Don't worry too much about fact checking

Alexion

Alexion

Banned - Shitlisted and did not do the right thing
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
1,456
Reaction score
3,803
1661722096495.png


Two articles taking the first two spots, conflicting conclusions, both bases on studies and facts.
I'm not saying post gibberish, but don't get crazy on facts also.

This is just a minor example, I encounter these by the dozens everyday.
For the example's sake, the medium article is right, as I'm testing a carnivore diet for two weeks and most of my problems went away. But that's a different story.

Point was that both use studies and facts. Yet they provide different conclusions for the reader.
How will google know the user intent was satisfied in this case? Or many other cases I've found?
 
Advertise on BHW
Facts are always facts. No way to change to that. Anxiety is purely circumstantial. So it will always depend on the tolerance of others.

For example, when I am craving sweets and is able to consume one, I will feel happy. On the other hand, when I don’t feel like eating one and forced to eat, I won’t be happy.
 
averstance said:
Facts are always facts. No way to change to that. Anxiety is purely circumstantial. So it will always depend on the tolerance of others.

For example, when I am craving sweets and is able to consume one, I will feel happy. On the other hand, when I don’t feel like eating one and forced to eat, I won’t be happy.
Click to expand...
You're talking about serotonin and dopamine, which is what you get when you eat something you crave and enjoy.
Also, we're not here to talk about health issues.

I'm saying both articles cite studies and facts.
Both can't possibly be right.

How does a search engine decide in this case if search intent was met?
 
Alexion said:
You're talking about serotonin and dopamine, which is what you get when you eat something you crave and enjoy.
Also, we're not here to talk about health issues.

I'm saying both articles cite studies and facts.
Both can't possibly be right.

How does a search engine decide in this case if search intent was met?
Click to expand...
Exactly my point, you wouldn’t just believe what I say until you have really proven it or read more about it.

As you can see, the study on medium was from a 2004 article. The one on livestrong is an updated one. So, you get it now?

Google will just show results for you. It’s up to you which one to believe. There’s nothing as oh this is the right thing, but on the other hand, it disproves this. Well isn’t it the point of fact checking? It always evolves and we all learn from it. But, we can’t take away that it used to be the fact at this point of time and an updated version comes, it is now the new established fact.

And right there and then is the beauty of SEO. We both clicked both sites.

Update: Both sites used very very good sources. Then it means you have two quality articles worth reading.
 
Search engines will work with statistics so if a fact validates in 95% of cases it would be considered valid. If another subject is split 45% sources giving a fact and 50% a conflicting fact both will be considered valid . If for the first example your content is within 95% or for the 2nd example within wichever of the 45/50% conflicting facts your content will probably be considered a legitimate source. If you present other facts you will be part of the 5% noise and your content would not be considered legitimate source and probably will not rank.
Obviously this is pure speculation as I do not have insider information but I guess this is how the search engines separate valid facts from gibberish. An interesting corelation supporting this idea is Bing's featured snippets that state below the facts something like "according to this site and 6 other sources"
Some abmormalities will get through like the 9 eyed or 4 eyed horse but statistics is about getting the best possible accuracy and not 100% accuracy
 
zet said:
Search engines will work with statistics so if a fact validates in 95% of cases it would be considered valid. If another subject is split 45% sources giving a fact and 50% a conflicting fact both will be considered valid . If for the first example your content is within 95% or for the 2nd example within wichever of the 45/50% conflicting facts your content will probably be considered a legitimate source. If you present other facts you will be part of the 5% noise and your content would not be considered legitimate source and probably will not rank.
Obviously this is pure speculation as I do not have insider information but I guess this is how the search engines separate valid facts from gibberish. An interesting corelation supporting this idea is Bing's featured snippets that state below the facts something like "according to this site and 6 other sources"
Some abmormalities will get through like the 9 eyed or 4 eyed horse but statistics is about getting the best possible accuracy and not 100% accuracy
Click to expand...
Yes, sources are king.
 
There are thousands of conflicting information on PubMed itself,
all made by scientists and people who qualify for it, but this is how science works.
In my country a few years ago people used to throw away avocados cause they are fatty and fat was believed to lead to cardiovascular disease.
Now everyone is encouraged to eat avocado cause it's full of "good fat" and it is actually a cardioprotector. (for what we may know now)
Bottom line: niches like this will always have conflicting information until our progress would be so advanced that we will know all.
So you are right don't stress out about fact check for this topics
 
Medical information on the Internet is sometimes just bullshit, you should only trust verified accredited resources, library institutions and so on
 
I know this is a funny contrast of facts presented on Google results.

One thing I want to draw people's attention to is the contrast between the two domains involved.

These are Livestrong.com, a strong health domain, and Medium.com, a publishing platform covering a wide range of topics.

There's a reason the Medium.com article is ranked lower than the Livestrong.com entry.

I suspect that as Google's EAT initiative becomes more deeply incorporated into its algorithm, user-generated platforms like Medium.com will be deprecated.
 
If you are having wrong facts on your site, it can never become authority. Any visitor who notices this will move away.
 
Of course google check facts. You just can't say *sun revolves around earth*
 
Facts are just a sliding scale of variables really, anything can swing them from one direction to the next. If you use ai writers, then fact-checking is essential for most sentences, since their deviations are wilder than a punk rockers hair do.
 
The internet is packed with conflicting facts.
Just back up your own point, that's enough.
 
Even in scientific research you sometimes have conflicting papers, studies, research results. Even if you have very high standards and do very thorough fact checking, this can happen.

But in the end, search engines have to balance quality with quantity of results, and Google has already a hard time to index everything.

That’s why I think intense fact-checking is not feasible for general search engines.
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top