It can get frustrating skimming through text walls just to find the recipe on blogs/sites. Authors do it to get high ranking on Google.
You can use OnlyRecipe.app to extract the recipe information. It works on almost all sites/blogs which follow a recipe standard when they post.
You can also save it to your phone directly using the app. Scan recipe QR code using your phone camera and voila.
Yes in a copyright sense. Recipes are also separate in a technical sense too because for SEO purposes publishers use markup to help crawlers understand recipes.
Spending time writing user-hostile recipe for SEO purpose, then someone else building an app trying to undo this and finally the end user spending time installing app, scanning QR code and going back to the original user-hostile website because the app didn't get milk quantity. Now I'm too tired to cook anything.
Technology companies selling a solution to a problem created by technology companies instead of coming together to fix the original problem. This is the world we live in.
The original problem is that people want to Google for recipes and not pay for them.
As a cook there are several solutions to this:
1) pay for a subscription from vendors who are in business to sell recipes, such as Cooks Illustrated
2) get recipes from companies that provide them as a complement because they sell something else, generally food-related products. For instance King Arthur Baking has good recipes, and many are available from food companies such as Tyson, Kraft, and Betty Crocker. Grocers also have many recipes. These sources aren't interested in spamming users with ads because the website is one big ad.
3) Buy cookbooks, they're not expensive.
But yeah as long as people want to crank search terms into Google and get "free" stuff, it's going to be ad-infested, and then other ad-seeking folks are going to run their shakedown operations just like the adblock extensions charge money to advertisers to let their ads through.
Hi, currently there is nothing of this sort. The user agents are random. I have a couple of servers doing the scraping in real-time. The IPs are not static.
Let me see if I can build a opt-out list. But wouldn't it beat the entire purpose of this app?
You should just declare your bot as a user-agent. Most publishers won't even bother to do it, but leaving a publisher an option is the correct etiquette for any bot. Random user agents is cloaked scraping.
They're full of shit, though. Crack open the Better Homes & Gardens cookbook and find a cookie recipe, then search for the same recipe name online. You're going to find 1000 word essays about Dear Meema's Secret Snickerdoodle recipe... followed by the same damn recipe as the BH&G cookbook.
This is an anecdote which clearly does not cover all cases. I think the presumption is that cooking sites are nothing but spam, but the fact that so many high-profile cooks complained about this perviously shows that this is not the case and that their livelihoods would be affected by apps like these.
Wrong, "foodies" are about to get eaten alive by people sick of their shit. The only people complaining loudly about that were the people propagating the BS. I certainly don't see any complaints from users mentioned in that article.
If your business model relies on people scrolling past a bunch of filler to get to a short list of instructions, be prepared for people to get tired of it and solve the problem.
Agree. Their business model isn't a business model. A recipe to the audience we're talking about is worth...nothing. So you're building a business model on something that has near-zero value. And try to still get some value out of it regardless:
"Essays meanwhile allow bloggers to make money off search engine optimization (or SEO, which scans the essays for keywords and relevant search terms) and ads allow the blog to remain free for readers."
So here they openly admit to the hack. This entire fraud is one app or google algorithm tweak away from being annihilated.
It should be seen as a side job with expectation zero, any money is a bonus, not something you do to "feed your family". I mean, read this rant:
Feedback: visiting recipe pages, such as the one bearjaws shared, using Safari[0] can result in you being "trapped" -- the back button doesn't have the desired effect. It looks like onlyrecipe may be doing something to the web history.
Their web import feature, while not always perfect, does a good job of stripping these things out. And this service has synching between native apps on various platforms.
Agreed. Probably the best recipe app around, just for the built-in browser that lets you grab any recipe from a site. I think I've run into one instance of a site that it couldn't scrape, out of hundreds.
Maybe keep ads so that the bloggers can keep their current revenue stream. As someone who loves this idea, all I care about is easy access to the recipe. Its ok with me to have not too intrusive ads.
The site is back up, although it now seems to contain exclusively "free" recipes (i.e. coming from CC sites and old books).
IMHO there are ways to make recipe-scraping resistant to copyright claims.
1. hide all scraping actions behind a login page; that makes content private, hence uninfringing.
2. every time a user "publishes" or shares content, present only an extract of the recipe, like the ingredients and first few steps; expanding the extract sends you to the original site (ideally to the specific anchor of the procedure).
Private as in a single user getting stuff and saving it in their own account, not resharing anything. That's not infringement, or rss feed aggregators would be infringing too.
But it’s even more complex than that. The stories are personal. They’re cultural. They’re often told from the perspective of women, immigrants and people of color who have created and invested in a platform to share their stories. The recipe aggregator sites, bloggers note, basically tell the creators that their stories have no value. It’s the same message America has told immigrants and women for centuries, now just in electronic form.
I think that may be taking it too far, particularly since Google effectively created this entire syndrome.
I’ve got to be honest: those stories hold no value to me. That’s the truth. I don’t know why the WaPo wants those us who are like me to pretend otherwise.
It's weird how you go from "to me" to "wants us." Surely you can imagine that people might be interested in history and stories around food.
I personally don't give a shit about mathematicians and scientists personal lives, but I don't have a problem imagining those who do. I think the numbers say it all. Others think that the examination of every detail of the person who wrote the numbers first might give them some insight into how to create more numbers.
In my experience, traditional English usage there would use context to replace "us" with "those of us like me". But since clearly that is not the case, I have replaced it so it is no longer 'weird' to you.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you polled recipe searchers, the vast majority (>66%) would say that they don't want the story. In fact, I'll back that. If you're in San Francisco, I will bet $1000 against your $1000 that this will be the case and we can equally bear the price of running this. An associate will contact you if you're up for it.
Bloggers who are putting care into their work typically write more for the people who follow them than for the randos who drop in from a Google search. What do people who subscribe to foodie Patreons care about? The people who have a list of bookmarked recipe blogs? What about people coming from Instagram posts who are drawn in by a beautiful photo, what are they hoping to see? Why are we establishing a framing that the people who should be most catered to are the people who care the least about the cook and their work?
I don't think we are establishing a framing where the randos (folks like me) are of prime importance - merely establishing a framework where they exist. The WaPo piece speaks against recipe aggregators who simply strip the recipe down to ingredients and algorithm. i.e. I am fairly comfortable with recipe websites writing long-winded stories for their audience while alternative apps strip those down to ingredients and algorithm. It appears that the WaPo writer opposes the existence of the latter.
The story writers don't have to write for randos, but I (a rando) rather enjoy the stripping tool. So I think I'm going to install OnlyRecipe.app and if OR's author is pressured by WaPo-like folks to shut down, I'll probably write my own since parsing that schema is trivial.
And I have a day job in HFT so I can't be shut down. After all, no one can boycott me or my products.
I agree with this. These app don't take anything from the experience of people who want to read these asinine stories -- it just helps the folks that are there for the ingredients.
If this gets shut down I would love if a general, open-source solution could be developed to spread the capability. A generic Python recipe parser that anyone could hook up to a front-end. If the apps proliferate at a high enough rate they can't all be shut down.
> while alternative apps strip those down to ingredients and algorithm.
So what you want is for recipe developers to have their work scraped, stripped, and presented outside of its intended creative context and revenue generation mechanism, and while other people may think this is unethical, they can't stop you so that makes it fine.
If Google changed their algorithm to rank recipe sites by efficiency (ie less narrative is rewarded), I bet the recipe developers would change their sites overnight. I suspect the main audience for the stories is the GoogleBot.
No. What makes it fine is that the user agent is my tool to read content that servers send me so it is free to display or not display sections of the content using whatever formatting I desire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_algorithm#Newton%E2%8... is interesting but I wouldn’t want Google Sheets to display it in a modal every time I hit the “/” key. A recipe needs a very high signal:noise ratio when it’s going to be followed in real time while food is cooking.
That's why it's all in one place on the screen at the bottom of the post, so that when you have decided you should cook it, you can just leave it there to look at.
Same. Usual routine is, "Hmm I think I'll make some buttermilk biscuits". I google it because I want to make them. I zero in on how basic the ingredients are (simpler the better for some things), maybe how many "stars" it has, or if the site is reputable.
But rarely do I go on a narrative stroll where I happened to stumble on a recipe that I decide I might make some day.
I don't think it is taking it too far honestly. Even if it can be a bit jarring to see it written out like that. Part of trying food from other cultures/countries/families is getting to see how their history is reflected in the food they prepare. I read cookbooks to get a feel for a place, even if I don't plan to cook everything in the book. Or more correctly couldn't.
The complexity is imagined. It's not complex at all. People using Google for a free recipe are looking for...the recipe. If they were looking for stories from immigrants, they would have googled that.
I mean, this is true. But it’s weird being in the center of that raging fire. We were worried about getting sued personally (there were lots of threats) and or having our family or work brought it into it. Lots of people tried to get me fired. In the moment, it just wasn’t a fight we wanted to fight.
Since OnlyRecipe.app is already parsing the recipe site, it would be a great feature to allow conversion to weights from volume (e.g. show 120g of flour vs. 1c of flour). Also, allow someone to double (or 1.5x...) the recipe as well, and have all measures double in the recipe!
Being able to tell if it's a US or non-US cup for conversions is something that would be great too. I first look for grams/oz/other as units, then fall back to primary intended audience/publisher being American or not.
I was taught to bake (and write recipes) using a mixture of units; to prefer metric measurements when precision is required, but to prefer "American" units when it isn't, almost to highlight the absence of precision, and to clue the reader that they may have to adjust for humidity or the amount of gluten generated (or whatever).
I know this stuff is obvious to an experienced cook, but I can also imagine seeing 14,2g of anything causing some unnecessary distress when trying to work with an unfamiliar recipe.
Maybe something like "1c of flour (approx. 120g)" is a good way to be safe?
If you're looking for an engine for actually doing the conversions, there's GNU units[1] and Frink[2] which both contain databases of these conversions you may be able to mine.
I have friends who sometimes help me cook a dinner for more friends. I've seen some of them try to measure out 22.5mL¹ of olive oil for frying because I pressed a button on the site to 1.5× the recipe...
Recipe websites don't include that first 10 pages of a "beginner" recipe book, which usually describes how to measure ingredients and the various cooking techniques used.
As a metric user, imperial format recipes are the bane of my existence. I swear to god some Americans don't realise the rest of the world uses a whole other system.
I put "UK" in most English recipe searches where it might matter.
The recipe itself is likely to be a bit less sweet, and my ingredients (purchased in Denmark) are also closer to those sold in Britain than the American versions. Things like types of cream, lack of sugar added to slightly-processed ingredients etc.
I've acquired three types of table spoon in my kitchen drawer. The largest is nearly double the smallest. It's absurd that this is an actual unit of measure.
Assuming we're talking about measuring spoons (since table cutlery can be any volume, according to the design), I first wrote "a metric tablespoon measure is 15mL exactly, by definition." The US one is almost the same, and Australia is weird with 20mL.
But now I see Germany changed the definition at some point, and a 15mL spoon is an Alter Esslöffel, with a Moderner Esslöffel being 7.5mL. Can a German confirm this, or clarify which is used in practise?
The other European countries I've checked use 15mL (if they use the measure at all).
We don't care for how much volume fits onto a spoon, we use it because it's normal cutlery. We have bigger spoons for eating soup (Esslöffel) and tea spoons (for desert or something like that). It's not really for measurement but it's used because everyone has it. I think a tea spoon would most probably have something around 2-3ml and not 7.5. Don't trust everything that's on wikipedia. Here they have different measurements for example: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCchenma%C3%9Fe
So basically TL and EL are not for measurement but used anyway. Things get funny with a "gestrichener" (flat filled spoon) and "gehäufter" (as much as you can fit onto a spoon imho) Löffel.
Yeah, and what's up with all this non-English content on the internet? Don't they know that it's the most spoken language? A lot of it isn't even in Chinese, either! Ruins my day when I come across something written in German
You might be interested in Paprika, it can import recipes from anywhere, let you edit/save them, and scale. It's got a ton more features than just that but it's a great app and worth every penny.
Agreed, happy user of Paprika here. It also has multi-device syncing, so my wife and I have a common place for them. We both cook quite a lot. Found Paprkia via HN comments 2-4 years ago. It is paid, and there's a Mac laptop app that is an extra charge. Around they holidays they usually have a sale, but I think it was ~$10 for both my wife and I to get.
Please just parse recipes and do it well. I can convert it myself and you cannot convert volume to weight reliably unless you index specific ingredients (brand, flour type, seive) to their volumetric weight.
FTR: I hate volume measured recipes that include flour. "1 cup of flour"...hmm, what does that mean? Guess I'm about to find out.
I generally assume it means to sift the flour into a cup but that is not always the case. Some recipes do not specify, and some do. It's a roll of the dice which is the recipe writers default for "1 cup of flour." Some recipes count on you gouging out a packed cup and some assume you should be sifting. Professionals weigh their flour.
The last thing this app should be doing is trying to figure all this out. Impossible.
I have seen it tried in other services and the feature just got in the way or ruined the recipe.
But.. that's what I want! e.g. 1C flour = 120g, 1C sugar = 200g. If you parse the recipe, it cannot be that hard to do a conversion based on ingredient, and such a value add!
What is the reason that every single recipe site, without fail, follows this same horrible pattern?
I.e. the twenty paragraph "When I was a child growing up in Atlanta..." followed by a crappy in-house video player followed by, finally, the actual recipe?
My assumption is SEO? For some reason, Google must really like having tons of text on your page, and dislikes simple "here's the recipe"? etc?
Second question - anyone who has searched for recipes also knows that Google will parse out any star rating from the recipe page and show it alongside the results. Which is obviously meaningless because comparing 4.5 stars from grandmas-cooking.net to 4.5 stars from foodnetwork.com is apples-to-oranges. So what's to stop me from simply faking my own star system, then presenting it on my website so that google picks it up in its results? And what triggers Google to look for a star rating? Could I update my tech blog to have a star rating and Google will show it? Or is it limited to keywords like "recipe"?
The copyright around the recipe itself is a challenging issue [1], so a simple way of guaranteeing that the site is not scrapped and published elsewhere verbatim is to include also non-recipe material that falls more clearly under copyright law.
Not sure about the US or the EU in general, but in Germany at least databases - even if they solely consist of trivial, non-copyrightable data - are still copyrighted. This law was put into place after a company in Germany just hired people to type of physical copies of Phonebooks and the yellowpages, and sold a "phonebook" on CD. A name+phonenumber pair isn't copyrightable, but the collection as a whole is (at least now).
In the US, the facts in a phone book (names, numbers, addresses) are not copyrightable and neither is the collection. However, see the bit at the end about compilations.
I wonder whether "fake facts" (bogus names, numbers, addresses) are copyrightable. If they are, they can be used to give copyright protection to a collection even when the bulk of the collection isn't copyrightable.
Those fake facts are a thing and have a name [0], they are placed into phonebooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias etc. to detect copyright violations (i.e. somebody else stealing your compilation).
> I wonder whether "fake facts" (bogus names, numbers, addresses) are copyrightable.
This has, unfortunately, been upheld on occasion. True damages from copying such false entries would be nonexistent, naturally, but statutory damages are blind to such trivialities as justice or proportionality.
Morally speaking, anything presented as fact (including entries in a phone book or notations on a map) should be treated as fact and thus not copyrightable. Something along the lines of estoppel should prevent one from claiming that they are providing a database of facts and then suing the recipient for reproducing copyrightable "creative elements" which don't belong there. Also, selling someone a database of "facts" with deliberate fictitious entries mixed in which are not specifically labeled as such should be classified as fraud and open the publisher up to liability should anyone suffer the slightest harm due to the false entries.
* database rights, which are similar to but distinct from copyright; in particular they last for only 15 years;
* copyright in a particular collection of public-domain things.
Case C-304/07 Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, which was about an anthology of poems, seems to have involved both things. See if you can make sense of it because I'm not sure I can!
I always see this as a stated reason, but I'm skeptical unless it's cargo-culting like "no copyright intended" on YouTube videos (but this is a lot more work). I can't see Adam and Joanne [1] or Holly [2] suing for copyright because when someone stole their Frito Pie recipe and left off the story at top. Especially, when they both have Google-defined tags to grab only the recipe and ingredients. As others have mentioned, the bigger sites (Allrecipes, food network, NYTimes, binging with babish etc.) tend not do the story thing.
Do you have any other info on copyright as a reason?
My understanding is there are 3 reasons.
1)The authors want to build a brand for themselves rather than just provide you with recipes. This helps to get further opportunities for them and differentiates their cookbook/site from others in a very crowded market
2)A lot of people read cookbooks as books rather than just when they are cooking and this philosophy seems to have been copied over to recipe sites
3)Copyright. Istr reading somewhere you can't copyright a recipe whereas you can pursue a claim against someone who plagiarises the non-obvious text parts. It's something like that.
The "listing of ingredients" and "simple set of directions" are not copyrightable in the US (I have no idea about other countries). Photographs, drawings, and background info such as explanations of how or why the recipe works may all be copyrightable though.
1. SEO. I've been recommended to have a ghostwriter write technical articles for me to increase my client base. Build enough of a cult following and you can be sure that your youtube channel, or next book has enough of an audience.
2. I think it also appeals to a certain audience. It makes them feel open minded to other cultures. There's an emotional bond forming with the story or the people in the story.
Don't forget that the average american speaks only one language, yet considers themselves as part of the country that is creating/keeping world peace and that at the same time the average american consumer spends more on average on consumer goods per capita than any other nation in the world. Add to that, that ad revenue is the US is also disproportionately higher than anywhere else.
Smitten Kitchen often has a few paragraphs before the recipe. I don't always read it, but I also don't hate it.
It helps she writes well and it seems to genuinely reflect the author's life--I think it started out as a personal blog with occasional recipes before becoming a recipe site with bloggy bits bolted on. The text is also fairly helpful, in that it sometimes describes less successful attempts cooking the same thing, or compares it with other dishes ("If you hate X, try [this] instead").
This may be a rare exception though--I agree that a lot of other recipe sites have tons of vacuous filler.
Smitten Kitchen was one of the OG food blogs that established the pattern that recipe spam websites are trying to emulate. Back in the aughts, searching for a recipe on Google was useful because they would prioritize "enriched" sites like Smitten Kitchen, David Lebovitz's blog, Orangette, The Wednesday Chef, etc., where the narrative portion of the recipe primarily established who the recipe would appeal to, tips on unusual techniques employed in the recipe, and sometimes a humanizing anecdote or two.
The format of Smitten Kitchen and David Lebovitz's blog have remained unchanged for about 15 years, probably because those authors used the success of their blogs to establish related revenue streams (mostly via bestselling cookbooks). I would be surprised if the blogs themselves still make much money, given how few display ads are included on each page.
My wife and I collect cookbooks and cocktail recipe books. There are a handful of writers who have a compelling voice where I read more than just the ingredient list and instructions.
But for some random blog that I find while googling? Never.
I sometimes like to read the paragraphs to know why some things are done and possible substitutions, specially if I'm not going to make the recipe immediately. But when I want to make it, I really would love to have it separated from the text.
My best possible guesses (note, not really based on any research into it but just theories).
- The ones that I have noticed do this, also tend to have a lot of ads. So maybe to both be able to show more ads (there is a limit of how many ads you can show if you just have a simple recipe, but add a book above it and you can show many more). Maybe also the ability to add referral links to talked about products?
- It seems like some of them are trying to build a community. They do the whole "tell me about your experience" thing that only generates more page views and "interaction". So maybe there are people that actually follow these blogs and feel like all of that story is personal?
- I am sure there is some SEO stuff going on here like others have said.
It's SEO. Once a SEO expert was showing me user heatmaps on his popular website's articles. The users completely ignored 90% of the content and of the text of a page. I asked him why so many parts of the text were ignored by the users and his answer was "oh, that text is not for the users, it's for google". The literally paid writers to write articles way longer than needed solely to satisfy Google algorithms. The worst part is that it worked and they earned a lot of money from it.
Placing recipes on the bottom and behind “click to show” type features forces users to remain on your site for a longer period of time. This makes it appear to Google that users are more “engaged” on your website because it takes longer for them to bounce in the cases where the recipe isn’t what they are looking for.
For me, at least, I typically don't follow the recipe. Very rarely am I looking for cooking instruction. I'm familiar enough with most typical cooking techniques that ingredient list and proportions, plus sometimes a quick glance at the steps, is all I need to get the job done. I'm usually modifying the ingredients on the fly as I cook the dish anyway.
When I am looking for cooking instruction, I find my existing library of trusted cookbooks to have a much better signal to noise ratio than Googled recipes sites on the web.
I wish there were some “intermediate” websites for cooking. There seems to be a missing middle, where I don’t know exactly to do, but know enough basics to only meed a little bit of direction.
Ie, not step by step, but more general. Let me improvise, but still guide me.
At this level of optimization even the 0.25s spent scrolling past a story is enough to make a difference... this is like "competitive swimmers shaving off their body hair" level SEO.
A better measure as to whether the user found what they were looking for would be if Google checked if the user continues browsing through subsequent search results or not.
Google does check this. It’s called bounce rate and is just one piece of the SEO puzzle. Keeping users on your site longer before they “bounce” is another, so these sites are incentivized to keep you on the page for as long as possible because they know that it’s unlikely for a user to find the exact recipe they are looking for.
Yes. I worked at a site that had an SEO-obsessed boss and basically the keywords, placement of keywords, formatting of the page, everything...all affected SEO.
However, that all likely paled in comparison to him gaming the system by paying to host separate sites that linked back to his in an effort to boost legitimacy during the times when SEO was a make or break thing.
It's definitely an arms race. Sort of like tax avoidance. As long as you have search engines ordering results, I guess you'll have people who seek to game the results. The question for me is whether what Google does can be improved upon. I think we can do much better.
That only covers backlinks and authority, it's just one piece of the puzzle. Ironically, that's called a "black-hat" way of obtaining backlinks and authority. The "white-hat" way is to go to legit websites and purchase links, literally pay them to link your website. This is a great example of what's considered "ethical" in SEO
And as a result google search in general has been going downhill for the last 5 years. It's getting so bad, that I've openly been trying other search engines. Unfurtunately, duckduckgo has the same problem. I'm keeping an eye out for other search engines to do most of my searches.
I do front-end dev for a high-volume recipe site and our multivariate tests mostly confirm the opposite. Simpler pages rank higher (and users report higher satisfaction with the product). Core Web Vitals changed the way a lot of things work, how long ago were you given this advice?
A while back (two years?). The thing is, user were extremely satisfied by the product. The users came to the website for a comparison table (which was at the top), used the information, clicked a link on the table and then exited the website. The rest of the page was useless, most won't even scroll. But still they needed it for a ton of SEO reasons (keyword density, semantic structure and complexity, internal and external linking).
The company was working on an extremely competitive niche and it was crushing it (multi-million dollar ad revenue), so I think they knew what were doing.
Yet another reason the search monopoly we find ourselves in is so harmful. If there were even 2 or 3 search engines with substantial (20%+) market share SEO would have to try to triangulate for multiple competing measures of page quality - hopefully landing on something that resembles a passable user experience. Instead everyone in SEO is laser-focused on the singular quirks of Google's Page Rank.
I wonder how Google would respond to a site that had a big arrow pointing to that text with a "This is just to quiet google. Click here to jump the the recipe."
Because "Recipes" are one of about a dozen categories for which google defines special Structure Data formats, which allows presumably-high-clickthrough results page features like the rich media carousel previews, etc. https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/structure...
If you want to know what categories of things will have especially horrendous (ie clickbait-optimized-to-hell) results, look at the other things that google encourages developers to semantically tag and compete for use of the shiny results page features. A couple interesting ones:
Ecommerce (monetizable sales):
- Books
- Review snippet
- Software app
- Events
Google Maps data ingestion:
- Local Business
Youtube previews:
- Video
- Movie
Job search:
- Employer Aggregate Rating
- Estimated salary
- Job Posting
Knowledge graph:
- COVID-19 announcements (ooo, topical!)
- Dataset
- FAQ
- Fact Check
Recipes are something that people who search for recipes do several times a week, so the algorithms identified this as a Thing with High DAU's. Semantic tags then makes it easier to identify "this is a recipe page", but that means for such a crowded category it's a race to the bottom with optimization and ad-stuffing (more life story == more inline ad blocks).
Unfortunately, it's against google's interest to promote to-the-point recipe pages that have fewer embedded AdWords blocks.
Projects like OP probably just parse out the semantic tags and throw away the rest of the content. This could easily be a browser extension.
Note that I have adblocker so I don't know how many ads you see and I can't judge the quality as well, buy at least the sites are quite usable. I'd be more pissed off by a missing ingredient than having to scroll a screen or two.
The lasagne recipe page would be one I count as bad. There's a lot of useless text before the recipe. The other two result pages are good.
Interesting enough, the big name recipe sites: Allrecipes, food network, NYTimes, binging with babish etc. all are short and to the point. But for some reason the crappy recipe sites outperform them on Google.
The Lasagna recipe is an independent cooking blogger (note the "Hi there, I'm Holly!" in the top-right corner). Food Network, Allrecipes, Tegel, and other sites mentioned are not promoting a specific person, but an entire brand. Babish is the exception to this rule, but he "changed the game" by going for YouTube instead of blogs.
Although the optimization is infuriating, in my search to become a decent cook, I have found more success following specific writers instead of a top result/highest rated meal. Many of these writers self-promote (and cross-promote) on sites with the same template as spendwithpennies.com
I wouldn't be surprised if that annoying SEO template was designed in collaboration with Cookbook publishers. The "anecdote before recipe" style was made famous in Irma S. Rombauer's Joy of Cooking, and took on a variety of forms throughout the 20th century.
This is the kind of recipe I see most often when searching for recipes. I wonder whether GP was a little lucky with his/her three links. (The lasagna recipe was an example of an SEO'd recipe.)
> Note that I have adblocker so I don't know how many ads you see
Be careful. I also have an ad blocker and sent a fun link to my mom a friend had sent me and she saw Alllllllllll the ads. It was not a fun link for her. Didn’t even think of it before sending.
I also see similar WordPress themes appear on supposedly independent sites with individual authors. Similar down to the email sign-up popups.
I get that some WP themes are more popular than the bazillion available, but the consistency in look and feel between a Malaysian immigrant to New York cooking curries I know aren't that Malaysian and a stay at home mom in Ohio doing baking that may have been passed down by a great aunt that tweaked a King Arthur Flour recipe is often remarkable.
If you don't feel comfortable/confident getting into the code/markup to customize, you're probably going to pick something that looks "right" to you, which is then determined by what you see. Doesn't seem super remarkable to me?
> I.e. the twenty paragraph "When I was a child growing up in Atlanta..." followed by a crappy in-house video player followed by, finally, the actual recipe?
As a child growing up outside of Atlanta, this is how we were typically taught recipes.
"One day, when you're sharing this recipe on a mass communication network that doesn't exist today, make sure to (1) mention that you're from Atlanta & (2) include a story about your children / partner / family."
Exactly. I've never been as frustrated with the modern web as I am when I try to find a recipe. It's the most infuriating experience. I'd pay money if I knew I could access a very large database of recipes, where I know I just get the recipe itself.
It's an infuriating experience indeed. I reached my breaking point a few months ago, and decided I was just done with googling recipes. After trying a few different highly regarded paid apps (recipe managers, NYT Cooking) and not finding quite what I was looking for, I caved and started compiling my own recipe database in Notion. My goal is to use this database exclusively for weekly meal planning, as well as for cooking up something on a whim. It's a habit change for sure, and required a bit of upfront work to seed the database, but so far, has proved to be successful. Overall, both meal planning and cooking itself have become more enjoyable!
Ratings for recipes never make sense anyway because if one reads the reviews they're always of the sort, "I LOVE THIS RECIPE! I used buttermilk instead of Milk, doubled the sugar, used almond extract instead of vanilla. This recipe is AMAZING!"
Those reviews are more useful that the recipes. If I am missing one ingredient I have more confidence in trying a substitute if someone else has before me (I've messed a few recipes up with a bad substitute). sometimes I'll look at the substitution and think that sounds better even though I have everything for the original (if I've made this before I'm more likely to do this for variety).
The problem is once you change the ingredients, you're not making the same recipe. Sure the alternatives may turn out better, but rate the original a 1 star and then list what changes you made.
I've learned to only click on allrecipes.com all the others make it too hard to find the recipe I'm looking for. Please join me in rewarding the one good site that works. (note, the parent company was bought out this summer, the new owners may screw things up, if so punish them like all the others where you can't find the recipe)
Google weights time spent on site in rankings. If you bounce instantly back to the search results, obviously you didn’t find what you were looking for. If you stay for a while, maybe you did.
> I.e. the twenty paragraph "When I was a child growing up in Atlanta..." followed by a crappy in-house video player followed by, finally, the actual recipe?
> My assumption is SEO? For some reason, Google must really like having tons of text on your page, and dislikes simple "here's the recipe"? etc?
Cookbooks that sell well usually have some introductory text for every recipe. The best cookbooks use this intro to describe unusual techniques or flavor combinations in the recipe, so the intro text in such books can be really helpful and is sometimes critical to getting the recipe right the first time you try to make it. The only cookbook I own that doesn't have intro text for each recipe is a culinary school textbook, so the authors felt safe assuming a certain level of familiarity with the terms and techniques used.
OG food blogs like Smitten Kitchen and David Lebovitz emulated the classic cookbook style, and, not surprisingly, those authors have gone on to make a lot of money writing traditional cookbooks. Contemporary food blogs tend to try to emulate older, successful blogs (maybe because Google somehow boosted recipes with intro text back when such text was usually helpful?) but mostly come off as AI-generated garbage text, made just long enough to create a couple scroll events and artificially lower a site's bounce rate.
It's not just recipes. There are tones of questions I often search which have a very specific and short answer. E.g. "how many kangaroos are there in the world?".
Ideally I would expect a page with my question and a number with link to the source. However in the real world I get various pages with somehow related title and tons of text inside I don't need. Often times without the exact number I'm looking for.
I guess that most likely nobody wants to maintain such a resource since it might be hard to make it profitable. Still it might save a lot of time for collective humanity.
Its annoying to me too. A lot of fluff. From what I remember, back around 2012, Google was facing a serious issue of content farms appearing in their results. These are sites that aggregate data and auto-generate articles about a myriad of topics. They were ruining search. So Google introduced a significant change to the way that they rank websites. They figured originality and authenticity was the key to identifying genuine sites. And how was this determined? Well, an article is written, it should contain a lot of text, more so and of better quality than an algorithm could write. And the content had to be original. If it was clear that the content was copy and pasted from somewhere else, then it was probably not original. So here we are, where a simple recipe has to tell the person's life story in order differentiate it from the junk of content farms. I am sure someone here remembers this Google change back then. It had a specific name. Everyone on the web who was concerned about SEO at the time was aware of it.
Anyone know why this life story rubbish seems particularly acute on recipe websites?
I get the authors are doing it to boost Google rankings. But why do I only see it on cooking blogs, and not on blogs about cycling, DIY, programming, urbanism, whatever else I'm searching....
Not many tech blogs start with a 4 page life history before showing me the code snippet I'm looking for.
For now it's just a project. I learned Flutter and wanted to build something with it.
If enough people like it, I will make this a full-fledged service.
And focus on adding features like dark mode, server-sync, sign-in, account management, export/import of recipes, sharing screenshots of recipes like this one directly with your friends https://i.redd.it/kk1goqsswo981.png
Really nice! I wonder how you get the parsed recipe to load so fast, much faster than say outline.com (though they prob have some more server-side stuff going on)
It would be amazing if there was something that would convert recipes to the format used on Cooking For Engineers. It’s so intuitive and easy to read. I never want to look at steps to make a recipe again.
Modernist Cuisine has recipes with a similar format. They also have an ingredient list with baker's percentage using the largest ingredient by weight as the baseline.
The app actually looks decent, so it's a shame you spammed this without disclosing you founded the company or providing any additional context. Behavior like this makes me suspicious of things like your app store reviews.
It's fine to share something you founded, just be upfront about it and don't spam. It would have been easy to just post "We're working on something similar over at Pepper! <link> Our approach is .... Would love to hear what people think."
It actually seems to mix visual metaphors though, since "Butter and flour a loaf pan" and "Preheat oven" are temporally top-to-bottom, until it gets to the ingredients, when it switches to (depending on how one interprets it) temporally left-to-right or a dependency tree, but without any visual indication that change has happened
I would actually expect the whole process could be laid out in graphviz since all of those are dependencies of the ultimate outcome (heh, "enjoy"). I originally thought it may be a DAG, but I can recall a few recipes that explicitly have a looping step in them
Still a lot of text to get up and go, even if the context can be helpful.
Personally I am a fan of the Food Network recipes online, especially Alton Brown’s. Straight to the point with no fluff, and maybe a Good Eats segment if you’re lucky.
There's a Recipe Card button in the top right; doesn't get more compact than that. Though I think I'd struggle cooking an unfamiliar recipe using only the card, like you said, the context is helpful (and so are some photos, I might add).
I have ADHD so I often find my self taking a non-linear route to following a recipe: Step 1, Step 3, Step 4, oops! Step 2, now where was I? Is that salt or baking powder in the bowl?
Thanks for sharing. I made digital recipe viewers to replace the old binders in our restaurants’ kitchens. They’re old iPad minis on Mosyle’s free MDM plan. I made an HTML/CSS website hosted on Netlify/GitHub, created a home screen shortcut on the iPad using a web clip, and hide all other iOS apps so that they can only launch the recipe viewer.
Everyone thinks I made an “app” because it launches in full screen thanks to the MDM. One of our kitchens doesn’t have Wi-Fi, but once the recipe viewer is launched, it doesn’t need connection anymore since it’s a single HTML page and the refresh button is hidden.
The recipes on my “app” use HTML tables fairly similar to the tables on the link you shared. I didn’t know HTML tables could be formatted like they are on cookingforengineers.
The sample recipe states 90ml of butter, last time I checked it was solid. I have no idea how you would work that out. Wiki says it’s 911g/l so I guess you use about 80g which is easy enough to measure, but why not list the weight (for cooking on Earth weight and mass are interchangeable)
I’m not sure why it’s talking about “cups”, I thought americans used “gallons” or “fluid ounces” for volume? It also has one ingredient that has accuracy to 3sf in its weight (167 grams) which seems rather excessive for cooking.
In theory you can use volume to measure things like flour, although it is trickier than using weight as you have to smooth it over.
I have always been interested in seeing a database which had consistent units and ingredients as well, such that pulling the full database and doing visualizations could be easily done.
This would also make the adjustment to the batch size for each recipe on each webpage much simpler.
"Want 1 Liter of dough for 2 banana bread loafs? Just change the amount output field and watch the values change". Type of thing.
Obviously I know heat transfer effects need to be taken into account and such for some things, but it would be at least a start . Then the real mass/heat transfer and such engineering fun can begin.
For people who don't want to install an app, most recipe websites have a "Jump/Skip to Recipe" link at the top under the header and sometimes it's mixed up in between the fb/twitter share buttons. You still get hit with modals and videos but at least it's less.
Some blogs do the extra stuff right. Sally’s Baking Addiction’s preceding blog is often invaluable with tips about timing, temperatures, possible places things can go wrong, etc.
It has the floating “skip to recipe” button which is handy when you come back to a familiar recipe for some details.
The clutter isn’t the problem as much as the content quality is most often for me.
Mela on iOS[0] is a very similar app with some great polish. One nice thing with Mela at least, is if you use the built-in browser it can get around some paywalls like NYT Cooking. It also integrates with the Reminders app for grocery shopping lists.
Ben Awad developed a great little app which addresses this problem also. I believe he developed it with his mother - who is a the designer. https://www.mysaffronapp.com/
Nicely done! I just ran into this "clutter" issue last week while trying to read a recipe that kept auto-scrolling due to a pop-up ad intermittently changing height at the top of the page. Some quick feedback: it worked perfectly for a recipe at "simplyrecipes.com" but was unable to find a recipe on the Food Network, specifically: https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/creme-brulee...
Keep up the good work!
Better: Use AnyList. It has a feature to import recipes. The result is that not only get to view a clean copy of a recipe, but a clean copy is stored in AnyList for easy reference later.
I'll second this recommendation. I started using Anylist last year and it's incredible. My weekly grocery flow goes like this now:
- Skim a few recipe sites for anything new I want to try
- 1-click import them to Anylist (using the browser extension)
- Add recipes to the weekly meal plan in Anylist
- Click "Add all ingredients" for each recipe, which automatically puts all ingredients for the recipe into my shopping list.
One of my favorite things is that it automatically categorizes the list items by store section, making the shopping much easier.
It doesn't work with every recipe site, though (traeger.com for example), but it works with most.
There are two features I wish it had that would make it nearly perfect:
1. Ability to create my own categorization rules. For example, "whole peeled tomatoes with their juices" gets categorized as beverage, and I can manually recategorize that specific item, but it would be nice to create a rule for wholepeeledtomato* that puts it in the "Canned Goods" category
2. The ability to exclude ingredients from being added to the list. I always have salt, pepper, and olive oil on hand, but I end up having to manually cross a dozen of those off my shopping list when I add ingredients for the week when nearly every recipe inevitably includes them.
359 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 335 ms ] threadYou can also save it to your phone directly using the app. Scan recipe QR code using your phone camera and voila.
Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mysticpeak...
iOS: https://apps.apple.com/app/id1602130759
Short 50-seconds video on how recipe camera scanner works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziSNwjv9PXo
Currently working on a feature that lets you share recipe "image cards" with your friends.. Something like this https://i.redd.it/kk1goqsswo981.png
Let me know if you'd use that feature
I believe it's more likely that it's to do with whether you can or can't copyright a listing of ingredients and method.
If you add enough of a story, you definitely can.
The recipe is separate from the text that accompanies it
Separate in a copyright sense?
A web scraping bot won't necessarily make that distinction.
As a cook there are several solutions to this:
1) pay for a subscription from vendors who are in business to sell recipes, such as Cooks Illustrated
2) get recipes from companies that provide them as a complement because they sell something else, generally food-related products. For instance King Arthur Baking has good recipes, and many are available from food companies such as Tyson, Kraft, and Betty Crocker. Grocers also have many recipes. These sources aren't interested in spamming users with ads because the website is one big ad.
3) Buy cookbooks, they're not expensive.
But yeah as long as people want to crank search terms into Google and get "free" stuff, it's going to be ad-infested, and then other ad-seeking folks are going to run their shakedown operations just like the adblock extensions charge money to advertisers to let their ads through.
While cookbooks are great they're not easily searchable. If only I could ingest every recipe from every cookbook I bought into a personal database.
Hey that'd be a neat app idea!
https://www.eatyourbooks.com/
And how does a site opt out of your scraping? Do you have a unique user-agent when you scrape? A set of IPs?
Let me see if I can build a opt-out list. But wouldn't it beat the entire purpose of this app?
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=mattschkolnick
https://www.peppertheapp.com/about
If your business model relies on people scrolling past a bunch of filler to get to a short list of instructions, be prepared for people to get tired of it and solve the problem.
"Essays meanwhile allow bloggers to make money off search engine optimization (or SEO, which scans the essays for keywords and relevant search terms) and ads allow the blog to remain free for readers."
So here they openly admit to the hack. This entire fraud is one app or google algorithm tweak away from being annihilated.
It should be seen as a side job with expectation zero, any money is a bonus, not something you do to "feed your family". I mean, read this rant:
https://www.eater.com/2020/3/31/21201374/why-are-free-online...
Delusional.
[1] https://recipeasly.com/
This worked perfectly and will make shopping a bit easier. Example below.
https://onlyrecipe.app/?url=https://www.loveandlemons.com/sh...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26419717
0: Safari on iOS 15.2, iPhone 8.
In addition, I would encourage you to try the iOS app. Way better experience.
Because this is a app-first service. Web was built later.
- easily scale the recipe to make different quantities
- convert units used to one you’re more familiar with.
- wherever the recipe says ‘do x for 10 minutes’ you can tap on the time and it’ll allow you to set a timer for that one piece.
Edit: Oh, there is also a website.
IMHO there are ways to make recipe-scraping resistant to copyright claims.
1. hide all scraping actions behind a login page; that makes content private, hence uninfringing.
2. every time a user "publishes" or shares content, present only an extract of the recipe, like the ingredients and first few steps; expanding the extract sends you to the original site (ideally to the specific anchor of the procedure).
let me know how this goes for private torrent tracker sites
But it’s even more complex than that. The stories are personal. They’re cultural. They’re often told from the perspective of women, immigrants and people of color who have created and invested in a platform to share their stories. The recipe aggregator sites, bloggers note, basically tell the creators that their stories have no value. It’s the same message America has told immigrants and women for centuries, now just in electronic form.
I think that may be taking it too far, particularly since Google effectively created this entire syndrome.
I personally don't give a shit about mathematicians and scientists personal lives, but I don't have a problem imagining those who do. I think the numbers say it all. Others think that the examination of every detail of the person who wrote the numbers first might give them some insight into how to create more numbers.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you polled recipe searchers, the vast majority (>66%) would say that they don't want the story. In fact, I'll back that. If you're in San Francisco, I will bet $1000 against your $1000 that this will be the case and we can equally bear the price of running this. An associate will contact you if you're up for it.
The story writers don't have to write for randos, but I (a rando) rather enjoy the stripping tool. So I think I'm going to install OnlyRecipe.app and if OR's author is pressured by WaPo-like folks to shut down, I'll probably write my own since parsing that schema is trivial.
And I have a day job in HFT so I can't be shut down. After all, no one can boycott me or my products.
If this gets shut down I would love if a general, open-source solution could be developed to spread the capability. A generic Python recipe parser that anyone could hook up to a front-end. If the apps proliferate at a high enough rate they can't all be shut down.
So what you want is for recipe developers to have their work scraped, stripped, and presented outside of its intended creative context and revenue generation mechanism, and while other people may think this is unethical, they can't stop you so that makes it fine.
But rarely do I go on a narrative stroll where I happened to stumble on a recipe that I decide I might make some day.
> It’s the same message America has told immigrants and women for centuries
I certainly won't deny this point conceptually, but it assumes that the stories are even true in the first place.
For example I enjoy pad Thai, but I didn't know it was created by the Thai government in the 1930s until I saw a small comment and did some reading. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/no...
Or the history of Lebanese immigration into Mexico that led to Al Pastor. https://theeyehuatulco.com/2020/07/29/al-pastor-and-the-leba...
I know this stuff is obvious to an experienced cook, but I can also imagine seeing 14,2g of anything causing some unnecessary distress when trying to work with an unfamiliar recipe.
Maybe something like "1c of flour (approx. 120g)" is a good way to be safe?
If you're looking for an engine for actually doing the conversions, there's GNU units[1] and Frink[2] which both contain databases of these conversions you may be able to mine.
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/units/
[2]: https://frinklang.org/
Recipe websites don't include that first 10 pages of a "beginner" recipe book, which usually describes how to measure ingredients and the various cooking techniques used.
¹ 1.5 metric tablespoons, 1.5 × 15mL.
The recipe itself is likely to be a bit less sweet, and my ingredients (purchased in Denmark) are also closer to those sold in Britain than the American versions. Things like types of cream, lack of sugar added to slightly-processed ingredients etc.
But now I see Germany changed the definition at some point, and a 15mL spoon is an Alter Esslöffel, with a Moderner Esslöffel being 7.5mL. Can a German confirm this, or clarify which is used in practise?
The other European countries I've checked use 15mL (if they use the measure at all).
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essbesteck#Verwendung_als_Ma.C...
So basically TL and EL are not for measurement but used anyway. Things get funny with a "gestrichener" (flat filled spoon) and "gehäufter" (as much as you can fit onto a spoon imho) Löffel.
FTR: I hate volume measured recipes that include flour. "1 cup of flour"...hmm, what does that mean? Guess I'm about to find out.
I generally assume it means to sift the flour into a cup but that is not always the case. Some recipes do not specify, and some do. It's a roll of the dice which is the recipe writers default for "1 cup of flour." Some recipes count on you gouging out a packed cup and some assume you should be sifting. Professionals weigh their flour.
The last thing this app should be doing is trying to figure all this out. Impossible.
I have seen it tried in other services and the feature just got in the way or ruined the recipe.
I.e. the twenty paragraph "When I was a child growing up in Atlanta..." followed by a crappy in-house video player followed by, finally, the actual recipe?
My assumption is SEO? For some reason, Google must really like having tons of text on your page, and dislikes simple "here's the recipe"? etc?
Second question - anyone who has searched for recipes also knows that Google will parse out any star rating from the recipe page and show it alongside the results. Which is obviously meaningless because comparing 4.5 stars from grandmas-cooking.net to 4.5 stars from foodnetwork.com is apples-to-oranges. So what's to stop me from simply faking my own star system, then presenting it on my website so that google picks it up in its results? And what triggers Google to look for a star rating? Could I update my tech blog to have a star rating and Google will show it? Or is it limited to keywords like "recipe"?
[1] https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-protection-recipes/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
I wonder whether "fake facts" (bogus names, numbers, addresses) are copyrightable. If they are, they can be used to give copyright protection to a collection even when the bulk of the collection isn't copyrightable.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry
This has, unfortunately, been upheld on occasion. True damages from copying such false entries would be nonexistent, naturally, but statutory damages are blind to such trivialities as justice or proportionality.
Morally speaking, anything presented as fact (including entries in a phone book or notations on a map) should be treated as fact and thus not copyrightable. Something along the lines of estoppel should prevent one from claiming that they are providing a database of facts and then suing the recipient for reproducing copyrightable "creative elements" which don't belong there. Also, selling someone a database of "facts" with deliberate fictitious entries mixed in which are not specifically labeled as such should be classified as fraud and open the publisher up to liability should anyone suffer the slightest harm due to the false entries.
* database rights, which are similar to but distinct from copyright; in particular they last for only 15 years;
* copyright in a particular collection of public-domain things.
Case C-304/07 Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, which was about an anthology of poems, seems to have involved both things. See if you can make sense of it because I'm not sure I can!
Do you have any other info on copyright as a reason?
[1] https://www.inspiredtaste.net/15938/easy-and-smooth-hummus-r...
[2] https://www.spendwithpennies.com/easy-homemade-lasagna/
[3] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/structure...
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf
2. I think it also appeals to a certain audience. It makes them feel open minded to other cultures. There's an emotional bond forming with the story or the people in the story.
Don't forget that the average american speaks only one language, yet considers themselves as part of the country that is creating/keeping world peace and that at the same time the average american consumer spends more on average on consumer goods per capita than any other nation in the world. Add to that, that ad revenue is the US is also disproportionately higher than anywhere else.
It helps she writes well and it seems to genuinely reflect the author's life--I think it started out as a personal blog with occasional recipes before becoming a recipe site with bloggy bits bolted on. The text is also fairly helpful, in that it sometimes describes less successful attempts cooking the same thing, or compares it with other dishes ("If you hate X, try [this] instead").
This may be a rare exception though--I agree that a lot of other recipe sites have tons of vacuous filler.
The format of Smitten Kitchen and David Lebovitz's blog have remained unchanged for about 15 years, probably because those authors used the success of their blogs to establish related revenue streams (mostly via bestselling cookbooks). I would be surprised if the blogs themselves still make much money, given how few display ads are included on each page.
But for some random blog that I find while googling? Never.
- The ones that I have noticed do this, also tend to have a lot of ads. So maybe to both be able to show more ads (there is a limit of how many ads you can show if you just have a simple recipe, but add a book above it and you can show many more). Maybe also the ability to add referral links to talked about products?
- It seems like some of them are trying to build a community. They do the whole "tell me about your experience" thing that only generates more page views and "interaction". So maybe there are people that actually follow these blogs and feel like all of that story is personal?
- I am sure there is some SEO stuff going on here like others have said.
From an SEO perspective, yes.
Time spent on page will be less if the recipe is on the top.
When I am looking for cooking instruction, I find my existing library of trusted cookbooks to have a much better signal to noise ratio than Googled recipes sites on the web.
Ie, not step by step, but more general. Let me improvise, but still guide me.
However, that all likely paled in comparison to him gaming the system by paying to host separate sites that linked back to his in an effort to boost legitimacy during the times when SEO was a make or break thing.
"Please, I'll write whatever you want. Just list me!"
This is the crux of the answer. The reason why recipe sites are full of garbage? Because it is effective and profitable.
Top tier ad networks won’t accept your site if it’s just straight up recipes so you need to have the padding to get approved.
And it increases the amount of ads you can squeeze onto the page for higher RPMs
Recipe Schema: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/structure...
Yes, you can totally fake the # of stars & rating.
If you want to know what categories of things will have especially horrendous (ie clickbait-optimized-to-hell) results, look at the other things that google encourages developers to semantically tag and compete for use of the shiny results page features. A couple interesting ones:
Recipes are something that people who search for recipes do several times a week, so the algorithms identified this as a Thing with High DAU's. Semantic tags then makes it easier to identify "this is a recipe page", but that means for such a crowded category it's a race to the bottom with optimization and ad-stuffing (more life story == more inline ad blocks).Unfortunately, it's against google's interest to promote to-the-point recipe pages that have fewer embedded AdWords blocks.
Projects like OP probably just parse out the semantic tags and throw away the rest of the content. This could easily be a browser extension.
"pizza pocket recipe" 2nd result is decent: https://foodnetwork.co.uk/recipes/pizza-pockets/
"lasagne recipe easy" 1st result is good: https://www.spendwithpennies.com/easy-homemade-lasagna/
"sushi recipe chicken" 1st result is to the point https://www.tegel.co.nz/recipes/teriyaki-chicken-sushi/
Note that I have adblocker so I don't know how many ads you see and I can't judge the quality as well, buy at least the sites are quite usable. I'd be more pissed off by a missing ingredient than having to scroll a screen or two.
Interesting enough, the big name recipe sites: Allrecipes, food network, NYTimes, binging with babish etc. all are short and to the point. But for some reason the crappy recipe sites outperform them on Google.
Although the optimization is infuriating, in my search to become a decent cook, I have found more success following specific writers instead of a top result/highest rated meal. Many of these writers self-promote (and cross-promote) on sites with the same template as spendwithpennies.com
I wouldn't be surprised if that annoying SEO template was designed in collaboration with Cookbook publishers. The "anecdote before recipe" style was made famous in Irma S. Rombauer's Joy of Cooking, and took on a variety of forms throughout the 20th century.
I think this (or a hybrid approach) was already a thing. See Food Wishes (Chef John), which has been using a similar model for a while.
Actually, video recipes are the best imho: https://www.youtube.com/c/yousuckatcooking :)
Be careful. I also have an ad blocker and sent a fun link to my mom a friend had sent me and she saw Alllllllllll the ads. It was not a fun link for her. Didn’t even think of it before sending.
I get that some WP themes are more popular than the bazillion available, but the consistency in look and feel between a Malaysian immigrant to New York cooking curries I know aren't that Malaysian and a stay at home mom in Ohio doing baking that may have been passed down by a great aunt that tweaked a King Arthur Flour recipe is often remarkable.
As a child growing up outside of Atlanta, this is how we were typically taught recipes.
"One day, when you're sharing this recipe on a mass communication network that doesn't exist today, make sure to (1) mention that you're from Atlanta & (2) include a story about your children / partner / family."
I guess, maybe it's different elsewhere?
> My assumption is SEO? For some reason, Google must really like having tons of text on your page, and dislikes simple "here's the recipe"? etc?
Cookbooks that sell well usually have some introductory text for every recipe. The best cookbooks use this intro to describe unusual techniques or flavor combinations in the recipe, so the intro text in such books can be really helpful and is sometimes critical to getting the recipe right the first time you try to make it. The only cookbook I own that doesn't have intro text for each recipe is a culinary school textbook, so the authors felt safe assuming a certain level of familiarity with the terms and techniques used.
OG food blogs like Smitten Kitchen and David Lebovitz emulated the classic cookbook style, and, not surprisingly, those authors have gone on to make a lot of money writing traditional cookbooks. Contemporary food blogs tend to try to emulate older, successful blogs (maybe because Google somehow boosted recipes with intro text back when such text was usually helpful?) but mostly come off as AI-generated garbage text, made just long enough to create a couple scroll events and artificially lower a site's bounce rate.
Ideally I would expect a page with my question and a number with link to the source. However in the real world I get various pages with somehow related title and tons of text inside I don't need. Often times without the exact number I'm looking for.
I guess that most likely nobody wants to maintain such a resource since it might be hard to make it profitable. Still it might save a lot of time for collective humanity.
I get the authors are doing it to boost Google rankings. But why do I only see it on cooking blogs, and not on blogs about cycling, DIY, programming, urbanism, whatever else I'm searching....
Not many tech blogs start with a 4 page life history before showing me the code snippet I'm looking for.
Unfortunately, she's no longer with us. However, her Rust continues to be a part of our lives.
The Rust you buy from shops today just isn't the same.
It was featured in the MacOS Big Sur keynote being used with Safari but sadly hasn't made it to the App Store yet.
If enough people like it, I will make this a full-fledged service.
And focus on adding features like dark mode, server-sync, sign-in, account management, export/import of recipes, sharing screenshots of recipes like this one directly with your friends https://i.redd.it/kk1goqsswo981.png
Scroll to the bottom to see what I’m talking about: http://www.cookingforengineers.com/recipe/108/Banana-Nut-Bre...
https://mo-nomz.herokuapp.com
Example (second image) https://modernistcuisine.com/recipes/pressure-cooked-vegetab...
https://thecookbookapp.com/
Currently, some different money for recipes as a service, and the weird price of $41 for a "lifetime" subscription
It will interest this audience that they have a public roadmap, too: https://roadmap.thecookbookapp.com/cookbook
It's fine to share something you founded, just be upfront about it and don't spam. It would have been easy to just post "We're working on something similar over at Pepper! <link> Our approach is .... Would love to hear what people think."
I would actually expect the whole process could be laid out in graphviz since all of those are dependencies of the ultimate outcome (heh, "enjoy"). I originally thought it may be a DAG, but I can recall a few recipes that explicitly have a looping step in them
I know tastes differ, but personally I think it’s terrible.
Personally I am a fan of the Food Network recipes online, especially Alton Brown’s. Straight to the point with no fluff, and maybe a Good Eats segment if you’re lucky.
I have ADHD so I often find my self taking a non-linear route to following a recipe: Step 1, Step 3, Step 4, oops! Step 2, now where was I? Is that salt or baking powder in the bowl?
Everyone thinks I made an “app” because it launches in full screen thanks to the MDM. One of our kitchens doesn’t have Wi-Fi, but once the recipe viewer is launched, it doesn’t need connection anymore since it’s a single HTML page and the refresh button is hidden.
The recipes on my “app” use HTML tables fairly similar to the tables on the link you shared. I didn’t know HTML tables could be formatted like they are on cookingforengineers.
I think the op means it’s nice that the ingredients are given by weight because it is more accurate than volume.
I’m not sure why it’s talking about “cups”, I thought americans used “gallons” or “fluid ounces” for volume? It also has one ingredient that has accuracy to 3sf in its weight (167 grams) which seems rather excessive for cooking.
In theory you can use volume to measure things like flour, although it is trickier than using weight as you have to smooth it over.
https://mo-nomz.herokuapp.com
I have always been interested in seeing a database which had consistent units and ingredients as well, such that pulling the full database and doing visualizations could be easily done.
This would also make the adjustment to the batch size for each recipe on each webpage much simpler.
"Want 1 Liter of dough for 2 banana bread loafs? Just change the amount output field and watch the values change". Type of thing.
Obviously I know heat transfer effects need to be taken into account and such for some things, but it would be at least a start . Then the real mass/heat transfer and such engineering fun can begin.
https://www.cookbookfornerds.com/
It has the floating “skip to recipe” button which is handy when you come back to a familiar recipe for some details.
The clutter isn’t the problem as much as the content quality is most often for me.
[0]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mela-recipe-manager/id15484660...
Should be fixed in a few days.
similar open-source program plainoldrecipe https://plainoldrecipe.com/
- Skim a few recipe sites for anything new I want to try
- 1-click import them to Anylist (using the browser extension)
- Add recipes to the weekly meal plan in Anylist
- Click "Add all ingredients" for each recipe, which automatically puts all ingredients for the recipe into my shopping list.
One of my favorite things is that it automatically categorizes the list items by store section, making the shopping much easier.
It doesn't work with every recipe site, though (traeger.com for example), but it works with most.
There are two features I wish it had that would make it nearly perfect:
1. Ability to create my own categorization rules. For example, "whole peeled tomatoes with their juices" gets categorized as beverage, and I can manually recategorize that specific item, but it would be nice to create a rule for wholepeeledtomato* that puts it in the "Canned Goods" category
2. The ability to exclude ingredients from being added to the list. I always have salt, pepper, and olive oil on hand, but I end up having to manually cross a dozen of those off my shopping list when I add ingredients for the week when nearly every recipe inevitably includes them.
https://goodcheapeats.com/simple-rice-pilaf/
versus:
https://goodcheapeats.com/wprm_print/27621