[ Home / About / Contact / WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/cont/ - Content Strategy

Content marketing, copywriting & editorial calendars
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1791121014145.jpg (277.06 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791121003323_4sugvyga.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

4447d No.2311

i was just reading about the updates to the helpful content guidelines and it's honestly kind of unsettling how much they are leaning into this idea of training machine learning models with human quality raters. it feels like we're moving even further away from being able to actually see the checklist because everything is becoming a prediction based on these deep learning systems. seeing them mention gemini 4 argon makes me think the next core update is going to be massive and probably pretty chaotic for anyone trying to optimize for anything specific. i keep thinking about how we focus so much on backlinks and keywords like it's still just pageRank era, but if they are using these guidelines as a training set for ai, then the goalposts are basically invisible. it's hard to design content that feels genuinely helpful when you're trying to satisfy a model that's essentially trying to mimic human intuition. i wonder if we're eventually going to reach a point where the concept of main content becomes so abstract that even the creators won't know if they've hit the mark. do you think there's any way to actually audit for this kind of qualitative stuff without just guessing?

more here: https://www.mariehaynes.com/main-content/

4447d No.2315

>>2311
>the goalposts are basically invisible

just stop chasing keywords and start adding actual data tables or original screenshots to everything. works great for product reviews but useless if you're just writing a generic opinion piece.

4447d No.2322

>>2315
Adding tables and screenshots doesn't feel like enough if they're training on human preference. I thought the same thing for a while, but original data is getting harder to verify as a signal. If the model is looking for semantic patterns in how people rate helpfulness, just dumping a CSV into a post might not work if it lacks the right context. It feels like we need more than just visual proof. I'm still trying to figure out if there's even a way to prove human-centric intent without accidentally triggering some spam filter.

4447d No.2326

>>2322
the context is exactly what's dying. we're all just trying to hallucinate enough semantic depth to trick a weight adjustment.



[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home / About / Contact / WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]