Google me up a review of a mechanical keyboard that isn't sponsored, doesn't have ads, isn't on reddit, doesn't have affiliate links, and isn't trying to sell me anything.

Seems pretty useful and non-spammy to me:

Edit: This is a better example: https://www.mechtype.com/category/reviews/

Would you expect someone selling a product to give an accurate review? They have a conflict of interest. Give me a review from someone who does not have a conflict of interest.

I'll show you what I'm looking for:

https://labs.tomasino.org/mechanical-keyboards/

https://www.paritybit.ca/blog/vortex-vibe-keyboard

https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Mechanical_keyboards

https://www.vegard.net/the-ultimate-keyboard-part-2-switches...

http://boxbase.org/entries/2015/nov/30/ergodox/

Where are those types of search results?

They have links for every single mechanical keyboard they review or list. What is their incentive to give better reviews to some than others?

This is probably a better example: https://www.mechtype.com/xiaomi-yuemi-pro-mk02-review/#more-...

There are some basic economic realities underpinning why most people take the time to create content like this. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that just because someone expects to make a small amount of money from creating a review like that (with either affiliate links or buy links), that that person's opinion is inherently at conflict with honesty just because there's a monetary element. It may be true for many sites and many people, but it's pretty straightforward to parse whether someone is writing a review earnestly and passionately rather than for $.

> They have links for every single mechanical keyboard they review or list. What is their incentive to give better reviews to some than others?

Given Sturgeon's law (90% of everything is shit), why are most of the reviews 4/5 or above?

> There are some basic economic realties underpinning why people take the time to create content like this. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that just because someone expects to make a small amount of money from creating a review like that, that that person's opinion is inherently at conflict with honesty just because there's a monetary element.

I updated the post with several examples of the type of content I want you to find.

> This is probably a better example: https://www.mechtype.com/[...]

This one has affiliate links

>I updated the post with several examples of the type of content I want you to find.

The point I'm making is that I think your underlying premise, that all sites which have any kind of monetary element to them are fundamentally corrupt in terms of intention or conflict of intention, is flawed. I've now read multiple reviews on https://www.mechtype.com/category/reviews/ that are quite clearly the work of a keen mechanical keyboard hobbyist with sufficient details, knowledge and effort to lead me to believe the work is genuine and useful rather than merely financially motivated alone or spammy. There are many examples of what you suggest, and I agree that many sites with affiliate links and ad popups are disingenuous and fall much closer to the spam end of the spectrum. But there are still useful results if the user is remotely competent at parsing information. If your argument is that users shouldn't need that competence, and search engines should be kinder to less competent users in that regard, then that's a separate (and probably more interesting) conversation.

That site also has a clear affiliate disclosure along with this:

https://www.mechtype.com/disclosures/

>Paid Reviews/Sponsored Posts. MechType does NOT accept paid reviews or sponsored posts. All thoughts expressed within our reviews are our own opinions. However, MechType may on occasion accept product samples for review. When a product sample is provided for review it will be clearly and fully disclosed in the post along with the company/persons who provided the sample.

You were the one who claimed to be able to find anything on google, so I provided you with something difficult to find. Don't tell me I'm asking for the wrong thing, especially given I've demonstrated that pages matching my criteria do indeed exist.

>You were the one who claimed to be able to find anything on google

I did not in fact claim that. You are confusing me with someone else in this thread. I agree that some things are hard to find on google, but I reject the notion that anything with a financial element is fundamentally corrupt in terms of intention.

Maybe there are good actors but anytime people are spending money the market will arrange for a lot of people to try to fleece uninformed buyers, and on the internet to uninform the buyers.

Ah, my bad. My post was basically intended to call bullshit on that particular claim from the guy I responded to.

>What is their incentive to give better reviews to some than others?

One incentive would be that they earn more money through affiliate (or the company is paying them) to promote one product over the other.

That sort of question you want answered by friends or an organization you pay to represent ypu, like Consumers Union.

Why couldn't a search engine look out for the searcher's interests before the interests of the content-producers?

because you aren't paying them to do that.

> Name me one thing you struggled to find on google

Ad less pages. That provide the content without trying to monetize it.

I don't even mind ads if I get the content. What I get now however is 90% ads and 10% content, and of those 10% about half of that is actually promoted content. Oh and the ads are also spying on me and selling my information to more ads.

I recently had to research and compare analytics services for work. Type in Heap vs MixPanel and look at the results, the entire first page is garbage comparison sites. I really struggled to find any impartial, real reviews.

Reviews of recent consumer scanners with actual samples of scanned images at high resolutions.