seirdy.one/content/notes/on-a-more-selective-google.md

---
title: "On a more selective Google"
date: 2024-07-19T01:03:27-04:00
replyURI: "https://www.vincentschmalbach.com/google-now-defaults-to-not-indexing-your-content/"
replyTitle: "Google Now Defaults to Not Indexing Your Content"
replyType: "BlogPosting"
replyAuthor: "Vincent Schmalbach"
replyAuthorURI: "https://www.vincentschmalbach.com/"
syndicatedCopies:
    - title: 'The Fediverse'
      url: 'https://pleroma.envs.net/objects/99c2a77c-7bad-424b-840e-1e9be9377427'
---
Selectivity is long overdue. Marginalia, Stract, and Teclis feel like a breath of fresh air for broad short-tail queries because they downrank or skip pages full of ads, trackers, scripts, and even SEO. However, Google's selectivity can't penalise such criteria as that would conflict with its ad business.

Google has a bias against new sites. This makes sense, given their spam potential. I disagree with your argument that a bias against new sites is a pivot away from [Experience, Expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (<abbr>EEAT</abbr>)](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content):  it takes time for a website to become an authority and earn trust. If delayed indexing of new sites is wrong, then the problem lies with <abbr>EEAT</abbr>. I argue that <abbr>EEAT</abbr> is a good framework for an answer-focused engine, but a bad framework for a discovery- or surfing-focused engine like Marginalia or Wiby, respectively.
New note: on a more selective Google 2024-07-19 05:03:27 +00:00			`---`
			`title: "On a more selective Google"`
			`date: 2024-07-19T01:03:27-04:00`
			`replyURI: "https://www.vincentschmalbach.com/google-now-defaults-to-not-indexing-your-content/"`
			`replyTitle: "Google Now Defaults to Not Indexing Your Content"`
			`replyType: "BlogPosting"`
			`replyAuthor: "Vincent Schmalbach"`
			`replyAuthorURI: "https://www.vincentschmalbach.com/"`
syndicate 2024-07-19 05:24:33 +00:00			`syndicatedCopies:`
			`- title: 'The Fediverse'`
			`url: 'https://pleroma.envs.net/objects/99c2a77c-7bad-424b-840e-1e9be9377427'`
New note: on a more selective Google 2024-07-19 05:03:27 +00:00			`---`
			`Selectivity is long overdue. Marginalia, Stract, and Teclis feel like a breath of fresh air for broad short-tail queries because they downrank or skip pages full of ads, trackers, scripts, and even SEO. However, Google's selectivity can't penalise such criteria as that would conflict with its ad business.`

			Google has a bias against new sites. This makes sense, given their spam potential. I disagree with your argument that a bias against new sites is a pivot away from [Experience, Expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (<abbr>EEAT</abbr>)](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content): it takes time for a website to become an authority and earn trust. If delayed indexing of new sites is wrong, then the problem lies with <abbr>EEAT</abbr>. I argue that <abbr>EEAT</abbr> is a good framework for an answer-focused engine, but a bad framework for a discovery- or surfing-focused engine like Marginalia or Wiby, respectively.