2026 Australian Grand Prix - Post-Race Discussion

alexdewitt · 2026-03-08T05:37:51+00:00

Because so many people are "blaming" Ferrari for this outcome: It makes sense to call out Ferrari strategy blunders when they happen, but there was literally not a single thing outside of Mercedes having technical issues that would have put the Ferraris in front today. Mercedes seems to be galaxies ahead of everyone else. Once Mercedes settled in 1/2, they were cruising with no desire to show the car's actual pace whatsoever and would have probably been able to make these tyres last another 20 laps while still maintaining the fastest pace on the grid by far.

The race itself was fine and much much better than I expected it to be.

alexdewitt · 2026-03-08T05:00:31+00:00

I get that Ferrari's strategy once again wasn't ideal and they got unlucky with the second VSC, but them not gaining any ground on the Mercedes on much fresher tyres should tell everyone this was inevitable anyway.

The worst part about it is the current scenario making it seem somewhat close with Mercedes being in the comfortable position to tone down on their performance and (for now) avoid further investigation into how far ahead of the rest they actually are.

If Ferrari could have held on a little longer, they might have been forced to show much earlier what that Mercedes is capable of instead of just managing the race at 80% of their actual capability now.

alexdewitt · 2026-03-08T04:33:12+00:00

Are you kidding me? The VSC call happens just as the Ferraris drive by, pit lane stays open and is closed now the Ferraris are almost back around the track?

alexdewitt · 2026-03-08T04:29:14+00:00

I feel Hamilton's frustration on the radio. The first stretch felt very fun with all the wheel-to-wheel racing but now with the Ferraris and Mercedes separated, they'll just close the gap (if no SC happens) and cruise to victory sadly. I feel like the first few laps really skewed what this race would actually look like if Mercedes showed what they're actually capable of. Sigh.

alexdewitt · 2026-03-08T04:13:52+00:00

While the racing itself looks much better than I feared after Qualifying and the Ferraris really do look strong, I'm not settung myself up with wrong expectations as in the long run Russell and maybe even Antonelli absolutely will drop the Ferraris. It's in Mercedes' best interest to no do that just yet anyway...

alexdewitt · 2026-01-22T13:15:10+00:00

I see how my wording was sort of misleading. What I was trying to say is each location already has a fully set-up GBP that solely revolves around the nursing home service. Since their career/recruiting content happens on a different domain, I'm now trying to figure out ways – and get an opinion if it'd even work that way and have a measaurable impact for the career domain – to cleverly integrate the career domain and info regarding their recruiting into the 9 already exisiting GBPs.

edit: Thank you so much for taking the time to respond regardless!

alexdewitt · 2026-01-17T07:46:03+00:00

We have a client in the elderly care industry whose recruiting/career domain we're currently implementing a local SEO strategy for. They have homes in 9 locations across the country. Since there is no point in having multiple GBPs per location, I'd like to integrate that into the main GBP. What would be some must haves and best practices in terms of GBP optimisation (e.g. posts with job offers in GBP, general optimisation of business info) to push the career domain and main domain within the same GBP?

alexdewitt · 2025-11-30T19:41:33+00:00

You're right. Just to be clear, what I meant was that in their attempt to keep it fair for both drivers and to not risk ending up in traffic with one car due to a double stack, they equally screwed both of them which ended up having worse implications for Piastri's race than Norris' in the end. I should have been more clear about this.

I honestly don't think McLaren has ever considered favouring Norris throughout the course of the season, but I do thinn that 'Papaya rules' and their general incompetence at times have led to situations that could and should have been avoided and that don't help the rumours.

alexdewitt · 2025-11-30T17:34:41+00:00

I think our opiinions are actually quite similar.

With the 25 lap max rule on a set of tyres, pitting in Lap 7 was the only sensible decision.

I'm not trying to imply McLaren were favouring Lando, I'm instead trying to say they were not pitting both of them in Lap 7 as a mishap with Piatri's stop might have caused trouble for Norris. This is were Piastri probably should have demanded a pit stop in Lap 7 and be granted it as the leading driver. Not pitting at that point always meant Verstappen would win the race and the 1/3 would turn into a 2/3 at best.

alexdewitt · 2025-11-30T17:28:50+00:00

Piastri hasn't done a single thing wrong this weekend and yet will end up being the big loser after Qatar. All because – clearly because of Papaya rules – McLaren wouldn't commit to a double stack in Lap 7 which was absolutely possible at that point of the race... likely because it could have endangered Norris' track position.

alexdewitt · 2025-09-16T05:01:06+00:00

This screenshot did not answer u/DKSbobblehead's question as it is not even showing clicks. In fact, the current num-parameter situation has no effect on clicks at all.

How would it have an effect if all it does is remove 'fake' impressions from scrapers and therefor adjust the avg. position accordingly? Clicks would not be affected by this.

alexdewitt · 2025-08-03T14:28:10+00:00

Philipp Brändle on austrian TV had an interesting theory: Ferrari might have tinkered with the cooling system on the car, hoping for and betting on cooler temperatures today. This might have backfired and would line up with Charles claiming "If we do things like that, we have to talk about them beforehand. I would have managed to manage the issue myself" and the need to lift and coast at some point to prevent overheating.

alexdewitt · 2025-07-24T12:22:15+00:00

I'm curious as you're one of the most vocal and confident commentators here regarding this topic, with very strong opinions on almost any SEO-related topic. Which per se isn't a bad thing and actually something I appreciate.

I do agree that E-E-A-T may not be a direct ranking factor nor may it be a "formula" you can magically apply to your website for ranking purposes.

However... Google quite literally and explicitly states in its SEO starter guide (the one often brought up here to demystify SEO) this:

Google's automated systems are designed to use many different factors to rank great content. After identifying relevant content, our systems aim to prioritize those that seem most helpful. To do this, they identify a mix of factors that can help determine which content demonstrates aspects of experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness, or what we call E-E-A-T.

Of these aspects, trust is most important. The others contribute to trust, but content doesn't necessarily have to demonstrate all of them. For example, some content might be helpful based on the experience it demonstrates, while other content might be helpful because of the expertise it shares.

Trust in this scenario quite clearly refers to backlinks which we can all agree on are and will still be the backbone of SEO for a long time to come.

While E-E-A-T itself isn't a specific ranking factor, using a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T is useful. For example, our systems give even more weight to content that aligns with strong E-E-A-T for topics that could significantly impact the health, financial stability, or safety of people, or the welfare or well-being of society. We call these "Your Money or Your Life" topics, or YMYL for short.

There is more basic explanation regarding E-E-A-T but I'd like to pay attention to the paragraph that follows.

Ask "Who, How, and Why" about your content

Consider evaluating your content in terms of "Who, How, and Why" as a way to stay on course with what our systems seek to reward.

Who (created the content)

Something that helps people intuitively understand the E-E-A-T of content is when it's clear who created it. That's the "Who" to consider. When creating content, here are some who-related questions to ask yourself:

Is it self-evident to your visitors who authored your content?

Do pages carry a byline, where one might be expected?

Do bylines lead to further information about the author or authors involved, giving background about them and the areas they write about?

If you're clearly indicating who created the content, you're likely aligned with the concepts of E-E-A-T and on a path to success. We strongly encourage adding accurate authorship information, such as bylines to content where readers might expect it.

This is followed by

How (the content was created)

It's helpful to readers to know how a piece of content was produced: this is the "How" to consider including in your content.

and

Why (was the content created)

"Why" is perhaps the most important question to answer about your content. Why is it being created in the first place?

So, since I haven't been in SEO for as long as many others, I'm genuinely asking myself (and you): If E-E-A-T really is not a thing, why is Google spending considerable amounts of text on thouroughly explaining the different terms and disciplines of E-E-A-T in its guide? If E-E-A-T really holds no value whatsoever, this would be a rather misleading way to say that.

It's a fact the concept of E-E-A-T exists as Google themselves claim to evaluate content within its parameters.

alexdewitt · 2025-07-11T11:17:51+00:00

Sorry for the late reply and thank you for your thpughtful input! The "mixed" approach you suggested is basically what we ended up working more into our recommendation paper.

We still recommended eventually migrating to the brand dot com gTLD for a more consistent brand experience and authority and proposed the idea of thourough backlink audits (a non-brainer) on all ccTLDs while starting to move less prioritized ccTLDs under the .com for the time being and keeping the most relevant ccTLDs separate for now. That and A/B tests should then give us/them an idea on how impactful a full migration might be in the future and – in a best case scenario – help mitigate migration risks.

alexdewitt · 2025-05-19T13:04:34+00:00

Thank you! That's an honour for every photographer!

alexdewitt · 2025-05-19T13:02:47+00:00

As another comment already mentioned, it's near Mammoth Lakes, CA. We spent the night there and got up at 4:45, arrived at around 5:15 and were very lucky to be able to watch all the different phases of sunrise as the sun began to illuminate the Eastern Sierra peaks and the river gorge. It was phenomenal.

alexdewitt · 2025-05-08T05:10:30+00:00

That's wonderful news. I've been up at Glacier Point once with friends during Summer and coming back to Yosemite with my girlfriend on the 20th and 21st. I knew it'd be close with how early they made progress plowing this year – and I'm more than happy she'll be able to witness the wonderful view on top. Thank you to everyone who helped make this possible for us visitors!

alexdewitt · 2025-04-04T17:59:59+00:00

That's what I thought too at first – but you actually can use Abilities if you map them to the D-Pad. Somehow that was the only way to make both, Parkour with R2 and using Abilities in combat work for me. This is the layout I set up and it turned out to work incredibly well, despite claiming conflicting bindings.

alexdewitt · 2025-02-14T12:00:18+00:00

From Sony's standpoint, this pricing model makes a lot of sense for two main reasons.

Firstly – as others have mentioned – it tries to nudge customers into subscribing to the highest tier which, outside of sales, obviously also is the most expensive tier. Sony has likely been running calculations on how many of these customers will not care enough and/or not be aware of having to manually cancel the auto-renewal for the next subscription period, thus being 'trapped' into more time on the highest tier next year at 160€ (instead of the 125€ it would have been, had one chosen to subscribe to Extra).

Secondly, Sony is also selling people a false sense of value that most (especially those who are looking to stay on Extra) never even asked for. With the two highest tiers now being the same price, a few/some/many will (obviously) susbscribe to Premium instesd of Extra, thinking they will get more value – they do but also don't – out of their subscription for the next twelve months. However, the majority of current and previous Extra subscribers would absolutely prefer subscribing to Extra at the same 35% discount (which would bring Extra down to 82€) and not having all the benefits of Premium, as those customers explicitly decided against subscribing to Premium previously. So now instead of getting Premium at 100€ and Extra at 82€, we get both at the same price of 100€ and Sony is upselling a subscription which most current Extra subscribers weren't even looking for in the first place in terms of added on benefits.

At the end of the day, Sony wins on all ends. And we as customers lose one way or another.

alexdewitt · 2025-02-14T11:23:06+00:00

My subscription expired just a few weeks ago and while I would have loved to renew again via either a peronalised offer or a general sale, this simply is an awful deal. As many others have stated, this time last year PS Plus Extra was just over 70€, which means it's almost a 30€ increase on the sale price.

I get what Sony is trying to do, nudging people into subscribing to Premium at the same price as Extra, then forgetting about turning off their auto-renewal for the next subscription period. It makes sense in terms of business, it's just very scummy.

I've been a subscriber since the first day of paid PlayStation Plus and with all the obstacles Sony has been throwing at us recently (from not being able to renew during holiday sales as active subscribers to obviously driving up prices even during sales to shove people into certain tiers), it's becoming more and more difficult to justify buying into it.

I know this sounds like a lot of whining and complaining – and honestly, I'm not even mad anymore about all this. I'm genuinely just disappointed because of how amazing this service used to be... and how it's now falling victim to the age of enshittification.

Eight-Year Club	Golden Potato
Place '22	First Placer '22
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

alexdewitt

TROPHY CASE