▲ ▼ Hard for small companies to rank on search
It is difficult for small or new companies and independent content creators to rank on search even though their content may be truly good. It means small business lose a lot of potential revenue and exposure every year simply because they can't compete with a company that has the budget to have better SEO strategy. Existing search engines prioritize long time players because of the trust of their content, not necessarily quality content compared to a newcomer.
Hey so to breathe some life into this, we have just published an article that discusses our potential product and our approach.
I think the blog does a fair job of explaining the philosophy behind Whize, but without the actual product available these content doesn't do any justice to it. Bring out the product out even if its alpha and get users on board.
Also, the weightage for the frequency of the content gives unfair advantage for News sites.
Yes you mentioned that maybe its because the site is too new for it to pop up in the results, but obviously this site is providing some benefit to us in terms of idea discussion and validation. There must be some signal then, contextual or otherwise that can be used to pick up on this usefulness and amplify the number of people who see it to provide that growth effect and solve the issues with back-links. Basically I view the idea I proposed as search engine that would incubate novel useful content until it could compete on previous established search engines. The thought being overtime this site would graduate out of the type of results that would rank highly on what I'm proposing and the cycle would repeat with other potential solutions that someone has launched and has some useful signal again.
I agree, if a search engine is able to rank high quality over quantity without compromising the trust then it could enter the search engine space as it is solving some real problem. But, the key point to remember is that the 'customer' of a search engine is one who wants precise results and not the business which wants its page to be displayed at the top i.e. the former is served by the engine and the latter by SEO.
Also, the major search engines weren't always like this. I believe it's their constant tuning to put up with SEO and their business interests such as regularly updated content equals more ads; led to it's low quality.
You're welcome to explain about your product, how it plans to address this problem and share its link in the comment (Product promotion regarding the stated problem is allowed in the comments).
You mean the canonical link is pointing to the original post here?
Linkedin doesn't support 'rel=canonical' for user published posts, so it has 'This article was copied from the original source ...'; which supposedly was the next best option. Not sure whether Google still respects it. Ironically, Bing does give the original post at the top and so does duckduckgo.
If you don't have a canonical it will be regarded as duplicated content and the linking power usually defines which post will be considered the 'real' source. Hence Bing and DuckDuckGo bring it on top. Not sure for Google, but I would assume the same.