this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
2094 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59559 readers
3209 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Google has reportedly removed much of Twitter's links from its search results after the social network's owner Elon Musk announced reading tweets would be limited.

Search Engine Roundtable found that Google had removed 52% of Twitter links since the crackdown began last week. Twitter now blocks users who are not logged in and sets limits on reading tweets.

According to Barry Schwartz, Google reported 471 million Twitter URLs as of Friday. But by Monday morning, that number had plummeted to 227 million.

"For normal indexing of these Twitter URLs, it seems like these tweets are dropping out of the sky," Schwartz wrote.

Platformer reported last month that Twitter refused to pay its bill for Google Cloud services.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 399 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Elon going to complain about another conspiracy going on while in reality it's just that when crawlers are not able to open a certain URL they simply assume that the page doesn't exist anymore. Google certainly didn't "retaliate", bots simply couldn't find those pages anymore.

[–] [email protected] 189 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The headline is actually wrong. Google did not do anything to Twitter. Twitter fucked up their own SEO by removing access to its content.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is correct.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's a pretty easy and reasonable conclusion to come to if you think about if for more than five seconds. I'm not sure Elon has any toes left after he keeps shooting himself in the feet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If your company cares about it's SEO rankings, you don't make changes like these without considering the SEO implications.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Not even a month later and said company rebranded itself without checking trademarks. Now we have "X", a brand that non only risks infringement of quite a few registered eu-trademarks but didn't even apply for an own eu-trademark...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Just like reddit. Looks like the Speztic and the Elongated Muskrat are caught in an ouroborus of like-minded stupidity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Just like reddit. Looks like the Speztic and the Elongated Muskrat are caught in an ouroborus of like-minded stupidity.

[–] [email protected] 125 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The latest in a seemingly never-ending series of self-owns. Apart from the stress it must put on their devs, it's been entertaining

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They have more than one dev left?

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No it's just one guy called Dev.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago

And he's on a H1B visa and can't leave.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude was just a marketing intern and is mad stressed and knows he's in WAY over his head now.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fake it 'till you make it.

Or the multibillion dollar company collapses into a heaping, flaming pile of slag as a result of your actions. One or the other.

[–] RespectfullyNo 4 points 1 year ago

It’s a win/win

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They screwed up his name tag, because reasons.

His name is actually Dave. But there aren't any other Dave's working there anymore so he is ok with being called Dev.

Deb on the other hand is pretty pissed off.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Or maybe it's this guy, Dev from a canadian tv show called The Listener. They called the hacker 'Dev', I'm assuming it's on purpose.
https://thelistener.fandom.com/wiki/Dev_Clark

[–] cyanarchy 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My understanding is there's group of people whose visa is sponsored by Twitter. If they leave the company, they may well have to leave the country.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a big yikes and I hope they will find another way...

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Coercing workers built America! They can't leave... because of the implication.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, he lives in the break room on a cot.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Twitter’s dev(s)

[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 year ago

Crawl issues I am sure but also user experience issues. Google is sensitive to sending visitors to sites where metrics indicate users do not, like bounce rates etc. I don't use twt but if it is the case you have the be logged in to see anything now, a non-logged in user will click a link from Google hit a login page, and use the back button. I would assume Google will see that as a bad search result and use it less.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

The word bots triggers the muskrat.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder if Google prioritized recrawling all those Twitter links.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If I were making a web crawler, I would make it so that if a crawler finds a domain that appears to have changed dramatically or gone offline it will re-crawl the domain and flag already-crawled pages as potentially obsolete.