fmaury/seirdy.one
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one synced 2024-11-14 09:42:09 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity
seirdy.one/content/notes/cnet-didnt-have-to-delete-old-articles.md
Rohan Kumar 4ee4730cb8
syndicate
2023-08-15 09:27:46 -07:00

1.4 KiB
Raw Blame History

title date replyURI replyTitle replyType replyAuthor replyAuthorType replyAuthorURI syndicatedCopies
CNET didn’t have to delete old articles 2023-08-15T09:22:31-07:00 https://gizmodo.com/cnet-deletes-thousands-old-articles-google-search-seo-1850721475 CNET Deletes Thousands of Old Articles to Game Google Search NewsArticle Gizmodo NewsMediaOrganization https://gizmodo.com/
title url
The Fediverse https://pleroma.envs.net/notice/AYlCIhRRPwoFEDB0dM
title url
The Mojeek Discourse https://community.mojeek.com/t/cnet-didn-t-have-to-delete-old-articles/703

CNET actually didn't have to delete old articles to improve ranking. If CNET simply removed those articles from its sitemap, used WebSub to inform Google (and IndexNow to inform Bing, Seznam, and Yandex) of new higher-priority pages, and maybe used robots.txt to disallow crawling of stale pages: CNET could keep old content but prioritize the crawling of recent content. Nothing I just described is Google-specific; these are all agreed-upon standards that work across several search engines.

I suppose it's easier to just delete pages, though. Less labor means fewer expenses. After all, this is the outlet that cut costs with algorithmically-generated articles.