bisclock, so them being upset at the current site is not relevant to the naming discussion.
If they really care about it they can just change their name though.
The Forbes family tree or the publication?
Bit of a microcosm of the entire business world nowadays. Forbes made something - a magazine that produced enough good content to gain a reputation. In the new school of business, that's an asset, and assets are things we turn into cash as quickly as possible, so now Forbes sells CBD, and now anyone who sees "forbes.com" in the URL knows it's useless crap, but hey, someone made some money, and now they can go find the next thing to flip for a couple bucks.
I was talking to a friend about this recently.
I bought a pair of Doc Martens boots a while back. And they're shit. I remember them from the 80's and they were really solid, good leather, well made, etc. The modern ones are crappy leather and fell apart after only a few months. But they still cost a decent amount because they're Doc Martens.
My friend pointed out that Doc Martens are primarily worn by teenage girls these days, and are almost "fast fashion". My expectations based on the brand are not matching with reality, because the brand has moved on from being the de rigeur footwear for the entire 80's alternative scene.
From this, I have come up with the "reverse Vimes" theory of boots. That actually the most cash-efficient approach to footwear is to buy cheap K-mart shoes, expecting them to last for a year, instead of buying expensive branded shoes which are actually made just as badly as the cheap ones and still only last a year.
The point being that Doc Martens, like Forbes, are trading in their reputation for quality. In ten years time they will be known as shitty boots that used to be worn by edgy teenage girls, and the brand will be worthless. But the shareholders will have made significant bank from the destruction of that brand. Late-stage capitalism win, I guess.
Sure but that seems to have been predictable from:
- 2003: DM came close to bankruptcy, moved all production from UK to China and Thailand, laid off UK workers
- 10/2013: private equity company Permira acquired R. Griggs Group Limited (owner of DM brand), for £300m. Hired former brand president of Vans as CEO.
- 2019: declining quality reported for previous years
- 1/2021: floated on London Stock Exchange for £3.7 billion.
I think that the trick is to try to find new and upcoming brands that have a reputation for quality, and learn what high quality looks like so that you can confirm personally that the product is good.
This is difficult and requires ongoing work. Fashionable young people tend to do it but I certainly don’t blame anyone who decides that it isn’t worth the effort.
This used to be what brand was all about - that you could trust the brand to produce high-quality stuff because it was a quality brand. All Doc Marten boots were well-made and solid, would last a decade at least, because it was a quality brand and the price tag came with that.
I know what high quality looks like; I wore my first Doc Martens for a decade. I trusted the brand when revisiting my youth and buying a new pair.
It seems someone figured out that the price tag goes with the brand, not the quality. So you can charge high prices for cheap boots if you put the DM tag on them. And make bank.
I think this will accelerate, and the "new and upcoming" brands will get shit at exactly the point where people like me discover them. Because, as you say, it's not worth the effort to keep up with this rapid churn.
Hence the Inverse Vimes solution: stop trying to buy quality and instead accept that everything is shit and deal with that reality; buy cheap and often.
Its not late state capitalism. Its hidden inflation. The market for actual high quality boots is much smaller than you are thinking. Including your own desire. The reality is doc martins are selling for <$180 max, basically mid-high sneaker (non collectable) territory. Actual quality boots like the doc martins of the 80's probably cost over $1000 dollars now. Are you willing to pay over $1000 for boots? Because that is what quality boots cost now.
Doc martin didn't sacrifice the brand. They realized that people would never pay $1000 for doc martins so they just jettisoned the company name by rebranding into fast fashion before they totally disappear. It was probably the only choice by the time it was decided. There were probably some missteps along the way where they may have been able to keep their prices up enough to keep the quality but they missed it.
I think I paid $300AUD for mine. I was very poor in the 80's, I would not have been able to afford the equivalent of $1000USD. I have vague memories of them costing around 80 GBP, which would be ~350 GBP now, so about half that $1K (but definitely more than I paid for them now, so your point is at least partially true).
And yes, I would be willing to pay that kind of money now for a pair of boots that would last me a decade again.
It was also kinda the point back in the 80's; your Docs were an investment. They cost decent money, but they'd last a decade and became part of your identity. Practically a physical extension of your body; I had a flatmate who regularly fell asleep in his and eventually developed trenchfoot from doing that. The boots were fine, his feet weren't. Most of my friends back in the day had one pair of shoes; their Docs. It was worthwhile investing in them because that was all you needed.
I think you're also right that the brand itself has changed and moved down-market, so they're charging less than they used to for a lower-quality product. But this is kinda my point; the brand is now being cannibalised and turned into a low-quality fast-fashion product marketed with a high-quality brand. This is obviously not going to work long-term, as people realise that Docs are now shite. As I said, in ten year's time the brand won't be worth anything.
Although Docs have almost given up making in Northampton, you'll still find a number of shoemakers producing good quality boots that should last a decade or more. You'll be paying £250-£500 as you guessed.
Well what did you expect them to do? Magazine subscriptions fell off a cliff as the Internet matured and no one wants to pay for online content.
Consumer reports that you pay for, or at least websites that have a policy of avoiding or declaring conflicts-of-interest, seem to be the reasonable middle-ground.
Some magazines have been able to maintain quality better than others. Especially if there was outside funding from someone who had a real connection/passion. I'm not sure there was anyone at the helm of Forbes who cared at that point.
fortune.com too. same thing . these brands realized they can cash in on their domain authority to create content farms full of ads. scales really well too
Fortune's case was mostly the whole Time-Life magazine empire going to the dogs partly by way of TWB. Forbes just kind of faded away post-Malcolm (and with a distracted Steven Forbes).
But, in general, the magazine and journalism businesses aren't what they were so most of the relatively mass market magazines pretty much cashed in on their brands to the degree their owners decided to keep them around.
Very good article. Not clear to me why Google has let parasite SEO become so successful. Possibly they are starved of human generated content kept to a certain quality level. But it's very strange to see sites leveraging a legacy brand to expand far beyond their expertise. Forbes is the most prominent example.
On why Google allows bad quality results nowadays:
One of the commenters on wheresyoured seemed insightful: "wonder if organic search results being worse generates more ad clicks, as the ads are more likely to be more useful than the actual search results".
Someone once described the state of mobile gaming on Android like this. Games that are good make less money. Games that are just good enough to get you to open them but are also just shitty enough that when you hit an ad in-game, you click on it and leave, make more money.
In the short-term. But google is training a whole generation that everything they touch is shit. I know a lot of engineers who won't touch chrome if they aren't testing something. I have the same feeling about android games.
They've toxified their own markets for short-term gains.
It is astonishing to me that people click ads in general, but especially ads in a game. At least ads on websites, you were probably just mindlessly scrolling…
Google team has long given up its user’s needs for incremental revenue goals. See the 10 ads that come before any result
Nobody has come up with a scalable metric for determining quality that can't be appropriated by SEO. Pagerank was one of the best for awhile (number sites that link to your site, weighted by their rank). Whether it be clicks, time on page, percentage of people who clicked onto the page then ended the session, etc it all gets gamed.
Like it or not, it's what the people want. The "trashy" movies, books, music, etc. all sell like wildfire, why do most people on hn think that the internet should be any different?
Since there is no competition and people will keep using Google whatever happens, might as well push the ad-filled garbage site than the ad-free handwritten blogpost. The former probably makes them more money, everything else humanity holds dear be damned.
> Not clear to me why Google has let parasite SEO become so successful
This was in response to the millions of SEOs flooding the SERPs with ever increasing amounts of low quality / incorrect / harmful AI generated content. Google didn't know how to keep the SERPs clean except over index on authority. The highly authoritative websites abused that to shill CBD oil, air fryers, mattresses, etc.
Complacency? Google has such a dominance in search that their name is used as a verb. Combine that with their culture of automating everything to an extreme degree. And the end result seems to be: search that is just good enough that people keep using it and requires little human fine tuning/curation making it cheap at scale.
Not to mention how flawed the current search tool really is. If you search for something, page 1 shows results from page 7 to some infinite number. But click on that large number, and you find out that the last page was page 3.
That was there for many years
Because Google makes money through all this. These move ads. That's all they care about at this stage. I had stated a few years back Google is dying. It will take a while and it's going to be painful but we will get over this soon. 20 years is a good run.
google search result can be shit and they will still make tons of money from 3rd party/publisher ads and youtube, cloud, gmail, atc.
It has to do with these old brands exploiting domain authority, plus buying tons of backlinks. Investopedia.com is another example of this. Google assigns too much weight to authority domains. Google doesn't actually penalize paid backlinks for old domains, I think.
One of the best things about Kagi search (https://kagi.com) is you can ban domains from search results. Forbes was one of the first I entered!
The second best feature is that you can specify rewrite rules for URLs in results, using regular expressions. The example one is the most important one for me: rewriting reddit.com to old.reddit.com.
You can disable New Reddit in reddit’s preferences. That puts old reddit back on reddit.com. No need for a redirect.
Indeed, but AFAIK you can't do the opposite (make results from certain sites show up higher in the results), which you can do with Kagi.
This should come preconfigured with pinterest and quora blacklisted.
and pinterest; scourge of the web
I had honestly forgotten it existed until you mentioned it. Thanks, Kagi!
quora is even worse
[dead]
Meta comment: I consider myself pretty adept at finding things people don't want to be found in securities filings, registration records, et cetera. The author is uniquely competent at this as well.
It's not just Forbes that is using this strategy. Many traditional media sites, including CNN and USA Today are running the same type of content. And of course they'll not report on this issue, which might just well be why Google is doing this, a kind of kickback for traditional media.
The dirty secret is those are also run by Marketplace, it’s the same team under the hood once you get past the handful of people dedicated to each brand.
The model has proven very successful and these brands are happy to lease their reputation for a cut of the profit and none of the work.
Is there a source for this?
There are 2-3 very detailed articles on how only a few media companies that own top few hundred domains have spammed SEO and hijacked top spots in search results. I made a list of block-able domains (dot dash meredith sites only). I have roughly explained how I searched these domains.
https://gist.github.com/SMUsamaShah/6573b27441d99a0a0c792431...
Just copy paste this list to UBlacklist (or other tool). Need to sit down and search and add more sites including forbes someday.
I miss the days of a searchable internet
Google basically destroyed itself when it decided to become an ad network rather than a dumb pipe you pay to access. You have to pick a base to sell to. Selling to two different bases at once (advertisers/seo and actual users) means both resent you and neither respect you.
When google gets split up the whole world will cheer.
Damn this opened my eyes to a whole 'nother world of online marketing
Actually googling some of the terms from his post and seeing Forbes up there is oddly surprising, even after reading it all.
"So we have $29M in annual revenue on an average of 3.4M searches per month in 2021." Is this real? That averages out to 40m searches, so .75 per. It seems insane to get close to $1 per search. I figured the return was closer to a penny or even a fraction of one.
When I did search (AdWords) for Thomas Cook, a now defunct but then major travel agency, we'd pay £10 or more to Google for a single click sometimes. (Full story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21046731)
Seems likely that the articles in question include affiliate links to the products they're advertising
Many types of sites get ~$1 per visitor from search engines. Quite possible, yeah.
if they are doing affiliate marketing than it's realistic
In Turkey, all searches hits to newspaper sites. Its like a sad joke. Related page is full of repetitive garbage where information is hidden somewhere.
Is this an US thing? This has to be an US thing, right? How come I've literally never seen this in the EU?
I usually search in English and find SEO spam somewhat often, but never from these brands.
Just searched "best pet insurance", am inside Europe. Forbes is #1. I distinctly recall seeing this from time to time. Interestingly they're also the #1 for pet insurance on duckduckgo.
For me in the UK "best pet insurance" is squatted by The Telegraph and "best cbd gummies" has Forbes top and The Independent second.
I assume all media companies that have a "trusted domain" and are already involved in aggressive SEO are using this as a revenue generator.
The sites that turned exclusively into link farms like about.com could be whacked by Google eventually and everyone was happy. But if they try that with well known media brands there will be cries of censorship--whether it is collateral damage to some genuine journalistic content, or Google "taking away" a revenue stream.
"best cbd gummies" is interesting for me. I get a mix of "health" and vendors with some old media brands.
I get Forbes 4th and 5th
Chicago Magazine is 9th
The Independent, Kirkland Reporter and The Observer are 12th, 13th and 14th
About 10th in the UK with that search, so probably this isn't across every geography.
> As for oversight, Forbes only has 2 board seats. And really it only has one.
It doesn't matter though. They have permission to use the name and domain, Forbes clearly knows what they are doing and why. If it wouldn't be ok with them, they'd revoke the permission (I'm not sure, but I assume they can, right?) So, yes, you can claim there is an oversight. If anything, Google's definition is a bit clunky, since it doesn't grasp the essence of the problem. But it also shouldn't matter, since it should be pretty obvious there is a problem indeed.
Now, why Google is ok with that (or didn't notice that) is another and very valid question. I mean, great, Forbes can host whatever bullshit they see fit, but then it would be appropriate for the whole domain to never appear on the first page of Google. Or second. Or tenth.
But then again, it doesn't seem like Google really tries to battle other, lesser doorways and LLM-generated content. And it's easy to see why.
Damn, didn't realise that Forbes Marketplace was run separately to Forbes itself. Knew it was always a parasite SEO operation, but the idea of it being a separate company entirely (and how much they tried to hide the fact) is really interesting here.
But yeah, it's still crazy that this site is even allowed in Google, and that they've shown no signs of cracking down on these types of parasite SEO schemes.
This is not that different from this guy who posted how he 'stole' CEO traffic from his competitor.
And it is not that different (albeit at a smaller scale) from what websites like mini partition wizard has been doing. Their sitemaps are full of articles that don't relate at all to their tool:
Just start browsing search results from the second page.
BlackHat SEO's have insiders at many of these companies that'll publish your article for $X amount of money. Or edit existing articles and insert your URL.
You don’t need an insider for you know where to just buy the link. They hang their shingle out on at least one link buying marketplace.
I suspect that's how geeksforgeeks got so dominant with their student written drivel.
It's coming for all the old "legacy" web names with strong domain ranking and decades of backlinks. Private equity is snapping them up as fast as possible, loading them with ads, and bleeding the brand dry.
Right. I get offers for my decades-old domains every day or two now.
bingo. this is 100% the reason
I’ve worked here a while. He’s a bit aggressive about it but a lot of what he says is on point.
The relationship with Forbes has always been a weird one. The understanding I’ve had was the company was spun off from an effort that kind of started in Forbes but they didn’t really want to deal with themselves.
It was always an SEO driven content strategy but for a while we had a pretty sizable content apparatus. Really big editorial teams for each vertical, a bigger cultural emphasis on the quality of the content and more collaboration across teams. The editorial teams had a lot of voice in what got published and tried to respect that we were using the Forbes brand and what that meant when we made recommendations or wrote about something. The only thing I’ll say to our (meagre) defense is there are panels of experts that are consulted for recommendations on a lot of products, and the teams that do research for the actual written content (not the affiliate/partner garbage that often takes up sponsored slots) do try and work hard to provide data to meet the demands of the SEO and BD teams.
A lot of that has changed over the years. The company has grown explosively in the time that I have been here. The company something like tripled its size last year alone. I went from being a newbie on a team of less than ten to a senior member on a team in the mid double digits in the space of a year. The culture has become increasingly bureaucratic and disconnected. We’ve always been a fully remote team but it used to be much more collaborative and cross-functional.
We don’t hear much at all from leadership. It’s always been a fairly insulated operation from one vertical layer to the other. There have been two pretty big layoffs this year which came out of the blue. Editorial teams have been gutted across every vertical and the strategy has pivoted more and more towards shovelware content and partner posts. The latter being especially frustrating because they are handled by a completely separate team from the editorial team but are formatted to look like our written content even though they’re actually sponsored posts. At a team meeting after the last layoffs the CEO answered a question about the company’s plans and said something to the effect of “if we’re not growing we are dead” which I think is obviously seen in how the company is re-shaping itself.
It’s been disappointing to say the least. I don’t think any of us ever operated under the illusion we were doing important journalism or anything, but we all seemed to strive to make something good of the system we were working in. I’ve seen and heard of a lot of things I find commendable of my co-workers. Editorial and mid-level leadership have worked for a long time to ensure a separation of biz dev and edit so that they don’t have influence over the written content. I heard of times when BD really tried to push, however indirectly, for partners to get higher rankings in content. As edit gets increasingly sidelined in the business by the SEO content teams I’m not sure how much this is being maintained but I don’t work in that side of the business so I can’t speak specifically.
All of this is to say. He’s right, we are just ultimately doing our jobs. Unfortunately, I’ve outlasted a lot of people who were hired after me, and up til the layoffs it was very rare for someone to quit. Now more and more of the people who have been here since the early days (even before me) are peeling away. Those of us who stay are seeking more and more checked out. Honestly the benefits are excellent and I think that’s what keeps most of us around but no one is passionate these days.
That was a super rambling post, but I don’t ever see anyone talking about this place I’ve been at for a while. I wanted to share some insight into our world and get stuff off my chest as it’s been disappointing to watch go down, if not all that unique or surprising.
So, Google can kill their whole business if they simply stop giving Forbes unfair prioritisation in the search results.
Sure, and Google and FB have killed businesses before by changing algorithms. But what is fair prioritization? Non-trivial Q.
And then get negative press from Forbes for the next few years! Is that something useful for Google? No, better let them keep part of the money.
> negative press from Forbes for the next few years
Who the fuck reads Forbes anymore? You seen the garbage they're shilling on their website these days?
This is not just Forbes, most mainstream media sites are using the same affiliate scheme.
I implemented something similar years ago for the publisher I worked for. Like 2006ish. It was after Katrina, I'd never had a full time dev job, and I created it as a POC to show to my employer that they could invest in me full time as a developer (I was helping put their magazines together when I wasn't working on their CRM).
I created a marketplace with finely tuned SEO for my employer to advertise (and charge) companies in niche industries. My SEO was better than the SEO of the developers who worked on their sites, and our audience was obviously much larger than theirs, so we ranked higher. Any time you would search for the company name or the product type in a certain geographic area, you'd find links to our pages dominating the search results.
One of the interesting things is the shenanigans some of these companies would pull to show up first in our local results. A whole lot of A1 and AAA names began to spring up as they decided that if the list was going to be alphabetical by default, then they needed to be the first in their category.
> One of the interesting things is the shenanigans some of these companies would pull to show up first in our local results. A whole lot of A1 and AAA names began to spring up as they decided that if the list was going to be alphabetical by default, then they needed to be the first in their category.
This well predates Google, though; it was a common trick for placement in the (physical) phone book.
This is such a big story and yet most of HN just doesn't care. It should make the WSJ though.
It isn't exactly news, though. This isn't a Forbes issue, or a Google issue. Pretty much every single large company is actively being ruined by parasites. We're dealing with a generation of CEOs / CFOs who were taught to care about nothing except short-term shareholder value. Quality and reputation doesn't matter anymore, so you replace your products with cheap garbage and hope nobody notices. When that inevitably fails, every single part of the company including its name is being torn apart and sold piece by piece, until nothing is left but an empty shell with a lot of debt.
We're intentionally ruining our economies and praising the people doing it. If the "Western" world gets economically steamrolled by Asia in the next couple of decades, we've got nobody to blame for it but ourselves.
> It isn't exactly news, though.
It's exactly news. It spots the issue, dives into it, exposes the source of it, and details the structure of how it came into existence. That's what news is. That you're not surprised by it is not material.
> we've got nobody to blame for it but ourselves.
Ironically you are the one who characterized this article as "not news."
> If the "Western" world gets economically steamrolled by Asia in the next couple of decades, we've got nobody to blame for it but ourselves.
Implicit in that statement is that only the "Western world" has that "short erm shareholder value" ethos. I'd say that is quite debatable.
> This isn't a Forbes issue, or a Google issue.
That's wrong. This is very much a Google monopoly issue.
Google has zero incentive to improve search for users since there is no competition. Google has every incentive to maximize the amount of money that search makes them.
Simply busting up companies with monopolies would fix 80%+ of the problems.
> Google has zero incentive to improve search for users since there is no competition.
Not sure I buy this. People will overwhemingly choose 'cheap' over all other qualities. Anyone providing the sort of competition to Google will have to 1) do it for free, 2) be better enough to displace users, and 3) stay in business long enough to matter. Even if you broke Google up, who would be in a position to compete with their search platform?
> Even if you broke Google up, who would be in a position to compete with their search platform?
You break Google Search out of Google and break Google Search up into two (or more) companies. Now, they have an incentive to compete against one another.
Before Google became a monopoly, SEO optimizations were somewhat restrained because something which was super-optimized for Google would generally hurt your search on Yahoo and vice versa. If the results got too shitty, people would start to switch.
The fact that switching doesn't happen anymore is prima facie evidence that Google is a monopoly.
>We're dealing with a generation of CEOs / CFOs who were taught to care about nothing except short-term shareholder value. Quality and reputation doesn't matter anymore, so you replace your products with cheap garbage and hope nobody notices.
There is a line where you really do need to compromise on quality and even reputation to keep costs down, though. If you can't or refuse to do that, you end up stagnant and irrelevant like Japan.
Customers ultimately don't care how much sincerity and effort was infused into a product as long as it's past a certain "good enough" threshold.
Yes, there's a lot of crap out there but I also don't want to pay a huge premium for everything so that it lasts a lifetime (and will probably be outdated or out of fashion long before that).
Yes, this is a big deal, but most of us have simply stopped using Google and moved on to other tools.
> most of us have simply stopped using Google
Citation needed
I just did the “best pet insurance” search and once reputable sites came up.
- US News and World Reports
- CBS News
- Forbes
- Motley Fool
The entire web is a shit show.
This man is surprised that his google results are terrible. I have to assume this is a frog boiling thing and he's only just noticed the water heating up. Having switched to Kagi years ago, I'm immediately horrified by the state of Google if I ever end up on it. It's appalling and has been for a few years now.
Try those same search terms in Kagi and you'll see Forbes at the top of the results. I use Kagi and like it a lot but you should be aware that most of their results come from Google.
You can block Forbes in Kagi search, but not in Google.
how to get rid of roaches -site:forbes.com -site:usnews.com -site:nredwallet.com -site:usatoday.com -site:businessinsider.com -site:marketwatch.com -site:bankrate.com -site:money.com -site:fool.com
Google does a lot of personalization of search results. But if you don't give it your searches, it won't know what you want. So when you come back after switching, it's much worse.
It's getting closer to the point where we will compare Google to Kagi like web-browsing without an ad-blocker. It's hell surfing the web with ad-blocking off.
Reading this comment just above your comment is funny:
Lol, guess you can't really escape. One benefit of Kagi is you can block websites from appearing. Maybe website blocking lists will appear similar to ad blocking lists. Maybe Kagi already lets you do this.
I need the author to tell me again who runs Forbes Marketplace. I assume it's Forbes. It's not?
The same thing happens every 3-5 years. HowStuffWorks, About.com (now like 10 different domains), many IAC acquired properties, RedVenture sites, even random sites like LiveStrong.com will be wildly prominent when the domains historically aren't relevant or authoritative for a given niche.
Even recently, sites like CNN were using subdomains with affiliate offers managed by third parties(1). These sites weren't being de-ranked algorithmically-- someone at Google would have to apply a manual action to remove them from the SERPs. What incentive would there be to do so if a prior agreement was in place?
Google doesn't really care about discoverability for smaller domains that may have good content. They are either being risk averse (avoiding potential spammers, junk AI content) by favoring trusted domains, favoring brands who are likely to spend on display or search ads, or maybe a combination of these.
1) https://searchengineland.com/google-begins-enforcement-of-si...
It's really frustrating. I currently want to buy a mattress and a refrigerator. The results for those are so awful as to be useless.
A lot of classic software essentially worked more like a database. In the last 10-15 years it's all moving to an algorithm.
Here is what I mean. Photos apps used to let you search through your photos using filters.
The same kinds of things are happening on the web which already happened to apps (desktop and mobile).
In the modern world, some marketing company wants to tell YOU which of YOUR photos you wanted, so they can sell you some prints, harvest your data, or something.
I would like any apps that have to do with collections of files, photos, music, etc to be more of a deterministic DATABASE and less of a nondeterministic algorithm.
> A lot of classic software essentially worked more like a database. In the last 10-15 years it's all moving to an algorithm.
You just described what I missed about the older software. Older software gives users control over sorting and show data in a tabular format. Modern software sorts data with an algorithm, with ads mixed in, and shows data in a card format, making it a lot less usable.
Exactly. My related observation: half of the SaaS products I see would be more useful and ergonomic for the user if they were implemented as an Excel sheet.
(I actually worked for one of such "better off as an .xls file" startup in the past, and its main competitor was an incumbent that sold the same stuff as an Excel extension. Trying to replace that with a React app is not a worthwhile use of life.)
Algorithms are fine. I'll happily apply the most advanced ones I can get. The problem is with who applies them to what - as you and GP said, it's about user control - or, currently, lack of.
Excel is great until it you need to do something that takes up more space than a single screen. Then it isn't.
Sending sqlite databases to the users which they can interact with using both sql and a viewer is where it's at.
> Older software gives users control over sorting and show data in a tabular format
I'm old and tend to agree, but I suspect this is similar to "you used to have a knob on the TV that showed the channel it's on".
That immediately made me think of the digital TV switchover. The elderly father of a friend of mine would spend much of his time in front of the TV, and could operate it without assistance, thanks to the simple 1:1 mapping between buttons and functions.
After the digital switchover, there was now a set-top box, and electronic program guide and three-figure channel numbers thrown into the mix, as well as stateful aspect such as whether the TV was set to AV or still trying to use its now-obsolete tuner.
For someone with poor eyesight, limited feeling in his fingers and limited ability (and admittedly willingness, too) to build a mental model of how the menus worked and how they can be navigated, it spelled the end of his unsupervised access to TV.
The big difference for me between database-query-driven and algorithmically-driven is that the latter makes it very hard to know when you've completed an exhaustive search. Indeed for the likes of meta and tiktok that's a feature, not a bug, since their goal is to keep you engaged and plugged into "their" content forever.
Not every change is for the better. You gotta admit that TVs used to be able to switch channels much faster then they do now. And analogue controls in cars are safer and better then touch screens for everything.
A lot of change is for the better, but quite a lot is a regression.
Deterministic software puts the user in control of the product. Nondeterministic algos put the products in control of the user. Naturally companies want the latter and under guises of the ‘now better’ give the user worse and charge them more. A new generation isn’t even aware they’re being fleeced because they don’t have anything to compare with. And the frog boils slowly…
This entire thread reads like multiple people circling around product opportunities. There are users out there who want control and will pay for something no-frills. You might not get big VC money to build this, but you could build this.
Reminds of Windows and search. I am not anymore even sure if there is some nice dialog where I could put some pattern and folder or list of folder and have it run through it for me...
Mattresses have been especially bad for a long time. For refrigerators, you can look at consumer reports and wirecutter--and you can reasonably do some evaluation at your local big box appliance store. I wouldn't buy based on a random web search though.
It has always felt to me that Wirecutter focuses on only one end of the Pareto curve ("what is the very best XXXX that money can buy, within reason") and ignores the middle of the curve where most people are actually shopping ("what is the best XXXX that I can get for $XXX"). It also seems to reliably ignore brands from Mainland China (Hisense, Midea, etc). I guess It makes obvious sense to court rich (or at least price-insensitive) readers.
Whether or not it started that way, yes, it makes sense to recommend brands that New York Times subscribers are familiar and comfortable with. I'll buy a GE Profile refrigerator or Bosch dishwasher. Not some Chinese brand I've never heard of and have no idea what the service situation will be with. Makes perfect sense to me and I'm in that demographic. Especially with major appliances and things I can buy at the local big box store seems to make perfect sense to not buy things you have to go to Alibaba to obtain.
It's not about being price insensitive but recommending things that are relatively mainstream and that don't seem risky, especially for major purchases that have to be installed and potentially serviced.
(Did have a service issue on my recent GE Profile refrigerator but it took one phone call and was a no-brainer.)
But you're probably right in general. Wirecutter mostly doesn't recommend unknowns it thinks are potentially bargains. Which I probably wouldn't do in its position either.
Their top pick for an air conditioner is a Midea: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-air-conditio...
Oh, I had that very model and it very quickly got moldy in places that I couldn’t easily clean. Absolutely wouldn’t recommend it…
> Mattresses have been especially bad for a long time.
Yes. Refrigerators, at least, are made by a relatively small number of companies with established brands. They have EnergyStar ratings, and there's some objective evaluation.
For mattresses, the whole industry is a scam. Mattresses actually cost about US$50 to US$80 in bulk. Search Alibaba. Almost all consumer-facing companies are resellers. Markups are huge. Essentially all the mattress review sites are paid promotions.
if there is a trial period better get cheapest and highly reviewed mattress. Even if it's a scam you get to know it within x days and can return it.
I try to buy natural materials like latex or cotton - which cannot and are not mass produced (difficult to roll and transport from across the world)
Wirecutter's gone downhill after the NYT purchase as well. The Spruce seems somewhat better (but is also part of a huge web site family, so caveat emptor)
Either you do deep research, or you find a trusted friend to advise you. The Internet is largely useless at this point.
I think Wirecutter is still a decent source; they probably won't steer you too far wrong if you're not too picky. But nothing, including your trusted friends, is an all-knowing oracle if only because their tastes and priorities are probably different from yours. Certainly pre-Internet there were few enough reliable sources of recommendations--maybe some specialist magazines but even those were far from perfect.
> or you find a trusted friend to advise you
I think there's an opportunity here for a review platform that only shows you reviews from individuals that you personally trust. "Find a trusted friend" but for the internet.
The problem with reviews from individuals (trusted friends or complete strangers), is that for major purposes they only get to deeply evaluate a single product. So they could tell you if they are happy with the fridge they bought, but they wouldn’t be able to do a detailed comparison between multiple fridges.
This will lead to you getting a product that’s good enough, but there may be a superior quality/value option that you don’t know about
Yeah, but it might be a satisficing approach. Most of us don't really need to optimize an appliance purchase, just not get screwed.
Could have been an interesting application for social networking. (Friend of a friend)^n. I’d probably trust most of my friends, and most of their friends, not to be bots. Probably want to see the links, past that.
I got a mattress last year using Consumer Reports rec for most the mattress with the least synthetic chemicals. I am not going to say its name lest it look like I am shilling for them. I will say, it has been great.
If I want to buy something like that I set an alert on slickdeals.net Like everything else it used to be better years ago, but there are still some genuine great deals and lots of insight if you’re willing to sift through the comments.
When I was looking for a fridge a year or so ago I heard that Samsung was trying to fix their bad appliance rep and quality of parts had gone up, but I went with a different brand.
There’s been an issue the last few years of fiberglass escaping through the cover on memory foam mattresses. If I was mattress shopping I’d probably still get foam, but look for one without fiberglass or find some kind of allergy cover to at least contain it.
The only signal I use is warranty. So I tend to go to Costco, and avoid Samsung.
It's not a bad idea to pair that with lawsuits related to such warranties.
Costco and Samsung are big enough that you can achieve reasonable signal.
When your local car dealer offers you a full drivetrain warranty though (assuming it's a full warranty and not one of the other ways people are often fleeced), will they honor it when the lemon they sold you breaks the first time? the 2nd? the 3rd? Will they, instead, note that most people buying that car don't have much money (or, if you used any form of dealer financing, know for a fact you don't have much money) and require you to retain a lawyer and sue them to recover any damages?
Not sure if your car example was meant to be general or specific, but Lemon Laws are extremely common across the states and are very easy to take advantage of without needing to retain a lawyer. For example, in Texas you fill out a form, pay a $35 filing fee, then bring your evidence to mediation.
It's a bit of both. Generally the idea holds. The example isn't that bad either. O(100k-1M) people have dealer-fraud related problems every year in the US, usually without happy outcomes. A few ways this might happen relating to my use of the word "lemon" include:
1. Colloquial use of "lemon" differs from the legal definition. In the given example, this might include a 15yr old vehicle (far outside any normal "manufacturer's" warranty) with numerous defects both known to the dealer and lied about to the consumer. The dealer would likely lose any civil complaint, but in Texas, and most states, this doesn't count as a "lemon." You're protected, if at all, by the fact that the salesperson warranted a thing, and perhaps any actual written "warranty" (really insurance, not that it necessarily matters) the dealer might have sold you. You usually waive the warrant of merchantability, so the fact that the car is a dud isn't enough by itself for you to have any damages (all state-specific, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction).
2. Picking on Texas, since you brought it up, if you only bring the car in 3 times for a major defect covered under the lemon law, it's not a lemon yet. If the dealer refuses to deal with you on the 3rd instance then you'll have to sue with some other justification.
3. In the vast majority of states, you don't have an automated (minus filing fees) hearing process pertaining to lemons. Even in those which do, you're much more likely to succeed with the help of an attorney. In either case, in most states, attorney's fees are not part of the damages you can claim, and when squabbling about a $5k used car it can easily cost more in attorney fees (plus incidentals like renting a car and missing work for the actual hearings -- usually not covered even in states granting damages for incidentals (including rentals and missing work in other contexts) arising from the lemon), often making it not even worth pursuing.
...
Usually, even with moderate legal protections, you don't want to enter into an agreement where you expect to have to rely on those protections. Your best-case scenario is that you waste a bunch of time and still have only as many resources as you started with. You'll usually do even worse. Why take a losing gamble?
Samsung appliances are awful. I'd rather do my own dishes or put my food in a cooler.
Having bought a mattress recently, it might be worth going to a mattress store. The sales process sucks, but if you want to find a mattress you like, it's hard to beat actually laying down on one.
It also can help you identify the kind you like (coil, latex, etc) and composition you like (layer style and thickness).
Then you just search for those two things online.
That's how I found an amazing natural latex cooling mattress online.
And the best part is that most online mattress retailers have 90 day try out periods. We didn't like our first one, and instead of having us ship it back they told us to donate it and sent us the next to try. So now we have a really nice spare bedroom mattress as well as the perfect mattress in our bedroom.
May I ask why you use search engine for buying something like a mattress or refrigerator? I dont mean to sound that as an insult. I'm genuinely curious. I or anyone I know of will just go to a nearby store and checkout these items to buy. For things like these one would already know who sells these items, even online. So why not directly checkout those stores, either online or physical?
Try naplab.
How do we know you're not an ad?
>The same thing happens every 3-5 years. [...] Google doesn't really care about discoverability for smaller domains that may have good content.
What's galling is that (ostensibly) they used to care. So much for "organizing the world's information" and "don't be evil".
Well they are certainly organizing the world's information, and continue to be incentivized to do so. Deeply. For advertisers.
I get flashbacks to the exodus of Digg, when the admins basically said "Look, we get a lot of junk content and a lot of common source content so we are going to start fast tracking the common source content from trusted providers"
We all know how that went over.
Investopedia is another one. Same for bankrate.com Other ones included wikihow and genius.com
??? I've always found wikihow superbly curated, clear, direct, readable, with simple clear diagrams and almost no fluff. At least for how-to-do guides, not buying.
Can you post a link to a low-quality wikihow article or two?
Forbes as a whole basically sold its soul for clicks. It used to be one of the three top business magazines depending on your preferences. After the web became dominant, at some point after Malcolm Forbes died, you ended up with a ton of blog writers--with plenty of biases and axes to grind--and essentially advertorial content.
One of the Forbes "contributors", Gordon Kelly, used to generate an enormous volume of posts for every single minor Apple software release, in addition to regurgitating every rumor published by Mark Gurman and other journalists.
Apparently he passed away last year, after "authoring 2,511 articles in sum and accumulating over 174 million page views in just one year, 33 million of which were gained within a single month."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmonckton/2023/10/05/tribute...
It's a really good example of why one should not name your company after your surname. At some point if you sell your company, you are putting the surname of all your descendants in the hands of some other entity outside of your/their direct control.
>It's a really good example of why one should not name your company after your surname.
That relationship can work in the opposite way sometimes. John McAfee seemed to be getting a gleeful kick out of embarrassing the security company that had invested in the right to use his name.
Usually because he was doing zany and sketchy and potentially criminal, while expertly courting media attention. But he also used that power for good sometimes by criticizing their bad products.
Jardine is still a name in trading, at least in the west, not China, where they are not fondly remembered for their 19th-century "import activities".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jardine_Matheson_%2.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jardines_(company)
For the amount of money involved, and all joking aside, you can have my first and last name. You can name a horrible flesh eating disease after me. It doesn't matter.
I get the feeling the family doesn't care while they lounge around on their stacks of cash?
I’m pretty sure in the grand scheme of things the Forbes family is still perfectly OK with the association
>I’m pretty sure in the grand scheme of things the Forbes family is still perfectly OK with the association
The writers, editors and other business partners who built their reputation by contributing to Forbes previous good reputation are probably very not OK with it
The question was whether to name it after a person or not. Those people would be equally upset if it was named Bisclock, so them being upset at the current site is not relevant to the naming discussion.
If they really care about it they can just change their name though.
The Forbes family tree or the publication?
Bit of a microcosm of the entire business world nowadays. Forbes made something - a magazine that produced enough good content to gain a reputation. In the new school of business, that's an asset, and assets are things we turn into cash as quickly as possible, so now Forbes sells CBD, and now anyone who sees "forbes.com" in the URL knows it's useless crap, but hey, someone made some money, and now they can go find the next thing to flip for a couple bucks.
I was talking to a friend about this recently.
I bought a pair of Doc Martens boots a while back. And they're shit. I remember them from the 80's and they were really solid, good leather, well made, etc. The modern ones are crappy leather and fell apart after only a few months. But they still cost a decent amount because they're Doc Martens.
My friend pointed out that Doc Martens are primarily worn by teenage girls these days, and are almost "fast fashion". My expectations based on the brand are not matching with reality, because the brand has moved on from being the de rigeur footwear for the entire 80's alternative scene.
From this, I have come up with the "reverse Vimes" theory of boots. That actually the most cash-efficient approach to footwear is to buy cheap K-mart shoes, expecting them to last for a year, instead of buying expensive branded shoes which are actually made just as badly as the cheap ones and still only last a year.
The point being that Doc Martens, like Forbes, are trading in their reputation for quality. In ten years time they will be known as shitty boots that used to be worn by edgy teenage girls, and the brand will be worthless. But the shareholders will have made significant bank from the destruction of that brand. Late-stage capitalism win, I guess.
Sure but that seems to have been predictable from:
- 2003: DM came close to bankruptcy, moved all production from UK to China and Thailand, laid off UK workers
- 10/2013: private equity company Permira acquired R. Griggs Group Limited (owner of DM brand), for £300m. Hired former brand president of Vans as CEO.
- 2019: declining quality reported for previous years
- 1/2021: floated on London Stock Exchange for £3.7 billion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Martens#History
I think that the trick is to try to find new and upcoming brands that have a reputation for quality, and learn what high quality looks like so that you can confirm personally that the product is good.
This is difficult and requires ongoing work. Fashionable young people tend to do it but I certainly don’t blame anyone who decides that it isn’t worth the effort.
This used to be what brand was all about - that you could trust the brand to produce high-quality stuff because it was a quality brand. All Doc Marten boots were well-made and solid, would last a decade at least, because it was a quality brand and the price tag came with that.
I know what high quality looks like; I wore my first Doc Martens for a decade. I trusted the brand when revisiting my youth and buying a new pair.
It seems someone figured out that the price tag goes with the brand, not the quality. So you can charge high prices for cheap boots if you put the DM tag on them. And make bank.
I think this will accelerate, and the "new and upcoming" brands will get shit at exactly the point where people like me discover them. Because, as you say, it's not worth the effort to keep up with this rapid churn.
Hence the Inverse Vimes solution: stop trying to buy quality and instead accept that everything is shit and deal with that reality; buy cheap and often.
Its not late state capitalism. Its hidden inflation. The market for actual high quality boots is much smaller than you are thinking. Including your own desire. The reality is doc martins are selling for <$180 max, basically mid-high sneaker (non collectable) territory. Actual quality boots like the doc martins of the 80's probably cost over $1000 dollars now. Are you willing to pay over $1000 for boots? Because that is what quality boots cost now.
Doc martin didn't sacrifice the brand. They realized that people would never pay $1000 for doc martins so they just jettisoned the company name by rebranding into fast fashion before they totally disappear. It was probably the only choice by the time it was decided. There were probably some missteps along the way where they may have been able to keep their prices up enough to keep the quality but they missed it.
I think I paid $300AUD for mine. I was very poor in the 80's, I would not have been able to afford the equivalent of $1000USD. I have vague memories of them costing around 80 GBP, which would be ~350 GBP now, so about half that $1K (but definitely more than I paid for them now, so your point is at least partially true).
And yes, I would be willing to pay that kind of money now for a pair of boots that would last me a decade again.
It was also kinda the point back in the 80's; your Docs were an investment. They cost decent money, but they'd last a decade and became part of your identity. Practically a physical extension of your body; I had a flatmate who regularly fell asleep in his and eventually developed trenchfoot from doing that. The boots were fine, his feet weren't. Most of my friends back in the day had one pair of shoes; their Docs. It was worthwhile investing in them because that was all you needed.
I think you're also right that the brand itself has changed and moved down-market, so they're charging less than they used to for a lower-quality product. But this is kinda my point; the brand is now being cannibalised and turned into a low-quality fast-fashion product marketed with a high-quality brand. This is obviously not going to work long-term, as people realise that Docs are now shite. As I said, in ten year's time the brand won't be worth anything.
Although Docs have almost given up making in Northampton, you'll still find a number of shoemakers producing good quality boots that should last a decade or more. You'll be paying £250-£500 as you guessed.
Well what did you expect them to do? Magazine subscriptions fell off a cliff as the Internet matured and no one wants to pay for online content.
Consumer reports that you pay for, or at least websites that have a policy of avoiding or declaring conflicts-of-interest, seem to be the reasonable middle-ground.
Some magazines have been able to maintain quality better than others. Especially if there was outside funding from someone who had a real connection/passion. I'm not sure there was anyone at the helm of Forbes who cared at that point.
fortune.com too. same thing . these brands realized they can cash in on their domain authority to create content farms full of ads. scales really well too
Fortune's case was mostly the whole Time-Life magazine empire going to the dogs partly by way of TWB. Forbes just kind of faded away post-Malcolm (and with a distracted Steven Forbes).
But, in general, the magazine and journalism businesses aren't what they were so most of the relatively mass market magazines pretty much cashed in on their brands to the degree their owners decided to keep them around.
Very good article. Not clear to me why Google has let parasite SEO become so successful. Possibly they are starved of human generated content kept to a certain quality level. But it's very strange to see sites leveraging a legacy brand to expand far beyond their expertise. Forbes is the most prominent example.
On why Google allows bad quality results nowadays:
https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/
Also discussed on HN earlier
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40133976
One of the commenters on wheresyoured seemed insightful: "wonder if organic search results being worse generates more ad clicks, as the ads are more likely to be more useful than the actual search results".
Someone once described the state of mobile gaming on Android like this. Games that are good make less money. Games that are just good enough to get you to open them but are also just shitty enough that when you hit an ad in-game, you click on it and leave, make more money.
In the short-term. But google is training a whole generation that everything they touch is shit. I know a lot of engineers who won't touch chrome if they aren't testing something. I have the same feeling about android games.
They've toxified their own markets for short-term gains.
It is astonishing to me that people click ads in general, but especially ads in a game. At least ads on websites, you were probably just mindlessly scrolling…
Google team has long given up its user’s needs for incremental revenue goals. See the 10 ads that come before any result
Nobody has come up with a scalable metric for determining quality that can't be appropriated by SEO. Pagerank was one of the best for awhile (number sites that link to your site, weighted by their rank). Whether it be clicks, time on page, percentage of people who clicked onto the page then ended the session, etc it all gets gamed.
Like it or not, it's what the people want. The "trashy" movies, books, music, etc. all sell like wildfire, why do most people on hn think that the internet should be any different?
Since there is no competition and people will keep using Google whatever happens, might as well push the ad-filled garbage site than the ad-free handwritten blogpost. The former probably makes them more money, everything else humanity holds dear be damned.
> Not clear to me why Google has let parasite SEO become so successful
This was in response to the millions of SEOs flooding the SERPs with ever increasing amounts of low quality / incorrect / harmful AI generated content. Google didn't know how to keep the SERPs clean except over index on authority. The highly authoritative websites abused that to shill CBD oil, air fryers, mattresses, etc.
Complacency? Google has such a dominance in search that their name is used as a verb. Combine that with their culture of automating everything to an extreme degree. And the end result seems to be: search that is just good enough that people keep using it and requires little human fine tuning/curation making it cheap at scale.
Not to mention how flawed the current search tool really is. If you search for something, page 1 shows results from page 7 to some infinite number. But click on that large number, and you find out that the last page was page 3.
That was there for many years
Because Google makes money through all this. These move ads. That's all they care about at this stage. I had stated a few years back Google is dying. It will take a while and it's going to be painful but we will get over this soon. 20 years is a good run.
google search result can be shit and they will still make tons of money from 3rd party/publisher ads and youtube, cloud, gmail, atc.
It has to do with these old brands exploiting domain authority, plus buying tons of backlinks. Investopedia.com is another example of this. Google assigns too much weight to authority domains. Google doesn't actually penalize paid backlinks for old domains, I think.
One of the best things about Kagi search (https://kagi.com) is you can ban domains from search results. Forbes was one of the first I entered!
The second best feature is that you can specify rewrite rules for URLs in results, using regular expressions. The example one is the most important one for me: rewriting reddit.com to old.reddit.com.
You can disable New Reddit in reddit’s preferences. That puts old reddit back on reddit.com. No need for a redirect.
If you have an account. Rewrite works always.
You can do a similar thing for Google with the uBlackList extension: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublacklist/pncfbmia...
Indeed, but AFAIK you can't do the opposite (make results from certain sites show up higher in the results), which you can do with Kagi.
This should come preconfigured with pinterest and quora blacklisted.
and pinterest; scourge of the web
I had honestly forgotten it existed until you mentioned it. Thanks, Kagi!
quora is even worse
[dead]
Meta comment: I consider myself pretty adept at finding things people don't want to be found in securities filings, registration records, et cetera. The author is uniquely competent at this as well.
It's not just Forbes that is using this strategy. Many traditional media sites, including CNN and USA Today are running the same type of content. And of course they'll not report on this issue, which might just well be why Google is doing this, a kind of kickback for traditional media.
The dirty secret is those are also run by Marketplace, it’s the same team under the hood once you get past the handful of people dedicated to each brand.
The model has proven very successful and these brands are happy to lease their reputation for a cut of the profit and none of the work.
Is there a source for this?
There are 2-3 very detailed articles on how only a few media companies that own top few hundred domains have spammed SEO and hijacked top spots in search results. I made a list of block-able domains (dot dash meredith sites only). I have roughly explained how I searched these domains. https://gist.github.com/SMUsamaShah/6573b27441d99a0a0c792431...
Just copy paste this list to UBlacklist (or other tool). Need to sit down and search and add more sites including forbes someday.
I miss the days of a searchable internet
Google basically destroyed itself when it decided to become an ad network rather than a dumb pipe you pay to access. You have to pick a base to sell to. Selling to two different bases at once (advertisers/seo and actual users) means both resent you and neither respect you.
When google gets split up the whole world will cheer.
Damn this opened my eyes to a whole 'nother world of online marketing
Actually googling some of the terms from his post and seeing Forbes up there is oddly surprising, even after reading it all.
"So we have $29M in annual revenue on an average of 3.4M searches per month in 2021." Is this real? That averages out to 40m searches, so .75 per. It seems insane to get close to $1 per search. I figured the return was closer to a penny or even a fraction of one.
When I did search (AdWords) for Thomas Cook, a now defunct but then major travel agency, we'd pay £10 or more to Google for a single click sometimes. (Full story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21046731)
Seems likely that the articles in question include affiliate links to the products they're advertising
Many types of sites get ~$1 per visitor from search engines. Quite possible, yeah.
if they are doing affiliate marketing than it's realistic
In Turkey, all searches hits to newspaper sites. Its like a sad joke. Related page is full of repetitive garbage where information is hidden somewhere.
Is this an US thing? This has to be an US thing, right? How come I've literally never seen this in the EU?
I usually search in English and find SEO spam somewhat often, but never from these brands.
Just searched "best pet insurance", am inside Europe. Forbes is #1. I distinctly recall seeing this from time to time. Interestingly they're also the #1 for pet insurance on duckduckgo.
For me in the UK "best pet insurance" is squatted by The Telegraph and "best cbd gummies" has Forbes top and The Independent second.
I assume all media companies that have a "trusted domain" and are already involved in aggressive SEO are using this as a revenue generator.
The sites that turned exclusively into link farms like about.com could be whacked by Google eventually and everyone was happy. But if they try that with well known media brands there will be cries of censorship--whether it is collateral damage to some genuine journalistic content, or Google "taking away" a revenue stream.
"best cbd gummies" is interesting for me. I get a mix of "health" and vendors with some old media brands.
I get Forbes 4th and 5th
Chicago Magazine is 9th
The Independent, Kirkland Reporter and The Observer are 12th, 13th and 14th
About 10th in the UK with that search, so probably this isn't across every geography.
> As for oversight, Forbes only has 2 board seats. And really it only has one.
It doesn't matter though. They have permission to use the name and domain, Forbes clearly knows what they are doing and why. If it wouldn't be ok with them, they'd revoke the permission (I'm not sure, but I assume they can, right?) So, yes, you can claim there is an oversight. If anything, Google's definition is a bit clunky, since it doesn't grasp the essence of the problem. But it also shouldn't matter, since it should be pretty obvious there is a problem indeed.
Now, why Google is ok with that (or didn't notice that) is another and very valid question. I mean, great, Forbes can host whatever bullshit they see fit, but then it would be appropriate for the whole domain to never appear on the first page of Google. Or second. Or tenth.
But then again, it doesn't seem like Google really tries to battle other, lesser doorways and LLM-generated content. And it's easy to see why.
Damn, didn't realise that Forbes Marketplace was run separately to Forbes itself. Knew it was always a parasite SEO operation, but the idea of it being a separate company entirely (and how much they tried to hide the fact) is really interesting here.
But yeah, it's still crazy that this site is even allowed in Google, and that they've shown no signs of cracking down on these types of parasite SEO schemes.
This is not that different from this guy who posted how he 'stole' CEO traffic from his competitor.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38433856
And it is not that different (albeit at a smaller scale) from what websites like mini partition wizard has been doing. Their sitemaps are full of articles that don't relate at all to their tool:
https://www.partitionwizard.com/news_en_sitemap.xml
https://www.partitionwizard.com/partitionmagic_en_sitemap.xm...
All these 'articles' pollute search engines.
Just start browsing search results from the second page.
BlackHat SEO's have insiders at many of these companies that'll publish your article for $X amount of money. Or edit existing articles and insert your URL.
You don’t need an insider for you know where to just buy the link. They hang their shingle out on at least one link buying marketplace.
I suspect that's how geeksforgeeks got so dominant with their student written drivel.
It's coming for all the old "legacy" web names with strong domain ranking and decades of backlinks. Private equity is snapping them up as fast as possible, loading them with ads, and bleeding the brand dry.
Right. I get offers for my decades-old domains every day or two now.
bingo. this is 100% the reason
I’ve worked here a while. He’s a bit aggressive about it but a lot of what he says is on point.
The relationship with Forbes has always been a weird one. The understanding I’ve had was the company was spun off from an effort that kind of started in Forbes but they didn’t really want to deal with themselves.
It was always an SEO driven content strategy but for a while we had a pretty sizable content apparatus. Really big editorial teams for each vertical, a bigger cultural emphasis on the quality of the content and more collaboration across teams. The editorial teams had a lot of voice in what got published and tried to respect that we were using the Forbes brand and what that meant when we made recommendations or wrote about something. The only thing I’ll say to our (meagre) defense is there are panels of experts that are consulted for recommendations on a lot of products, and the teams that do research for the actual written content (not the affiliate/partner garbage that often takes up sponsored slots) do try and work hard to provide data to meet the demands of the SEO and BD teams.
A lot of that has changed over the years. The company has grown explosively in the time that I have been here. The company something like tripled its size last year alone. I went from being a newbie on a team of less than ten to a senior member on a team in the mid double digits in the space of a year. The culture has become increasingly bureaucratic and disconnected. We’ve always been a fully remote team but it used to be much more collaborative and cross-functional.
We don’t hear much at all from leadership. It’s always been a fairly insulated operation from one vertical layer to the other. There have been two pretty big layoffs this year which came out of the blue. Editorial teams have been gutted across every vertical and the strategy has pivoted more and more towards shovelware content and partner posts. The latter being especially frustrating because they are handled by a completely separate team from the editorial team but are formatted to look like our written content even though they’re actually sponsored posts. At a team meeting after the last layoffs the CEO answered a question about the company’s plans and said something to the effect of “if we’re not growing we are dead” which I think is obviously seen in how the company is re-shaping itself.
It’s been disappointing to say the least. I don’t think any of us ever operated under the illusion we were doing important journalism or anything, but we all seemed to strive to make something good of the system we were working in. I’ve seen and heard of a lot of things I find commendable of my co-workers. Editorial and mid-level leadership have worked for a long time to ensure a separation of biz dev and edit so that they don’t have influence over the written content. I heard of times when BD really tried to push, however indirectly, for partners to get higher rankings in content. As edit gets increasingly sidelined in the business by the SEO content teams I’m not sure how much this is being maintained but I don’t work in that side of the business so I can’t speak specifically.
All of this is to say. He’s right, we are just ultimately doing our jobs. Unfortunately, I’ve outlasted a lot of people who were hired after me, and up til the layoffs it was very rare for someone to quit. Now more and more of the people who have been here since the early days (even before me) are peeling away. Those of us who stay are seeking more and more checked out. Honestly the benefits are excellent and I think that’s what keeps most of us around but no one is passionate these days.
That was a super rambling post, but I don’t ever see anyone talking about this place I’ve been at for a while. I wanted to share some insight into our world and get stuff off my chest as it’s been disappointing to watch go down, if not all that unique or surprising.
Cory Doctorow article nails it https://doctorow.medium.com/the-specific-process-by-which-go...
It is Google "do no evil" to blame.
he really never misses
So, Google can kill their whole business if they simply stop giving Forbes unfair prioritisation in the search results.
Sure, and Google and FB have killed businesses before by changing algorithms. But what is fair prioritization? Non-trivial Q.
And then get negative press from Forbes for the next few years! Is that something useful for Google? No, better let them keep part of the money.
> negative press from Forbes for the next few years
Who the fuck reads Forbes anymore? You seen the garbage they're shilling on their website these days?
This is not just Forbes, most mainstream media sites are using the same affiliate scheme.
I implemented something similar years ago for the publisher I worked for. Like 2006ish. It was after Katrina, I'd never had a full time dev job, and I created it as a POC to show to my employer that they could invest in me full time as a developer (I was helping put their magazines together when I wasn't working on their CRM).
I created a marketplace with finely tuned SEO for my employer to advertise (and charge) companies in niche industries. My SEO was better than the SEO of the developers who worked on their sites, and our audience was obviously much larger than theirs, so we ranked higher. Any time you would search for the company name or the product type in a certain geographic area, you'd find links to our pages dominating the search results.
One of the interesting things is the shenanigans some of these companies would pull to show up first in our local results. A whole lot of A1 and AAA names began to spring up as they decided that if the list was going to be alphabetical by default, then they needed to be the first in their category.
> One of the interesting things is the shenanigans some of these companies would pull to show up first in our local results. A whole lot of A1 and AAA names began to spring up as they decided that if the list was going to be alphabetical by default, then they needed to be the first in their category.
This well predates Google, though; it was a common trick for placement in the (physical) phone book.
This is such a big story and yet most of HN just doesn't care. It should make the WSJ though.
It isn't exactly news, though. This isn't a Forbes issue, or a Google issue. Pretty much every single large company is actively being ruined by parasites. We're dealing with a generation of CEOs / CFOs who were taught to care about nothing except short-term shareholder value. Quality and reputation doesn't matter anymore, so you replace your products with cheap garbage and hope nobody notices. When that inevitably fails, every single part of the company including its name is being torn apart and sold piece by piece, until nothing is left but an empty shell with a lot of debt.
We're intentionally ruining our economies and praising the people doing it. If the "Western" world gets economically steamrolled by Asia in the next couple of decades, we've got nobody to blame for it but ourselves.
> It isn't exactly news, though.
It's exactly news. It spots the issue, dives into it, exposes the source of it, and details the structure of how it came into existence. That's what news is. That you're not surprised by it is not material.
> we've got nobody to blame for it but ourselves.
Ironically you are the one who characterized this article as "not news."
> If the "Western" world gets economically steamrolled by Asia in the next couple of decades, we've got nobody to blame for it but ourselves.
Implicit in that statement is that only the "Western world" has that "short erm shareholder value" ethos. I'd say that is quite debatable.
> This isn't a Forbes issue, or a Google issue.
That's wrong. This is very much a Google monopoly issue.
Google has zero incentive to improve search for users since there is no competition. Google has every incentive to maximize the amount of money that search makes them.
Simply busting up companies with monopolies would fix 80%+ of the problems.
> Google has zero incentive to improve search for users since there is no competition.
Not sure I buy this. People will overwhemingly choose 'cheap' over all other qualities. Anyone providing the sort of competition to Google will have to 1) do it for free, 2) be better enough to displace users, and 3) stay in business long enough to matter. Even if you broke Google up, who would be in a position to compete with their search platform?
> Even if you broke Google up, who would be in a position to compete with their search platform?
You break Google Search out of Google and break Google Search up into two (or more) companies. Now, they have an incentive to compete against one another.
Before Google became a monopoly, SEO optimizations were somewhat restrained because something which was super-optimized for Google would generally hurt your search on Yahoo and vice versa. If the results got too shitty, people would start to switch.
The fact that switching doesn't happen anymore is prima facie evidence that Google is a monopoly.
>We're dealing with a generation of CEOs / CFOs who were taught to care about nothing except short-term shareholder value. Quality and reputation doesn't matter anymore, so you replace your products with cheap garbage and hope nobody notices.
There is a line where you really do need to compromise on quality and even reputation to keep costs down, though. If you can't or refuse to do that, you end up stagnant and irrelevant like Japan.
Customers ultimately don't care how much sincerity and effort was infused into a product as long as it's past a certain "good enough" threshold.
Yes, there's a lot of crap out there but I also don't want to pay a huge premium for everything so that it lasts a lifetime (and will probably be outdated or out of fashion long before that).
Yes, this is a big deal, but most of us have simply stopped using Google and moved on to other tools.
> most of us have simply stopped using Google
Citation needed
I just did the “best pet insurance” search and once reputable sites came up.
- US News and World Reports
- CBS News
- Forbes
- Motley Fool
The entire web is a shit show.
This man is surprised that his google results are terrible. I have to assume this is a frog boiling thing and he's only just noticed the water heating up. Having switched to Kagi years ago, I'm immediately horrified by the state of Google if I ever end up on it. It's appalling and has been for a few years now.
Try those same search terms in Kagi and you'll see Forbes at the top of the results. I use Kagi and like it a lot but you should be aware that most of their results come from Google.
You can block Forbes in Kagi search, but not in Google.
how to get rid of roaches -site:forbes.com -site:usnews.com -site:nredwallet.com -site:usatoday.com -site:businessinsider.com -site:marketwatch.com -site:bankrate.com -site:money.com -site:fool.com
Google does a lot of personalization of search results. But if you don't give it your searches, it won't know what you want. So when you come back after switching, it's much worse.
It's getting closer to the point where we will compare Google to Kagi like web-browsing without an ad-blocker. It's hell surfing the web with ad-blocking off.
Reading this comment just above your comment is funny:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41594450
Lol, guess you can't really escape. One benefit of Kagi is you can block websites from appearing. Maybe website blocking lists will appear similar to ad blocking lists. Maybe Kagi already lets you do this.
I need the author to tell me again who runs Forbes Marketplace. I assume it's Forbes. It's not?