If it saves anyone else the effort: I went to doublecheck the claim that those articles cited the wrong page, and it seems you're correct on The Register, but archive.org's earliest copies of the other two articles don't seem to reference the impostor site. They refer instead to the GitHub.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260301133636/https://www.there... https://web.archive.org/web/20260211162657/https://venturebe... https://web.archive.org/web/20260220201539/https://thenewsta...

>> I’ve seen pages that are still top 3 for a particular competitive query years later, simply because they were one of the first to write about it.

With so many copycats on the internet, first to publish seems like a fairly good indication of the original source. But as we can see here, that's not always true.

Most of the problem is the "only been a week" part, likely. Though you're fighting an algorithm that's been patched in inconsistent places for all sorts of weights like "authority" and "quality".

Thousands of little weights driven by obscure attributes of the site that you're not really going to figure out by thrashing and changing stuff.

I think the precaution developers should take is having a website and adding a page to it for each project.

If you must just have a repo self host it. In fact, selfhost the repo in any case.

> 3) Google is biased towards sites that cover a topic earlier than others.

> I’ve seen pages that are still top 3 for a particular competitive query years later, simply because they were one of the first to write about it.

Reason why I still always get the Java 8 docs for any search. Annoying.