I'm really not one to care about semantics usually, but that seems like such a loaded word with a pretty standard definition, and I'm not sure it fits here.
I'm really not one to care about semantics usually, but that seems like such a loaded word with a pretty standard definition, and I'm not sure it fits here.
E.g., just this morning I was looking for advice on how to attach kitchen cabinets to drywall (not that I actually have drywall in my kitchen; I was simply curious). The experience, in common with a lot of other DIY related searches I've done recently as I work on the house, was deeply frustrating. The top result was spun to within an inch of its life, and incredibly repetitive and frustrating to read. Worse, the information was misleading to the point of being potentially hazardous if followed.
As GP has observed, the word "ruining" might be better used in place of the word "gentrifying" in this piece.
It sounds like they mean "gentrifying" in the conventional sense: quirky, cool neighborhood changes so only newly-arrived wealthy people can afford to live there, and the previous residents are forced out. The quirky, cool character leaves with them, and what's left is a bunch of Starbucks, Whole Foods, and Yoga studios, just like everywhere else.
> Alas, such rejoicing was premature. Instead of delivering us a more useful and trustworthy internet, all the “Your Money or Your Life” update did was homogenize the internet even further—and drive many of its most precarious workers into even more dire financial straits. Once-popular sites like Livestrong, whose articles were mainly written by generalist staff writers and freelancers, had to dramatically cull their lineups. A simple story about how to get rid of blackheads—the kind of quick piece that every low level content jockey has written a dozen times—now must bear the name of a Real Live Doctor to have any chance of ranking. That doctor has to have a Googleable work history, preferably an extensive one. Once the article is done, it has to be updated on a regular basis, regardless of whether there’s been a massive breakthrough in anti-blackhead technology. Above all, the article has to be “great content,” in the words of Google. What they mean by this is not exactly clear, though the company has provided 175 pages’ worth of vague hints.
> For the average internet user, this SEO arms race has made the internet both less interesting and less usable. When we want to discover whether blueberries are poisonous for cats, we have to sort through hundreds of words answering irrelevant questions like “what are the health benefits of blueberries” and “can cats eat vegetables.” When we get frustrated and try the next result down, we’re greeted by a story that looks and reads much the same as the one we just abandoned (the standard formula now is LARGE HEADER – a few paragraphs of text and a bulleted list – LARGE HEADER – a few paragraphs of text and a numbered list, ad infinitum). Here’s a quote from a doctor that feels like it was cut-and-pasted from a different interview; there are some citations from scientific studies presented largely bereft of context. Hooray for the illusion of clarity. Hooray for the death of creativity.
> the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste
In this case, it's making the internet conform to Google's taste. Seems to be an appropriate use of the term, even if in the more recent sense we think of it as displacement of people or local businesses.
But on the other hand I was click-baited into clicking specifically because of the title so it definitely drove my curiosity.
Probably getting this under a more appropriate title would result in fewer clicks.
Now In the context of SEO, when the web first started, the big scary corporations that had tens of thousands or even millions of dollars a month to spend on site optimization, only focused on specific areas of the internet. Insurance, Lawyers, general e-commerce, etc. There was a war for attention and land value in these sectors of the internet, and SEO were the soldiers of that war. But for the most part, that war stayed "over there". People that wanted to share recipes, hackers that wanted to share code snippets, families that wanted to share photos, and sites dedicated to niche hobbies all continued to live in the original frontier of the internet. Largely free and uncorrupted by the big corporations.
While SEO was competitive in main industries like law, insurance, travel, etc, it was still very easy for an enthusiast to throw up a informative website for fun in a niche of the internet and gain traction organically. They didn't need to dedicate funds towards SEO.
But over time, the "corporations" have now encroached nearly every corner of the internet. If you want to rank on a search engine for a website you made this weekend to share a fun idea to other people that might be interested, you really can't do it without leveraging one of the many platforms (ie Hackernews, Reddit, Medium, Pinterest, Facebook, eBay, Thingiverse, etc) which subsequently own your content and use it to further spread the gap between the corporations and "everyone else". This is like rich property developers that roll into a community to tear down old houses and then subsequently rent back apartments to the very people they robbed of their land.
I think there is a serious gentrification that is going on here. The only people that might not see it are those of you that are too young to remember the original internet. The original internet was magical. You could have an interest in HAM radios and build a website for fun that could gain SEO traction organically and be discovered simply because it was good and valuable content. That rarely happens anymore. There are very few, if any, corners of the internet that are that "free" anymore. Now, if you are seriously interested in sharing knowledge you either need to turn to the platforms or you need to turn your simple hobby into a sprawling business so you can dedicate funds to competing against the big guys.
Note: I use the term "corporations" here very broadly. But the truth is that 95%+ of the people reading this blog make their sole income thanks to these "evil/scary/bad corporations", so take it in stride. I am just demonstrating the idea of gentrification, which requires separating the "haves" from the "have-nots". But it isn't necessarily good or bad to be on either side of that battle. I think everyone reading this has feet on both sides of the war.