Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Articles written for people not for search engines. I'm very familiar with SEO and you can see very clearly when article is created for ranking rather than movie readership. Unfortunately when 90% of traffic for many sources is Google you have no choice but to write articles this way.
God yes.
I’m a professional writer for a newspaper. We’re also occasionally asked to put up SEO commercial text for our advertising partners. And good god, they look like they were written by a lobotomised monkey on a malfunctioning typewriter.
Are you not called journalists anymore? Or are you just lying?
One can write for newspaper and not be a journalist. Columnist for example.
In fact, at our newspaper only about a quarter of the writers are ‘real’ journalists with journalism degrees, including myself.
From my personal experience (20 years in radio, 8 in newspapers), even most actual journalists don’t really call themselves journalists. I tend to refer to myself as a writer in general, since I also do commercial copy, I write reviews and handle all sorts of general writing and public contact.
Journalist is not a protected job title. Anyone can call themselves a journalist. Even that other poster. Because of that, I tend not to use it as a job title, since it’s been devalued a bit by everyone with a blog or vlogging channel calling themselves journalist.
I’m seriously wondering what the other poster’s point was…
Ah yes! The elusive columnist! None of those ever attended J school or are held to journalism standards. They can definitely print whatever the fuck they want without any sort of fact finding or double checking.
Having a bad day?
What are you even talking about?
"We've all been there. You want to make a large batch of cookies for friends or family, but your KitchenAid stand mixer stopped working. When your KitchenAid stand mixer stops working, it inevitably leads to frustration. This is a common problem. Fortunately, there is a solution. I'll show you a quick and easy way to fix your KitchenAid stand mixer when it stops working.
Believe it or not, the first KitchenAid stand mixer was made way back in 1918..."
This is one of the few cases where I think having an LLM bot straight up plagiarize an article is valid. They're going out of their way to waste my time, so I'll gladly have a bot lift the two sentences of the 20 paragraph article that actually answer the question.
If they want ad revenue they can make articles for humans, or they can eat my entire ass.
It's often not up to publications but up to Google though. Finally Google is collapsing and taking all that spam with them.
One of the main arguments against LLMs is that content creation on the web will dry up but 90% of content of the web is already inaccurate SEO garbage. Maybe accelerationists were right this time.