If you google “interesting podcasts”, on the first page are 3 posts on webforums from 2007, 2 from 2006, and 2 from 2009. The other results leave a lot to be desired too.
I periodically do this search because I have ran out of new things to listen to, I listen to a lot of podcasts during my work days. How can something that should be a rather common google search be 5 years old (which is forever in internet time). This is the only search I can recall on google on something not obscure at all with such awful results… I am thinking that some manipulation could be involved?
Really, Google does not know what sort of thing you find interesting, and all podcasts are probably intended to be interesting, and are probably interesting to someone. It is not a helpful search term, and is more likely to screw up your results than to improve them.
Your best bet would probably be to think of a specific topic or two that you are interested in, and Google that. If you were fascinated by raspberries, for instance, you might get good results by Googling “raspberry podcasts.”
(What! You don’t think raspberries are fascinating! :eek:)
If you consider these two points together, it makes sense. Usually someone refers to something as “interesting”–it’s not in the title. And then, the longer a podcast has been around, the more times it’s been referred to in that way. So the Google algorithm puts it up before more recent podcasts that haven’t attracted as many “interesting” references.
Add “2011” (the current year) to your terms, and that will help.
“Interesting” is sooooo 2007. Keep up with the lingo grandpa!
There was just an article somewhere (maybe even linked on the Dope) about copywriters having to let go of catchy headlines because they don’t catch Google’s eye. Trying to find it, but if it rings any bells, someone post a link.
I missed this post. I’m not stupid enough to think Google can know what I find interesting. My thinking was that it would find forum threads with titles like “interesting podcasts discussion” etc. I have never done another google search that only found such dated references. I don’t have reason to think the word “interesting” was that much more common 6 and 4 years ago than today, so I found the results surprising.
