Others already mentioned chat etc and I would like to just add, Bloomberg is one of the largest electronic trading platform for certain financial products/markets (e.g. many types of swaps)
They almost certainly don't have messaging (with most investors), which is a huge reason (and facilitator) of direct trades, so I don't see how they can get around this unless Bloomberg and Refinitiv have open APIs for this.
Sadly, no. We're actually going to pay them for a bunch of their marketing tools because, as shitty as it is, customers really do respond well to seeing reviews on there and they trust them more than testimonials on our site.
I thought their prices were crazy initially, but the amount of times we hear "oh I saw your good reviews on trust pilot so we decided to go with you". Just got to suck it up and pay the toll.
That's an interesting point and I agree to an extend, but sometimes I do look for mentions of a particular feature or use case, and in those cases a review that covers those points are more useful.
So unless the review cater to me personally by covering those points, I usually prefer a more detailed review (or a large number of reviews/discussions by Googling in the hope that someone covers those points).
In my experience Reddit works quite well, when it works (i.e. when there are people to engage with you)
My current thinking is that you need the reviewers to have their reputation on the line somehow when they review something. There are quite a few options to do this algorithmically, happy to chat if it's something you are interested in too.
I think Reddit works quite well as an effective review site for products from certain brands, and in most of the brand subs maintained by independent mods, you do get a wide spectrum of views.
Spam is automatically taken care for you too (if you ignore the non-review posts).
By hyper local I mean something relevant to a small geographic region like a city or state.
To be clear, that aspect was mostly tangential to my point.
I think the point is Google is really bad at understanding web apps, online services, or really any site that isn’t information rich.
The majority of web apps for example only really need a landing page and a sign up form. But if that’s all you have Google’s algorithm is going to show zero interest. And it seems that’s the case even if you put in the work and optimize the content and provide plenty of meta data.
Imagine you own a pizza joint, but the only way Google shows your site to any of your potential customers is if you dedicate to publishing an article about pizza every month. That’s basically the boat a lot of us are in with web apps, and other online services.
> I think the point is Google is really bad at understanding web apps, online services, or really any site that isn’t information rich.
You keep using that phrase, but it doesn't select for information richness, it selects for verbiage. This is at best orthogonal and more usually opposed to information richness.
Verbiage is the result of bad copy writing and/or lazy keyword stuffing. I don’t think they select for or reward verbiage, but for sure they’re not doing enough to treat it as a negative signal.
Well not directly, but you're heavily penalized for not keyword stuffing and then passing it through an AI tool until it is 'simple to read' (ie. says what you're trying to say extremely badly five times with almost-correct words to avoid anpiece of jargon).
As a result even the content made with earnest intent to communicate has to read exactly like blogspam in order to rank.
