I want to know more about why the update was pushed to every single machine online at that time, ignoring CS sensor update policies that admins use to update test network first, before updating production.
I've been heavily using ChatGPT plus every day for software development work, and I randomly took 5 questions from my ChatGPT history, and found that ChatGPT Plus was better and/or more concise than Phind. YMMV. But most of my questions don't involve a cutting edge api released a month ago.
A couple of my questions I couldn't even try Phind due to 2500 token limit. My query included code with 10,000 tokens, but Phind couldn't handle it. Lastly, the speed is slower than ChatGPT Plus, which is expected because it is paid service.
I think examine.com needs to redouble their efforts on SEO, because if I search for something like "creatine benefits" on duckduckgo/bing, which is a more raw search than google, I see examine.com is way down the list at #26. Some of the other sites mentioned in this thread are high on duckduckgo/bing (selfhacked.com #4, lifextention.com #11)
So, I think examine.com's problems could be beyond google's search algorithm/de-ranking.
www.healthline.com must be winning the SEO game because they are showing up #1 on google, duckduckgo, bing, etc.
A very simple observation is that examine.com is not using good titles for their articles. "Summary of Creatine". It is too generic, and that is causing it to be ranked lower that these other websites which have more specific titles like "Anti-Aging Benefits of Creatine" (lifeextension), or "12 Creatine Benefits + Dosage & Side Effects" (selfhacked).
So, maybe a better title. Or , because this "Summary of Creatine" article is so long, maybe you need multiple summary pages tailored to different purposes, e.g. "Benefits of Creatine", "Side Effects of Creatine", which link into the Creatine research.
I have never been to this examine.com website before, but if every article is like "Summary of X", then I would say you have a problem. You need to match your articles titles to the most likely search phrases.
Thanks for the link. I never knew they google used a manual page/site quality as in input.
I can see the effect of the site quality in the search results if I search for something like "creatine benefits". Something like mayoclinic (high reputation) is #7 on google but #13 on duckduckgo. bodybuilding.com (lower reputation) is #10 on google, but #2 on duckduckgo.
selfhacked.com is #20 on google search results, but #4 from duckduckgo
examine.com is #52 on google search results, but #26 from duckduckgo
Google also ranks high results from healthline, webmd, menshealth, gnc, mensjournal, etc.
I can see how the site quality could improve results, but the effectiveness depends on the skill and neutrality of the reviewers, which I wouldn't expect to be that good. And over time it will tend to favor big, old websites, making it difficult for new websites to gain traction, even if their content is superior.
I wish google made this "Quality Search" an option just like "Safe Search". The default can be on, but we should be able to turn this off.
The main advantage of duckduckgo is that they aren't tracking you and the ads they show are just based on the search keywords not based on a digital profile they have compiled like google and facebook.
Yea, I was running the numbers in my head as I read the article, and thinking this company is not in that bad a predicament. They look to be very close to turning the corner. Without knowing more about the business, it's hard to say if 9% month/month growth is bad or not. Some of these Saas business start out slow and then they take off once they get some critical mass.
Apps, games, better user experience. I have the same BluRay player and I would choose this over that. That said, I already have the BluRay player so there will need to be a game worth $140 for me to get this.
"WhatsApp may be "cheaper" than most rivals: Facebook paid just $30 per Instagram user at the time (the service had 33 million users when Facebook bought it, compared to 150 million today). Facebook is spending $42 per WhatsApp user.
But given WhatsApp's enormous user base, its purchase price might be a bargain compared some of its competitors."
"LinkedIn's (LNKD) share price values that professional social network at $153 per user. Twitter trades at $140 per user, and Facebook is at $123. Even at its latest $2 billion valuation, Snapchat trades at $50 per user. (And Snapchat reportedly turned down a $3 billion offer from Facebook last year.)"
This reminds me of the dot.com bubble era where prices were justified by comparing to other over inflated stocks.
I'm surprised WhatsApp didn't go IPO. With the relative lack of new tech IPOs, I could have seen WhatsApp IPO at a $50 BLN or maybe even $100 BLN valuation, after analysts hyped it up using the same analysis as above. A case can be made that WhatsApp would have kept growing much faster than Facebook and eclipsed Facebook in a few years time.
Facebook FB 69.63 +1.57 +2.3% closed positive today after opening lower. ($64.50 in afterhours trading)
