Author(s): Tom Peters and David M. J. Williams
I'm going to vent about an odd, hypocritical dichotomy in modern search that is causing independent creators to go mad.
We’ve all seen it. Googlebot is going to crawl and index a random, throwaway site with pure automated crap, scrambled AI crap, or literal lorem ipsum text within minutes, that you can create on Blogspot.com (Blogger). The content is totally useless to a human being; but since the site is owned by Google, it gets a pass.
However, consider the other side. When an actual independent blogger, an eyewitness or a niche expert sits down to write deep, authentic, first-hand news on a platform like usc.news, he or she must battle hard just to have the page recognized by Google.
This presents a big, annoying question: Does Google really value the authenticity and usefulness of information, or is trust a purely qualitative domain authority/control of platform determinant?
Google has been giving webmasters lessons in E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). They say their algorithms are intended to reward original data and Information Gain. However, today's indexing state is the contrary. If the content is not embedded in a large corporate-scale backlink profile (or on Google's own platform), then the algorithm is of no concern at all to truth and accuracy.
With a specialized platform such as usc.news, creators are making all the right efforts. They create sophisticated author profiles, connect social media profiles, confirm identity, and share news on what they have actually experienced and lived through. It's raw and real media of humans. However, Google has a deep distrust for this real content, and it has a green light to unreadable crap on high trust and native domains.
It is as though Google has thrown in the towel on assessing content, and is now content to check its location. If you do not have a multi-million dollar corporate domain foundation, then your truth is classified as spam, while a giant's spam is classified as authority.
When the judge of the internet gives more weight to his monopoly than to true human value, how will the "freedom of content" be maintained?
So far, has anyone noticed this crazy thing about Web 2.0 slop or properties owned by Google not going through the same filters that are dumping independent journalists and bloggers? What if the algorithm gives more credit for domain weight than truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment