That is exactly the point!

If you provide less monetisation for content creators, you end up with less content too. This is not as simple as you think…

You end up with less trash/monetization content and more content from passionate people writing about what they love/like/do for the joy of sharing.

But this does not sustain the chocolate factory.

You could reward the type of monetization that is correlated to high-quality content and penalize the type that is associated with spam.

Site offers extra paid content or services, or takes donations? Rank up. Ads? Neutral or rank down based on type of ads. Affiliate links? Rank way down.

Less content is fine when the issue is too much junk content. Content would then be created by enthusiasts instead of businesses

> enthusiasts instead of businesses

Those are more and more the same person - especially when it comes to online ventures.

We can't even answer out fucking phones because of these people and an ad blocker is pretty much a requirement to make the web even remotely usable.

They're already pushing out content to replace it with more fucking ads!

There is legitimately nothing good about them. At all.

> If you provide less monetisation for content creators

But I don't want to "consume content", I want to "get information". Most "content creators" don't provide any info. Or at best there is some info there but you have to watch an hour worth of video for the 20 useful seconds.

I don't want "content", some generic attention grabbing placeholder around which they spam ads. I don't want some professionally made lowest common denominator product designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. I want creations with heart and soul. I want to read the opinions and writings of real human beings, not corporate PR articles with cleverly disguised pitches at the end.

People who don't have enough intrinsic motivation to create regardless of financial reward probably aren't producing anything of value. That basically excludes every for profit website out there that would be "killed" by less monetization. Killing them off is a good thing.

Agreed. If content creators are more interested in getting something back (money) then they are creating something of value to society and disseminating it in a simple and clean way then I'm forced to think twice about their motives.

If you put the cart (making money) before the horse (creating value) then you are not really a productive member of society. Takers are like irresponsible children, they take without any awareness of the ramifications their behavior has on society.

This kind of attitude is similar to colonialism, an attitude representative of most of commercial enterprises today. Givers give value knowing that when they give, they receive, without any need to unnaturally focus on the end result.

Page publishers would still have the same incentive to game the system, only putting a smaller numer of ads, perhaps then more expensive and more carefully selected.

If you want to live in that world, you can today by running an adblocker. All major browsers enable you to use one. Even on mobile, vast majority of ads are easily defeated with a simple DNS-based blocking. I only see a handful of ads on Tik Tok and mobile Twitter. They're still mostly bad.

> If you want to live in that world, you can today by running an adblocker.

That misses the entire point: Google search results will still be manipulated to push those low quality results higher because even if you don't see the ads enough people do that investing in SEO is worth for those sites.

That was my point: if Google rewarded sites with fewer ads, you would get all the same manipulation and low-quality content but with fewer (but perhaps more expensive and carefully selected) ad blocks. You can have that today.

No, the reason they won't is that trackers and ads have little to do with the value of the content.

As long as there are any ads, the incentives stay the same. You're saying an internet completely free of monetary incentives would be better. I doubt that's true but it really doesn't matter, because it won't be happening.

You misunderstand, if you penalize excessive advertising then the revenue generated per page view decreases. This will reduce but not eliminate the amount of effort spent on these projects resulting in fewer such webpages.

How to unclog a toilet is always going to get SEO optimized spam. However, most topics don’t get that many views.

> the revenue generated per page view decreases

That assumption is worth reconsidering. It may be that fewer ads would just be more expensive to run and would work out similarly revenue-wise in the long run. The value of lots of ads may be diversification and smoothing out revenue, not increasing net.

If every single website on the planet had fewer ads then the new equilibrium might be roughly equivalent revenue, but many websites only have a single banner advertisement. So much of the redistribution of revenue would end up on those websites.

I use search engines for two reasons:

- to gather compressed information quickly

- to navigate the web

The first point is best served by sources that I like and trust, often authoritative to some degree. If they already have a good search (like MDN or Wikipedia) I will often use that directly or go via DDG: !mdn keyords..., !wiki keywords... If not, I type the name of the website as a keyword in front (like reddit...)

The second is really more about finding specific types of websites. For example John Smith's blog that I don't remember etc.

What I'm saying is that to fix the web, we need more sites that can act as the first point above. Whether they are wikis or not is more of a practical consideration. The point is that they don't suck and that there's not enough of them IMO.

Those sites will demand a % of sales to let anybody into their garden, while search engines demand nothing. That can work for digital products that are of unlimited supply.