I don't have a LinkedIn account and don't really care about it. The one thing, however, that bothers me to no end is all the many, many times when a LinkedIn page comes up near the top of the results to a Google query, then I click on it, and chances are I don't get to the actual information, but to the LinkedIn log-in page.
Not that I think that this is LinkedIn's fault, but I assume Google's rationale is that "everybody has a LinkedIn account" so it's fine to include result pages that cannot be accessed without one.
If you like, you can block it from coming up with an extension: <a href="https://github.com/iorate/ublacklist" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/iorate/ublacklist
The problem is really the unpredictability: some LinkedIn pages can apparently be accessed publicly without a login, others cannot. But perhaps that fact alone would be reason enough to block it entirely in Google searches?
Even connections won't save you anymore. I have an account with over a hundred connections but now they want to see a government ID for whatever reason. Won't let me do anything on the website until I do.
I hate this, because that's probably a fake reason given by them.
Mercado Libre (the "latin american Amazon") did something similar to me: they said I enabled two factor authentication via ID, and blocked me from my account until I give it to them. After a lot of back and forth with support, they finally admitted that they picked random users for "some tests", and told me that there's nothing I could do about it. Maybe LinkedIn is doing something similar?
nitter.cf is a controversial one because (a) it's not real Nitter - it's an AI translation into Rust and (b) - it's run by a person who also runs a child porn site
You can use twiiit.com or xxcancel.com to redirect you to any nitter that's currently working.
I still remember the days when Google saw it as 'cloaking' when you showed different content to users and search engines. And to be honest, I'm annoyed they don't seem to do that anymore.
Like I get why they probably changed that. I suspect all the attacks from media outlets on Google for requiring their articles to be paywall free to rank in search likely had a big effect here.
But it should be simple. If you want to rank in Google, your pages should be visible to guests. If they're not, those pages don't rank at all.
Does this suggest an opportunity (maybe a business opportunity) for a service that, by crawling and scraping paywalled sites, presents to the human user what bots get to see? What if this service could somehow correlate all the socials you mentioned in a single, less horrible user interface?
archive.is, when google served cached pages you could get the actual content from the cache, not sure if other engines still serve the page they crawled as a cache.
This is one of the services the AI companies provide: presenting you a distilled, ad-free, version of the information they've scraped. At no payment to those providing it.
Back when expertsexchange was consistently in the top search results, google had instituted a rule that said that the page must show content without requiring being logged in otherwise the site would be deranked. Guess they quietly dropped that rule
kleiba2 · · focus · HN ↗
Not that I think that this is LinkedIn's fault, but I assume Google's rationale is that "everybody has a LinkedIn account" so it's fine to include result pages that cannot be accessed without one.
Modified3019 · · focus · HN ↗
kleiba2 · · focus · HN ↗
talkin · · focus · HN ↗
It is, they’re darkpatternmaxxing.
There used to be a time sites got punished if they treated searchbots differently..
giancarlostoro · · focus · HN ↗
malfist · · focus · HN ↗
TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗
poopooracoocoo · · focus · HN ↗
collabs · · focus · HN ↗
Scaled · · focus · HN ↗
collabs · · focus · HN ↗
----
Access to your account has been temporarily restricted
Why did this happen?
We take proactive actions to protect you when we detect potential unauthorized access or other activity that doesn’t comply with our policies.
What can I do next?
We first need to verify your identity to ensure your account safety. To regain access to your account, please submit a government-issued ID.
Learn more about verifying your identity.
----
refactorguy · · focus · HN ↗
Mercado Libre (the "latin american Amazon") did something similar to me: they said I enabled two factor authentication via ID, and blocked me from my account until I give it to them. After a lot of back and forth with support, they finally admitted that they picked random users for "some tests", and told me that there's nothing I could do about it. Maybe LinkedIn is doing something similar?
pmdr · · focus · HN ↗
Google is itself deep in the darkpatternmaxxing game now as well.
ozim · · focus · HN ↗
kitd · · focus · HN ↗
The answer is not to sign up to X, but to learn to suppress your FOMO. Chances are it was drivel anyway. Especially true for LinkedIn.
kshri24 · · focus · HN ↗
diegolas · · focus · HN ↗
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
You can use twiiit.com or xxcancel.com to redirect you to any nitter that's currently working.
kshri24 · · focus · HN ↗
daveguy · · focus · HN ↗
kjs3 · · focus · HN ↗
CM30 · · focus · HN ↗
Like I get why they probably changed that. I suspect all the attacks from media outlets on Google for requiring their articles to be paywall free to rank in search likely had a big effect here.
But it should be simple. If you want to rank in Google, your pages should be visible to guests. If they're not, those pages don't rank at all.
micromacrofoot · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
Telemakhos · · focus · HN ↗
akersten · · focus · HN ↗
micromacrofoot · · focus · HN ↗
CalRobert · · focus · HN ↗
throwawayffffas · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
bigwheels · · focus · HN ↗
vinyl7 · · focus · HN ↗
rietta · · focus · HN ↗