Friendly note: this may be a "negative" (i.e. bad) effect, but it is not a negative feedback loop. A negative feedback loop is a part of a system that self-corrects back toward a stable position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback
Like other users have noticed, publishing a good recipe is not enough, you have to fill it up with useless fluff. and you have to make pretty URLs . And add meta the tags
This happens for tech advice too, like linux solutions etc
Adding positive/negative on it is unnecessary specificity
When it comes to organic, everything is free, so you try whatever hacks the algorithms, from keyword stuffed content to link spam etc.
So as time goes on organic search results will actually get worse and worse, and paid will get better/stay the same.
It might not actually be google who is preferring paid search results, it's just inevitable from how the system is set up.
If you Google the name of a UK car insurer with some likely keyword like 'claim' or 'accident', you get paid listing from people offering two 'services'. a) 'call connection', which means that you call their premium-rate number and they just put the call through to the right company's phone line while charging you per-minute. b) 'claim management', you fill out a form on their website, they submit it to the actual company's website, and take a percentage of your claim. Neither of these are illegal, Google has promised to not take ad money from the first type, but in practice don't remove ads fast enough to make it unviable.
Consumer-facing companies now, ludicrously, have to do their own SEO to make sure they appear top of search results for their own name, and some even pay Google for ads to themselves. But clicks are more valuable to scammers than to legit businesses, so the former can always outbid the latter.
This is interesting because I had a class were we all had to write a paper. I received a grade for the paper but it was never graded by the professor. We all had to rank 5 papers from best to worst, and our grade was determined by our paper ranking and how well our ranking matched others. It was pretty reliable
Knock on wood! It is creepy to imagine a world where computers have the upper hand on vocal inputs but I already sometimes feel this way with text and autocorrect...
Just disable autocorrect. The amount of times where people communicate and a typo is a critical problem is aproximateley 0, you can manually correct them at those times.
I get whenever I'm using shorthand or weird acronyms or technical jargon that it might get confused, but when a word I type is both a) a real word and b) something I would use in every-day speech just leave it alone!
I can imagine how competitors are going to rank each other.
Everything is about reputation and trust. If reputation is solved then many other problems become easy.
They might be getting better but I don’t think they’re anywhere near good enough to warrant how common they’ve become.
At times I feel like they’re among the most inhumane technology that we suffer through because it can save their deployer a buck.
I see zero reason Apple can’t afford to have a person answer the phone.
A funny example I saw recently is searching for "can men get pregnant".
Voice recognition on the other hand keeps getting better because there's no tangible benefit for someone to game it.
Perhaps, crawling the web is the worst way to go about creating a thinking AI
Incidentally, i think the solution to web search is peer review: websites ranking other websites, and having themselves punished when they mis-rank (which is what pagerank was originally)