Hacker News Reader

> FWIW, I opened "CNN underscored money" and at the top of the page it says: "Content is created by CNN Underscored’s team of editors who work independently from the CNN Newsroom.

You are effectively saying 'what's the big deal if they admit it'. The big deal is that that's not what they're admitting. CNN Underscored is a separate team within CNN, running an in-house content farm, and that's what they're admitting to. CNN Underscored Money is an entirely separate company, running a third-party content farm, which they are going to lengths to hide the separation from CNN Underscored.

Google's TOS permits you to run terrible content farms. It even permits you to rehost third-party terrible content farms with zero oversight. But it does not allow you to claim this content as your own and hide its third-party origin, if you rehost it with zero oversight.

>"For some unfathomable reason, CNN agreed to a deal. What the fuck CNN? You’re CN fucking N. What in god’s name convinced you this was a good idea? And you already had a ramped up affiliate program. I say again: what the fuck CNN?"

Anytime I hear outrage rhetoric i lose all interest in the author's words.

Its like they have completely forgotten what relativity is.

What would you consider the relative element in this scenario that explains the decision then? Or was your point simply that emotive language automatically discredits a speaker's point?

My eyes read it as reality. I think it fits too.

The problem is that Google defines what these sites are doing as spam: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-po...

> Site reputation abuse is when third-party pages are published with little or no first-party oversight or involvement, where the purpose is to manipulate search rankings by taking advantage of the first-party site's ranking signals. Such third-party pages include sponsored, advertising, partner, or other third-party pages that are typically independent of a host site's main purpose or produced without close oversight or involvement of the host site.

It means that consumers will be shown reviews written by affiliate marketers rather than real people because the affiliate marketers get to leech off of Forbes's, CNN's, or USA Today's domain reputation. Despite this, Google is either unwilling or unable to derank major sites over this issue.

RE "...with little or no first-party oversight or involvement..." and "...without close oversight or involvement of the host site..."

Why do you think there isn't oversight or involvement from CNN?

For the CNN Underscored Money example, none of the writers or editors on the site work for CNN. They're all contractors who work for Marketplace, an affiliate marketing company. The site is hosted on completely separate infrastructure from CNN Underscored, just skinned to look similar to it. They even have a different privacy policy just for CNN Underscored Money. If CNN had major oversight or control of the content on CNN Underscored Money, you would think they would host it themselves rather than allowing an affiliate marketing company to independently operate the category.

> They're all contractors who work for Marketplace ... The site is hosted on completely separate infrastructure from CNN Underscored, just skinned to look similar to it. They even have a different privacy policy just for CNN Underscored Money.

But those things have nothing to do with whether or not CNN has involvement and oversight over the CNN underscored content.

I have no idea myself, but you certainly can't infer it from irrelevant facts.

Absolutely, spot on. These publishers aren't just letting anyone post. If you actually check, the writers are legit experts in their fields.

Take a look at the authors and their LinkedIn profiles—they’ve been covering these topics for years

Which of these authors have LinkedIn profiles documenting their employment history?