Why are online recipes so long-winded?
jjpryor.substack.com
jjpryor.substack.com
Luckily it's also one of the only cases where a microformat is actually nigh-universally used. Outside a few sites where the "fluff" isn't fluff and is actually good content itself (e.g. Serious Eats) I just throw the URL into Paprika 3 (no affiliation, and there are tons of other programs and probably some browser plugins to do the same thing) and let it strip it down to the ingredients and instructions by reading the microformat markup. Works flawlessly nearly every time.
[EDIT] Credit where it's due, I'm also pretty sure the microformat is only popular because of Google. I think they downrank sites in recipe searches if Google can't "see" the recipe, using the microformat. They may be both the cause of, and solution to, the problem.
Like how select cuts of beef slow roasted with veggies and served on a bed of glazed hand cut potatoes.
Is more appealing to a potential cook than cut beef in a slow cooker with some wedges.
I think the reason Google wanted microformats is for Google Assistant recipe answers.
Umami has Chrome/Firefox extensions that you can use while on desktop, which will sync your recipes to the app. Disclaimer: I built it :)
^ Colors in that space only just recently started getting supported by displays/browsers. And while p3 colors work in css on Safari, I had to use a single-pixel background png to make it work in Chrome.
But yes, you are right, as far as native apps go. FWIW, I just got an Android test phone so I can start on that version, should be ready in a few months.
1. Import from other recipe apps.
Recipe apps and sites have a finite lifetime. Its great that you already support export, but import from others would be great. Pepperplate for example is sqlite on android. Other apps might be harder, eg the New York Times recipe box. But without import, its hard to commit to a new system.
2. Cooking mode
This is a mode that avoids that situation where you are following a recipe and need to manipulate your phone but you cant because you have hands covered in flour/chicken juice or whatever. Voice control would be awesome too: "scroll down", "set a timer for 20"
3. Notes Some place where you can comment on the recipe, like "use peanut oil not canola"
Thank you
> 1. Import from other recipe apps.
Definitely agree. A couple days ago, someone asked for a Paprika recipe importer, which I've added here: https://www.umami.recipes/paprika-import I'll have to take a look at Pepperplate and NYT recipe box (though, you can already import any NYT recipe link!).
> Voice control
Love this idea.
> 3. Notes
There is indeed a notes section! Though I'm guessing you mean inline comments, like google docs style?
On 3, notes can either be for personal use (eg in Cozi's recipe handler) or a shared conversation in a recipe (like what the NYT does). I feel the former is more important, but your users might have different opinions.
This works great for things like StackOverflow posts where you can quickly judge if the answer is correct, and if it's not, you can quickly bounce. It's not great for recipes, which are almost always "correct" (in that they are a recipe of the type you're looking for), so spending longer probably just means you scrolled for longer.
Regarding context-switching: that's even more of an outlier! The vast majority never worries about that, and from my experience even among knowledge workers, that's rare.
I don't think most online recipes are "correct", especially chili recipes that call for Heinz baked beanz. Wut?
So, for me, a recipe can indeed be correct or not. My definition of "correct" is narrow, though -- if it produces a dish I enjoy, it's correct. Otherwise, it's not.
longer times on a page means longer enagement == more ads revenue.
is it possible that google is incentivizing longer engagements via adwords by using search priority that ranks by average time spent on page?
http://microformats.org/wiki/h-recipe
But it looks like there might be one or two others active in the wild.
Google presents what its customers (people doing searches) want to see, so shouldn't we ask the people who click the results that make it to the top (whether they leave the page dissatisfied or not is a different story, right?) over and over?
What incentive does Google have for prioritizing succinct quality posts versus blogspam posts? What incentive does Google have for prioritizing blogspam posts over succinct quality posts? Why is it the way it is if we're talking about the unsponsored (not paid) organic results?
As a blogspam author, why do you want people on your page? To get more AdSense views/impressions? You typically aren't selling anything on a website that gives away free long-winded recipes (so conversion rate/cost per click/paid advertising isn't really a concern?)
Google presents what it thinks people want to see, which it infers based on some number it can collect, like time-on-page, or scroll depth. The argument is that its proxy metrics for "the user liked this" are ill-considered, especially in this particular context.
Even when Google acts like a rational actor, it is not an oracle. It rationally optimizes an observable metric, which may or may not correlate to its actual goal.
1. You can’t copyright a recipe
2. You can copyright the text of a long winded story which contains a recipe
Any recipe site which did not contains stories would have no defendable intellectual property
https://copyrightalliance.org/are-recipes-cookbooks-protecte...
I suspect the real reason is what the author of the post claims – Google sends more readers to articles with lots of fluff.
> This food blogger wrote about an experiment she conducted. She listened to some of her readers and actually tried just putting the recipe up top before everything else. All of the articles in her experiment went lower in the rankings.
But the copyright is part of the equation and it deserves a mention.
Also, part of google rankings is manual quality review, familiarity, etc. if a recipe site strongly diverges from the normal form it can confuse readers or quality rankers. The lack of copyright to a degree has influenced the form that is now industry standard.
Can I patent a recipe?
The simple answer is no. While it is technically possible to obtain a patent on certain recipes, the likelihood and rate of patents being granted for recipes is so low that it is almost pointless to try and obtain one unless you own a chain of restaurants or are looking to franchise your business. The effort required to protect intellectual property, such as a secret recipe or cooking process, is so great, and there are so many hurdles one must clear, that the ends hardly justify the means.
https://www.webstaurantstore.com/article/57/protecting-your-...
And let's not even get started on how you'd enforce it. How many restaurants would let you in to observe them cooking?
I'm guessing it's legally possible, but in practice it's probably not even close to being worth the effort.
> Any recipe site which did not contains stories would have no defendable intellectual property
The reason the site exists in the first place is for the recipes, and that intellectual content is not defendable.
Merely copying the recipes in a popular cookbook would not make for a bestseller.
Plus who really cares about individual recipes from randomblog.com, they rarely have anything new, just the 50000001 re-publishing of a traditional recipe.
It's also objectively a harder to follow recipe (i.e. a worse one).
But that isn't even what recipe sites too. Open up google search type in a dish name and hit "I'm feeling lucky". I just did it for "mushroom Alfredo", you won't believe what happened next.
- The first thing below the subtitle is a "Jump to recipe" button.
- What gets jumped is 6 screen widths of rambling interspersed with highly produced photos, 3/4 of which are clearly advertising shots for the company that sponsored this particular recipe.
The fact that the very first thing is a "jump to recipe" button indicates to me that even the author knows that you (the reader) want the recipe and not whatever they're about to ramble about. So why include it then? It's certainly not about copyright, the author is actively helping you not read it. The conclusion that makes the most sense to me is that the text is there to a) sell as advertising space for food-related sponsors and b) for SEO (go read through the sentences, each one seems crafted to hit on a different reason why someone might search for this recipe).
> Merely copying the recipes in a popular cookbook would not make for a bestseller.
It's true, but slap a celebrity's face on the cover, ghost write (or even chatgpt) a few hundred words of intro before each book and BAM you have a stereotipical book in the cooking section.
Instead I bought a used 1950's Betty Crocker cookbook from a used book store, beats Google every time.
how many recipes for tiger are there, anyway? i can't really see it working in place of squirrel except maybe in sausage and Squirrel Surprise
Pork for example in the 50s was way, way different than pork today--in the 70s and 80s pork producers decided pork had a bad reputation and bred pigs to be leaner with less fat so it would be sold as healthy food (remember the slogan, 'Pork: the other white meat'?). So if you had pork chops in the 50s they were much fattier and better tasting, almost like steak, vs. what you get today. A tomato meat sauce from that era might have you just use fat pork chunks instead of beef and if you make that same recipe to the letter today you'll just get dry nasty shredded pork.
Another example is jello and aspic. In the 60s jello was new and turned into a fad to make aspic-like dishes, basically meat inside a rich and hearty congealed fat. If you look at cookbooks of that era you'll see all kinds of horrifying things like tuna fish in jello--it was novel at the time but now a curiosity.
Old cookbooks are fun but IMHO I would stick with stuff from recent decades.
The editions from 30 years ago already had changes and guidance related to the changes in the way pork is raised/bred/produced. All those Aspic & gross molded meat recipes were banished from mainstream cookbooks 40+ years ago too.
The internet recipes certainly don't take this kind of thing into account. Lots of them are bad versions of recipes that were plagiarized from famous cookbooks, which changes that don't make sense or issues that you will discover if you follow the recipe.
Many of these recipe blogs are not interested in quality of the recipe, just quality of the SEO and getting their ad dollars. They are also certainly not interested in keeping the recipe healthy since they are probably not actually making the food from the recipe and eating it.
You can do far better with an actual cookbook. I think the actual recipes on the internet are probably all just content farm nonsense. ChatGPT is probably really useful for writing the nonsense stuff at the top of the blog that helps with SEO!
Betty Crocker cookbook is what this whole comment thread was about. I trust you realize there is a very big difference between Joy of Cooking, a book written by the late Julia Childs, and The Betty Crocker Cookbook, a book written by a fictitious person invented by a giant corporation to market and sell their processed food. Please read and comprehend before you reply.
Julia Child had nothing to do with writing the Joy of Cooking.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Sit down little man.
As long as the recipes use standard measurements (i.e. no "knuckle of butter" type measurements) you are in great hands with Betty Crocker manuals and Joy of Cooking. Also, Julia Child and Jacques Pepìn are not from recent decades. It is difficult to overstate how terrible your advice here is.
I don't think you know what you're talking about, lol. At least recommend someone that exists and has legitimately good advice and history like Julia Childs and The Joy of Cooking.
Edit: in regard to your rambling point about changes in food production and popularity of dishes falling out of style, my 2006 edition of Joy of Cooking has 8 recipes for aspics and savory mousses (like lobster). The recipe for turtle soup calls for 1 pound of canned or thawed turtle meat cut into 1/2 inch chunks. Please stop invalidating others' exploration into topics you speak so authoritatively of from a position of ignorance.
Lurk more before you post.
Did anyone here suggest otherwise? It's just a brand name. Big deal.
Betty Crocker's Bail by Clare Fader and the Vaudevillains - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpwhW_RrNOc
Mrs. Betty Crocker is going to jail
Her chocolate brownie cake mix is looking mighty stale
Good ladies of the city are having a bake sale
Raising necessary dough for Betty Crocker's bailGran might have used index cards in a box, I use a 3-ring binder, you might use a Wordpress installation on a vanity domain. Doesn't matter.
The Betty Crocker is a great starting point for a wide variety of dishes. America's Test Kitchen released a book with 100 recipes that covers a wide variety of basics. I have a copy of "Real Stew" that is invaluable. All these go on a shelf as reference, to be transcribed into your own recipe book as you choose.
Tasting history with Maximilian
And I've never recommended it to anyone but I bet if someone enjoyed your comment as much as I did they'd enjoy that channel!
This is why I really like Food Labs. This cookie recipe is the most famous example: https://www.seriouseats.com/the-food-lab-best-chocolate-chip...
They bake hundreds of cookies with different quantities of ingredient to show the effect that each ingredient has in the baking process. So now not only do you know what somebody's recipe is, but you also know exactly how to modify it to suit your own tastes.
There's no optimal way to prepare food. Once you've found a recipe that you enjoy, save it, remix it, and share it with someone else. If a 1950s cookbook works for you, that's great, but you'd be missing out on a lot of good food if you only follow recipes from a single, static source. Maybe even that meandering blogger is worth reading; otherwise there are many tools out there that could extract just the gist for you.
When I was in my 20's I was able to teach myself how to roast a turkey by looking it up in the index and then doing exactly what the book said. Ditto for the Candied Yams, which I still get compliments on. Every single recipe was tested in a kitchen similar to what an average household would have had at that time.
https://www.bonappetit.com/story/vintage-joy-of-cooking-cook...
No ingredient list, no measurements, no temperatures, no times. Good luck.
* 10 mins of nonsense and irrelevant background into how great you are
* 10 mins of setup
* 10 mins of drama build-up
* 1 min of the actual event
* 10 mins of closing comments
https://archive.org/details/dhatukatha-pts/182706089-Udana-a...
Furthermore, the structure of what is considered good writing feeds into this: state your point in the introduction, state your point in the body, and restate your point in the conclusion of the article. Reminds me of television shows that recap what you saw prior to the 2 minute commercial, just in case you forgot what you were watching 2 minutes ago.
News, blogs, recipes, shows, instructional videos... all pretty much blow chunks. Any time I simply want straight forward information it becomes a matter of frequent fast-forwarding and combining of info from disparate sources when it shouldn't be necessary. Get. To. The. Point.
Should every site be twitter? Hell no. But is it a good thing that one or two major social media sites demand brevity and distilling your thoughts? Yes.
A different thing, certainly. An interesting thing, probably. A good thing? Just because something is different and interesting doesn't mean it's good. Twitter exists as a site on the internet, which is probably the most charitable thing that deserves to be said about it.
[0] https://plainoldrecipe.com/
[1] https://plainoldrecipe.com/recipe?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spen...
I'd say that well over half of the random Internet recipes I try aren't very good, have been developed with bad techniques, use the wrong flavors, try to fix flavor issues by adding more flavors and so on. Using a vetted site (the America's Test Kitchen recipes are also quite good) gets me ~98% success.
I'd rather take the extra 5 minutes of time to look through how the recipe was created and tested to make sure it's a good recipe than spend a couple of hours making an unknown recipe with a 50/50 shot to not be terrible. YMMV.
Their gluten free baking concepts in their cookbook are like a decade ahead of most of the gluten free products you can buy at the store. Crazy stuff.
And what was nice isn't that I made something amazing, it's more that I made something that was good, and wasn't our usual fare. It's not something I would normally have done.
The internet is pretty decent at that. If you've been cooking long enough to read a recipe and just take a few ideas here and there, I find it very helpful.
But it's been a long time since I pulled a recipe from the internet and carefully made it exactly as described. There's a lot of people with tastes quite different than mine, and somewhat more judgmentally, there's a lot of people out there with no taste posting their recipes. On the Internet, nobody knows you have the culinary tastes of a dog.
The nice part is it lists the recipes with a summary of their ingredients so its pretty easy to get ideas without having to delve into the actual recipes themselves.
More practically, the longer a piece of content appears to be, the more opportunities to stuff ads into it without appearing like a cash grab.
Google does definitely reward users for including micro-slash-schema based content though, so the recipes themselves are likely included on the page in a parsable json+ld format, which is great for ingestion by apps like Paprika (which many others have mentioned.)
The good news is that there are rumors that Google is moving away from whatever content-based system they may or may not have been using before, and towards a "helpfulness" system for ranking pages -- basically, how directly did this article address the search question that took you to it as the answer.
This should prefer direct, concise answers (e.g., "2+2 = 4" vs "2+2 starts with the history of numbers, which are of course ciphered numeral systems originating with the Egyptians")
Time will tell how accurately that can be measured, or what wild gamesmanship will occur as the result of it.
And most people don't start blogging as a purely educational activity, but rather as a way of expressing themselves. As a result, they aren't necessarily thinking about optimal user experience like a software business would.
I had a coworker who had a food blog and she would fill each post with ramblings like all the rest do, but it is because she wanted to tell her story of why that particular meal was important to her. And if you were to ask her in person about a meal or what she likes to cook, she would talk in as much detail since that was her passion.
The default of assuming everyone is a bad actor is growing rather tiresome. Not to mention, these people didn't need to share their recipes at all. And we aren't compensating them for their work. We just complain.
[1] https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-protection-recipes/
I was glad the OP article didn't mention that theory.
I actually really believe that reason #1 in the article was the origin -- people actually liked reading the stories. When recipe blogs were new, and there were fewer of them, it was common to actually check back on the blogs and see if they had posted new content. I used to follow a number of recipe blogs, including Orangette, which I really liked, and would both read her stories and try her recipes. She (like similar bloggers) developed enough of a following that she was then hired by the Times to write similar recipes and stories.
Heck, speaking of the Times, or other newspapers, they almost always intro a recipe with a story of some kind. This is not just for copyright reasons, but because people actually read them. (e.g. [1])
This audience is different from the one who just googles "Meatloaf recipe" and clicks on the one with the most stars. When you do that, then no, you generally don't want to hear the "life story." But maybe some readers do read it, it connects with them, and then they actually go back to that same site again.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/dining/citrus-salad-almon...
The TEXT of a recipe is, at least to the extent it is minimally creative.
A lot of the recipe blogs that originated this form of long-winded stories leading into the eventual recipe have regular readers. Many of those readers aren't looking for specific recipes at any given time they are looking for the stories first. Those stories are the real content to those regular readers. (And regular readers with their recurring ad revenue/demographics are the ones that pay the bills, ultimately, not "went searching for a specific recipe" utilitarian users.)
This isn't even a new phenomenon in recipes pop culture, because food TV shows learned this decades ago. Most cooking shows break down into two categories: competitions (which mostly never even give recipes) and "lifestyle" shows that may include recipes but just as much include the "celebrity chefs" chatting as much about who they are and what is going on in their lives and storytelling why the recipes in question were of interest in that moment as much as the details of the recipes themselves.
This isn't even an isolated phenomenon to recipes. It is common, modern parasocial behavior. You could look at something like Twitch as a utilitarian resource to see gameplay or learn tips/tricks, but obviously nearly every stream is full of streamers chatting about their day while they wait for game lobbies or in between other parts of gameplay and whatever tips/tricks they may have to impart. It's the parasocial "human interest" that builds the biggest and most reliable parts of their audiences (and in turn most of their revenue).
There are a lot of reasons people complain about it a lot more with recipe bloggers than Twitch streamers.
You aren't wrong to feel "outrage" as that external random visitor with no interest in the blog except for one single random recipe, but you aren't the target audience, sorry.
All the long winded recipe bullshit just keeps you on the page longer before you realize the recipe is crap.
It's primarily driven by ads. I know, huge shock there. A lot of people might assume it's purely an SEO play and while that's true to an extent, it's mostly for the ads.
The best recipe website on the internet.
Is the best and doesn't rank on Google specifically because it doesn't do what this article talks about.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/recipe-filter/ahlc...
You no longer have to read the author's diary entry and this entire hyper-optimized workflow doesn't cost you a cent. Perfect, right?
Well, I suppose that in these AI times ultimately the effort of even asking the question would be redundant, obviously Google knows Wednesday is your chili day, and your fridge had already ordered the ingredient.
There's just one problem: what about the recipe writers? What about artists? What about anybody ever producing any content of monetizable value?
What incentive is there to produce content when users never pay directly and middlemen aggregate it, removing you from the equation? You, the person that created the bloody thing. It's like you don't even exist.
This isn't just big tech, we have an active role in this. When users do not have to pay, they generally won't. Digital content has no value yet we obviously have the natural born right to consume it anyway.
You should ask Google that. Because they're the one actually monetizing. It's like a money printer with everybody's content as free fuel.
I didn't say everything needs to be monetized. I'm saying that there's content that requires to be monetized (otherwise the content will simply not be produced) and content where the producer will attempt to monetize it because they believe it has monetary value.
Surely it's up to the content producer to decide on monetization and not you. If you believe a recipe is worthless and not worthy of payment, yet then still continue to consume it regardless by bypassing any attempt at monetization, you're a hypocrite.
Either it is worthless or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Or well, on the internet you can, and that is exactly the problem.
Don't take it as a personal attack. Our internet culture is hypocritical. It's a WE thing and I include myself in it. The internet we have is of our own making and our own behavior.
Th primary reason being generating long form has become so cheap with AI that it has essentially rendered it worthless.
Its the LMFGTFY or whatever the acronym for "let me google that for you" brought to ChatGPT topics.
If, for example, as already seems to be the case, the news becomes nothing more than someone else generated algorithmic fluff mixed with censored propaganda that somehow ends up with lower trust metrics than actual email spam, why do I need someone to make that for me, just ask for my own copy. The future will not be CNN trying to lie to you and sell you stuff, it'll be the AI directly lying to you and trying to sell you stuff, CNN will no longer be a provider of value. Or MSNBC or Fox or BBC or your choice of propaganda outlet.
The other side problem is if you want culinary excellence today you'll eventually find guidance to buy "modernist cuisine at home" or similar technical cookbooks or maybe some old Alton Brown TV show memes, but search engines are required by corporate to have total randos provide opinions about page quality and needs met that are going to be uneducated and thus generic/bland and are designed to select inoffensive bland middle of the road content, not excellent recipes. What appeals to children more, an animated skinner box / loot box paradise designed to attract their attention and lure them in, or a calculus textbook? If corporate goal is to maximize the former you'll get more of the former, but what if the latter is the only way to learn calculus? Well, you aint going to learn calculus, thats for sure.
How AI / ChatGPT will avoid bland normie ignorance is an excellent question. How to provide bland middle of the road answers to bland middle of the road questions is essentially a solved problem; how to cook the best hamburger possible cannot be handled by that subculture where groupthink conforming to average blandness is the primary criteria enforced.
Shortform, straight to the point recipes. Just ingredients and steps. No ads. No life stories.
Also I have to mention this http://www.cookingforengineers.com/
I've come to prefer this method because it's effectively the opposite of searching for recipes. Here's a curated list of meals you can make, pick one. I'd recommend a used book store, if possible. You'll probably get some random Grandma notes in the margins for substitutions / modifications.
I find it fascinating that "pro cookbook" level recipes exist, but you'll NEVER find any mention in those three dumpy areas. You'll never see a copy of Modernist Cuisine at a used book store, much like those stores never contain contemporary, useful, high quality computer science / IT books...
There's sort of a market for lemons out there where the widely held belief that competition will make great products simply does not apply. Just turn on a TV for another example, LOL.
Perhaps the last two, but the cookbooks I use have been pretty great. YMMV, of course.
Like, a clean website about how to reverse sear a steak has maybe like 5 sentences and other clean websites write it the same for 90% (how many ways can you explain it?) but a website full of fluff has 200 sentences that are more original making the content look unique while they still describe how to reverse sear a steak.
IANAL
I once looked for a beetroot soup recipe and was dumbfounded by the crazy spices and preparations required for something so simple. I always found that I never had the ingredients so I went ahead and tried to come up with the recipe myself.
It makes me wonder how much actual knowledge is now buried or hard to find in the age of the internet. The irony of it all.
Maybe it's because all the recipes seem to be concentrated on a handful of big websites with thousands of recipes, which fits with part '#3. It’s a business' of the article.
pihole works decently well to stop ads from loading on mobile, speeding up the site and avoiding janky movement of the copy as ads load in.
"SEO. Google favors longer pages with unique content. If you just put the recipe it would look just like every other recipe on every other page".
This is a tired, old complaint made by people who don't actually ever cook or read recipes, they just want to shop AI solutions / flog their 'innovative' start-up / write about a different topic entirely but draw readers in initially with a 'kids these days' tone.
However, the specifics of reasons have basically nothing to do with the trend of tech evangelists making the same tedious and inaccurate arguments again and again. In this article, the blogger decrying the practice links to a recipe blogger who's already covered the same ground more efficiently; this isn't even hot air.
'Why do tech bloggers always use this outdated example to pad things' is a better and far more original question.
Recipes can be protected under copyright law if they are accompanied by "substantial literary expression." (https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html)
> However, the registration will not cover the list of ingredients that appear in each recipe, the underlying process for making the dish, or the resulting dish itself.
[query site:.edu] gives me the base of any recipe I need, mostly without the fluff.
The reason is SEO; this is Google’s fault.
(I am not affiliated with it)
there are lots of avenues for monetization but it's a crowded space and hard to build all these features in and gain momentum.
If you already know the basics on how to cook it's great. Quick fire ingredients and methods with visuals to back it up, I can absorb an entire recipe in less than 30 seconds.
I have an account dedicated to recipes and they algorithm is pretty good and will pretty much only ever show me recipes or similar nutrition based stuff.
More real estate for you to scroll through for display ads?
I agree, though. It's why I try going to websites run by people who make their money elsewhere. Like Food Network.
There IS a lot of text, but it's mostly explaining how they tested and derived this recipe, and what the alternatives are. You can always skip to the end.
BBC Food BBC Good Food Cookpad The odd The Guardian recipe (which are full of fluff)
I'm sure others can point you to other sites that just have recipes.
2. Keywords and content for SEO
3. Some bloggers plan on compiling their posts into a cookbook
There’s an iOS shortcut and chrome extension to reliably get rid of the life story. Hope it’s useful. :)
- aren’t infected by “Woke” theology (ie. accurately reflects the source material, not someone’s belief-based constraints)
- prioritizes the sources that most succinctly explain the desired topic
- And, sounds least like something generated by an LLM!
The main difference being that those anime articles seem entirely generated from templates.
That's it. Done. No need to read another article about it.
Long live public service media!
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/9281931?hl=en
I suppose you could have a "conspiracy theory" level argument that Google publishes what it claims it will do only to turn around and do the opposite, but that seems unlikely.
Unfortunately if you publish guidelines that you'll promote pages that are not auto-generated DB dumps, and prefer pages that promote the idea the author put in a lot of effort and is highly authoritative and E-E-A-T and all that you can read in the guidelines, you're going to get generic recipes wrapped in a VERY thick blanket of fake filler, good enough to fool the average reader (whom doesn't read very well) but ridiculously inadequate compared to where the pros and semi-pros operate.
/thread
1) Chili is a dish most closely associated with the southwestern United States.
2) Among the most important cultivars of that region, dating back thousands of years, are: peppers, maize, squash, beans. This combination provides a complete mix of nutrients for a healthy diet.
3) Therefore, adding all those ingredients to chili in some form or other is entirely justifiable, as well as being historically accurate.
Meat, on the other hand, is entirely optional.
It not hard to believe that native people dumped some of the earth's best vegetables into a pot and let them steep, but, I can not find _any_ support for your claim.
I genuinely hope you enjoy your historically-accurate, bean-laden chili, but now I am suspicious; I know that LLMs can not really enjoy the richness in any chili.
Meanwhile the ad sales platform is going to define a "good recipe" as one that results in high click thru on ads they have contracts for.
And add a side dish of the people doing the rating of how good the page is, specifically have zero skill in the field and are going to have intense normie middle of the road bias because on average they don't know anything.
If you magically crowdsourced the averaged opinion of average folks about the General Theory of Relativity in 1900, would that result be useful and have beaten Einstein before he wrote it in 1915? The AI people think so; especially the ones who's paychecks depend on it; personally I have my doubts.
No one in this comment thread made any claim of any recipe or particular chili recipe being "good".
Your summary is confusing to me, because whatever the "normie middle of the road" idea we are supposedly now discussing does not have anything to do with what I said or had asked questions about.
Fun fact, chile colorado translated just means colored red chile.
Edit: I fixed some typos.
Conversely, if you do want to use regular searches and recipes from internet sites, the Paprika app [0] is amazing. It will download and parse the recipes and get rid of all the BS. You can then sync recipes between devices and people as well as manage grocery lists and meal plans based on the recipes.