I don't see how SEO is to blame for this. Shitty publications will always write inaccurate, linkbait headlines...or "eye-bait", before the Internet existed.
This gives an opening to sites that put real work into their editorial content. Unless I'm trying to get a gauge of some random non-heavily-promoted product (like earphones) that I find on sale...I will always go to a trusted site for review. Life is too short to parse through random reviews from untrusted parties as it is, even if none of them are "fake" reviews.
EDIT:
Here's an example. DPReview is almost always the last major reviewer to cover a camera. Yet they are at the top of the search results for pretty much every camera they review
> don't see how SEO is to blame for this. Shitty publications will always write inaccurate, linkbait headlines...or "eye-bait", before the Internet existed.
The difference is that since Adsense everyone has become a publisher. Just go to your favorite freelancing site and see how many "projects" are there for badly written content.
Right...that's my point. DPreview is a site that should've been killed off by the SEO tactics listed. They typically publish weeks/months after the competition. Yet because they are so reliably comprehensive, they still get the traffic/links to maintain their search result dominance.
This gives an opening to sites that put real work into their editorial content. Unless I'm trying to get a gauge of some random non-heavily-promoted product (like earphones) that I find on sale...I will always go to a trusted site for review. Life is too short to parse through random reviews from untrusted parties as it is, even if none of them are "fake" reviews.
EDIT:
Here's an example. DPReview is almost always the last major reviewer to cover a camera. Yet they are at the top of the search results for pretty much every camera they review
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&source...