Wow dumpster fire So they were doing black hat SEO, the thing that Google is most invested in stopping and monetizing it with affiliate links (which Google doesn't love). And they think removing...
Wow dumpster fire
Red Ventures has applied a ruthless SEO strategy to its slate of outlets, which also includes The Points Guy, Healthline, and Bankrate. In January, Futurism reported that CNET had been quietly using artificial intelligence tools to produce articles — part of an expansive AI-driven SEO maneuver in which generative AI tools were used to create content that could carry affiliate ads. In the wake of that revelation and resulting errors on AI-generated stories, Red Ventures temporarily paused the content and overhauled its AI policy. CNET staff unionized in May, citing the need for more control over how generative AI tools are used and how the site monetizes its work.
So they were doing black hat SEO, the thing that Google is most invested in stopping and monetizing it with affiliate links (which Google doesn't love). And they think removing indexed content is going to help them in search ranking?
And as a direct side effect they got bad press and their employees unionized.
Impressive, it's not quite Elon level foot shooting, but it's in the same genre.
You ever hear of the paperclip maximizer? I would be absolutely terrified of an AGI whose goal was to scam people or SEO. Taking over the world would be on its checklist into achieving such a thing.
You ever hear of the paperclip maximizer? I would be absolutely terrified of an AGI whose goal was to scam people or SEO. Taking over the world would be on its checklist into achieving such a thing.
My guess would be executives who think they know better. From my time working at agencies with some big clients and saw things like this happen, bad decisions like these are given a red flag but...
My guess would be executives who think they know better. From my time working at agencies with some big clients and saw things like this happen, bad decisions like these are given a red flag but if someone at the top considers a bad move good strategy, they'll go ahead with it thinking it will work out.
Generally speaking, Google’s SEO best practices should be looked at as Google’s wish list for making their lives easier, not as the most effective route to getting good rankings. I’m not saying...
Generally speaking, Google’s SEO best practices should be looked at as Google’s wish list for making their lives easier, not as the most effective route to getting good rankings.
I’m not saying that content pruning is always a good idea, but it definitely is in some circumstances, especially when you have a lot of known low quality content like CNet does with its history of thin AI generated content. There are other factors like managing crawl budget as well that can be important.
The tech news site has been ‘pruning’ older stories in an effort to show Google that its content is ‘fresh, relevant and worthy of being placed higher than our competitors in search results,’ according to an internal memo.
Wow dumpster fire
So they were doing black hat SEO, the thing that Google is most invested in stopping and monetizing it with affiliate links (which Google doesn't love). And they think removing indexed content is going to help them in search ranking?
And as a direct side effect they got bad press and their employees unionized.
Impressive, it's not quite Elon level foot shooting, but it's in the same genre.
You ever hear of the paperclip maximizer? I would be absolutely terrified of an AGI whose goal was to scam people or SEO. Taking over the world would be on its checklist into achieving such a thing.
I think the true AI will create itself or be created from a lower AI. Humans put so much bias and limitations on their AI.
Google doesn't recommend this. I wonder why CNET thinks it will work?
My guess would be executives who think they know better. From my time working at agencies with some big clients and saw things like this happen, bad decisions like these are given a red flag but if someone at the top considers a bad move good strategy, they'll go ahead with it thinking it will work out.
Generally speaking, Google’s SEO best practices should be looked at as Google’s wish list for making their lives easier, not as the most effective route to getting good rankings.
I’m not saying that content pruning is always a good idea, but it definitely is in some circumstances, especially when you have a lot of known low quality content like CNet does with its history of thin AI generated content. There are other factors like managing crawl budget as well that can be important.
They make it sound like an action they've taken.
Wouldn't sending a noindex header for these articles achieve the same thing, while keeping links alive?