Just saw a mom calling out to her toddler named Molly. Hope that kid never gets lost at a rave.

Padres came to play 💀⚾️💛🤎💛 #padres #forthefaithful #lfgsd

If you have ADD 🙋🏻‍♂️ dealing with customer service via chat when the other side is slow to respond is a STRUGGLE.

Huge congratulations to @marcustober and his team at @semrush on the launch of Semrush Enterprise! A ton of brains and hard work resulting in a huge leap forward for large business SEO. businesswire.com/news/home/2…

. @aleyda When they say “No action is needed for publishers to benefit from AI Overviews.” I think they mean to say “No action is needed for publishers to get screwed by AI Overviews.”

.@brodieseo I’m happy for your client that there was a recovery. 📈 Google would tell you today (as they will always tell you) that today’s algo is better than yesterday’s—they are “always improving”. So if today’s algo is better than yesterday’s, that implies that yesterday was worse than today. If today (the latest data point in your graph) is more or less the same as it was some time ago (about spring of 2020, from what I see in your graph), it is in some sense a reversion. (I realize that under the hood much will have changed with the algo over that stretch, but the net result seems to be equivalent in traffic.) Now if your site is actually substantially better now than it was when it was “punished” (for roughly two years, it looks like), then fine. But I’ve seen plenty of sites get punished by an algo update, but then—without any material change to the website—recover completely months down the road. So the same website was punished for months by what Google would now acknowledge was an inferior algorithm (since today’s is better). 📉📈 So in those cases, what infuriates me is the (sometimes MASSIVE) damage to the business during the period of time Google’s algo was admittedly “worse” than it is today, and, from the net effect, worse than it was two years ago. Traffic crushed, revenue lost, jobs eliminated, projects abandoned, business shuttered by an "evolution" in the algo that was worse than it was and, supposedly worse than what we have today. 📉🤯

I’ve heard people defending the bolt-on coupon subdomains from publishers (like LA Times/CNN/etc, who don’t have any editorial oversight/contribution to the coupon section) by saying that (paper) newspapers have long distributed coupons. The difference, in my view, is that in the old school approach, the coupon distributors were paying for reach with the **newspaper’s** audience. This online approach is a gambit where the coupon publisher is paying for **Google’s** audience via exploitation of the news publisher’s domain authority. Big difference. It’s not like the coupon provider approached LA Times hoping that LA Times users would navigate over to the coupon section in any significant number. This has always been purely a play to exploit for the rankings boost to get more of Google’s audience. Heck, back then, the coupon provider was paying for the distribution of the coupons. The paper coupons would be delivered to driveways via the newspaper’s paperboys. But nowadays, these digital coupon directories are not even hosted by the publisher. It’s simply a DNS entry to point the hostname to the coupon provider’s servers. So equating coupons.{publisher}.com to an insert of paper coupons thrown into newspaper subscriber’s driveways is far from an apples to apples comparison. I hear the argument that if the content is good, it’s good, irrespective of where it is hosted. Probably the best solution is simply for search engines to de-value the signal boost from the association with the host website (unless the host is actively creating and managing the content), and evaluate the coupon (or whatever) directory/subdomain on its own merits solely. @Marie_Haynes @lilyraynyc @rustybrick @searchliaison

.@Pechnet I like your bio! Made me feel old though, as I can flex that I’ve been online since my Novation AppleCat II 300 baud modem. The AppleCat was the Ferrari of modem cards for your Apple ][+. It could do 1,200 baud in half duplex!