Filtering out, say, Stack Overflow or Reddit because it has ads doesn't help you when it answers your question and is perhaps the only thing on the internet that truly does.
People seem to think there's this ad-less replica of the internet, sitting right behind our ad-riddled internet, where everything they want exists for free, it's just hidden. In reality, the websites making money are the ones providing the vast majority of things people are looking for.
Use https://search.marginalia.nu if you want to severely punish ads.
Does this site (in general, not just this page) have more than 5 advertisements per page? Between 2 and 4?
Does this site attempt to load 12 trackers? "Only" 4 trackers? Just 1?
Does an AI text analysis of the first few paragraphs match on this nonsense?:
> Fixing your gadget is important. Many people find that their gadget sometimes breaks. Gadget helps us do action easier, and improves our lives. We all hate it when our Gadget doesn't work the way we expect it to. It can be frustrating. Read below for tips on how to fix your gadget. (Followed by 3 more paragraphs of filler before getting to regurgitated gems like "reboot it".
I'm sure we have the AI tech now to semantically see this bullshit and downrank it. Right? (Ok, maybe I overestimate how easy this would be. Forgive me, I'm just ranting here)
1. it's orthogonal to relevance of content (semi-solvable algorithmically I suspect) 2. it's antithetical to Google's core business model (a lot tougher nut to crack)
The entire point of my comment was that it's not orthogonal. The ads are what fuels the click bait and SEO-driven articles. Nobody for example would ever pay a subscription to a website that is just waffle filler. While stackoerflow has ads, it's much better in that regard to the SEO spam pages.
I hate ads, but I don't think we should be focusing on them here. Some sites that have ads have garbage content, and some sites that have ads have useful content. Just... find the useful content, and return it in search results. I know "just" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there, but I don't think "has/does not have ads" is as important a signal to a search engine's algorithm as you think it is.
I disagree. The way content is presented matters. Splitting an article into 4-6 pages and filling those pages with ads makes me not want to read that content. I'd much rather go somewhere that has the same text in a single page and only a few ads.
That's how the world was before Google.
They already look at things like clickthroughand dwell time and bounce back. If enough people dislike Example.com enough to avoid clicking on it or come back to search after visiting it, the engine learns that it is a bad result.
Maybe the problem is that most people like what you don't like.
This is a game as old as search engines. In 2005, it meant filtering out sites that were just lists of keywords, not coherent sentences and paragraphs. It meant for giving extra points to articles with structure, such as header tags and paragraphs, as opposed to just blobs of text. It meant using PageRank to organically discover which pages real people thought were useful.
It's a much subtler and more difficult problem in 2022, but there are also better tools to do it (big NLG models). It just seems that Google lost interest in quality control at some point.
And I would guess they lost interest in quality control because of Chrome's market penetration. Chrome is a browser monopoly at this point, and with Google being the default search engine on Chrome, they no longer have to give quality results to maintain their search user base. On top of that, they control such a large share of the ad market that any SEO spam website is more likely than not to be using AdSense. Which means they have a financial incentive to deliver page views to SEO spam sites, which tend to have higher ad/content ratios.
See: clickbait YouTube videos that show you something you really want to see in the thumbnail, then spend 10 minutes doing something else before showing it, and when you see it it’s a tiny aside with no more context than what you got in the thumbnail. If it’s even in the video at all.
Those videos have both high clickthrough (thus “click bait”) and also high dwell time (from people waiting for the thing they wanted to see to show up.) They do also have high bounceback, but only from people who recognize what’s going on. “A new sucker’s born every minute”, and those suckers will click the video and watch it, because they don’t yet know the principle that this specific kind of enticing thumbnail+title format implies that they won’t find what they want here.
These metrics all measure, effectively, “wanting” rather than “having.” It’s like measuring food by how addictive it is, rather than by how satisfied it makes you. You’ll end up optimizing toward cheetos — literally flavoured air — rather than toward anything that fills your stomach. People might enjoy cheetos while they’re eating them, but if they’re genuinely hungry, cheetos won’t solve their problem — they’ll still be hungry afterward.