The short answer is what @reza Ataei said ... But I decided to add more context.
The recipe category of search seems to be very volatile with massive swings in traffic flows, especially during the period around the holidays when many people are trying new recipes, finding old ones, and sharing their favorites. It is also not a category where any actual authority exists, (in the sense of a historical location for factual information which people list in bibliographies).
It is also oddly competitive with some advertiser support for ingredients.
To a large degree, a search shows what people are reading or what sites they are visiting based on natural traffic. In fact, Google began with very little in regard to filtering, (on-page keywords), but mostly just a raw search based on what page people would land on by following links on the internet based on the link text and page authority. Some people made jokes about searches based on popularity ranking that such a thing would never work.
Google’s 2002 April Fools’ Day joke purportedly disclosed that its
popular search engine was not actually powered by artificial
intelligence, but instead by biological intelligence. Google had
deployed bunches of birds, dubbed pigeon clusters, to calculate the
relative value of web pages because they proved to be faster and more
reliable than either human editors or digital computers.
So the pigeons like cheesy beer bread, click on the cheesy beer bread, tweet about the cheesy beer bread, and share a photo of the cheesy bread ... (of course twitter steals a copy of the copy stolen copy from dinning and cooking, stolen from the New York times, which was shared by Erin Jeanne McDowell, who got it from an unknown original source). And in this case the pigeons made dining and cooking their favorite copy of the recipe. At least until the next fashionable recipe replaces it.
It is also worth noting that the New York Times, pops up a subscription login request before giving up the recipe. People are therefore going to be less likely to share the New York Times URL, Whereas the dining and cooking URL is more visitor friendly. It makes a difference. The Dining and Cooking User interface is better! It is clean, just a clearly defined ad and the recipe, no unwanted pop ups in the way.
I noted that diningandcooking does not have an android app, I did not check allrecipes app to see if they have a copy. Apps are a good way to get viewer ship outside of Google's paradigm. An app seems the best user interface for recipes because you can carry the phone into the kitchen. It makes a difference.
Curator, vs Aggregated vs Scraper content
In theory sites that manually aggregate content are useful sites as people would like to go to a site with say lots of recipes ... 32000 to 88000 visitors may not be being driven to the site by Google. Google does not actually decide what pages people will actually use or land on. They do not like scraper content and actively try to filter those results out of their search.
Curated would be the best but also the most expensive to make in terms of time.
Scraper Content is not good for SEO
So trying to become a popular site based on using Google to popularize the site using scraped content is by nature against the tide. But there are ways to gain popularity without Google. "Dining and cooking" may have found a niche they can remain in. Ultimately, the unpredictability of human nature decides.
