|
|
|
|
|
by bityard
1744 days ago
|
|
This search engine pretty much takes everything that Google is doing and does the opposite. For instance, Google has decided that "relevant" usually also means "recent". Thus, when searching for something on Google, you mainly get results from blogspam farms and almost never do you see anything more than a few years old. An implication of this is that old sites tend to disappear (either into obscurity or by being taken down) because Google penalizes them in search rankings. The author of this search engine says, however: > If a webpage has been around for a long time, then odds are it has fundamental redeeming quality that has motivated keeping it around all for that time. I don't know that I agree 100% with this (there was lots of crap on the "old" web too), but it makes a certain amount of sense. |
|
The 5th result is a tutorial on CSS. This search engine decided it's relevant because it has "dog" in the URL. Is that a better reasoning than Google's? https://htmldog.com/guides/css/beginner/
Core Web Vitals ranks sites higher that perform well. Text-heavy sites that are also optimized and relevant would already perform well.