Google stops letting sites like Forbes rule search for "Best CBD Gummies"
Google’s move to penalize “parasite SEO” on major publishers like Forbes has reignited concerns over how search results are dominated by shallow, affiliate-driven content for queries such as “best CBD gummies.” Commenters argue that years of degraded search quality stem from misaligned incentives between advertising revenue and user needs, and some suspect Google is only acting now because of competitive pressure from AI tools like ChatGPT. Alternatives such as Kagi and AI-assisted search are cited as partial improvements, but many see the underlying problem as structural: a web and ad economy optimized for clicks rather than trustworthy, useful information.
Reaction to Google’s Crackdown on Parasite SEO
- Many say this should have happened 5–10 years ago; Google let “best X” affiliate spam dominate.
- Some doubt the impact: searches like “best CBD gummies” still surface shallow, affiliate-style articles from other big outlets.
- Observation that legacy media brands were split into “real journalism” vs SEO/affiliate arms, often run as separate commercial operations.
- Some argue Google only acted once the issue became embarrassing and widely publicized.
Search Quality, Enshittification, and Incentives
- Strong sentiment that Google search has degraded: more ads, more SEO spam, more ignored query terms.
- Debate whether this is incompetence vs deliberate profit-maximization via ad-laden results.
- Several note Google benefits from both sides: SEO spam runs Google ads, so bad results still generate revenue.
- Others say Google would prefer better results long term but is constrained by financial incentives and arms races with spammers.
Manual vs Algorithmic Interventions
- Some advocate simple, brute-force solutions: manually downrank or ban known spammy domains and their networks.
- Others recall an internal culture of “everything must be algorithmic,” resisting hand-curation.
- Current change is described as “manual action,” seen as Google finally relaxing that stance.
Role of AI/LLMs and Competition
- Widely held view that competition from ChatGPT/SearchGPT forced Google to improve results it had neglected for years.
- Some developers have largely replaced Google + Stack Overflow with LLMs, despite LLM inaccuracy.
- Others argue LLMs are not true competitors because of unreliability and lack of transparent sources.
- Concern that LLMs now ingest the same affiliate spam, but hide the underlying junk sources.
Alternatives and User Workarounds
- Kagi, Phind, DuckDuckGo, Bing, and “site:reddit.com” are common alternatives; Kagi praised but hindered by subscription cost.
- Users mention browser extensions and personal blocklists (e.g., “EasyList for search results”) and using pre-2023 or pre-2021 filters.
- Some still search via command line and raw HTTP to avoid “AI layers” and heavy JS.
Ideas for Better Ranking & Review Ecosystem
- Suggestions: downrank sites with many ads, reward readability, penalize domains that host deceptive pay-for-placement reviews.
- Proposals to use independent filter lists, or leverage Google’s own business review data to punish sites promoting poorly reviewed companies.
- Recognition that “best X” is inherently ambiguous, and that user reviews and reputation systems themselves are easily gamed.
Tangent: Stock Buybacks Debate
- Side thread equates stock buybacks with stock-price manipulation benefiting executives.
- Others counter that buybacks are a legitimate, tax-efficient way to return capital and align management with shareholders.
- No consensus; discussion remains contentious and unresolved.