Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 872 posts

Re: AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

#241

Post by badc0ffee »

maerch wrote: post #135
mtkd wrote: post #50

Conversely, it's useful to get an immediate answer sometimes 6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at?" was a few clicks, long SEO optimised blog post answers and usually all in F not C ... despite Google knowing location ... I used it as an example at the time of 'how hard can this be?' First sentance of Google AI response right now: "Pork is safe to eat when cooked to an internal temperature of 145°F (63°C)"

Meanwhile, in Germany, you can get raw pork with raw onions on a bread roll at just about every other bakery. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett When I searched for the safe temperature for pork (in German), I found this as the first link (Kagi search engine) > Ideally, pork should taste pink, with a core temperature between 58 and 59 degrees Celsius. You can determine the exact temperature using a meat thermometer…

Should "Taste pink", you say

Re: AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

#242

Post by AlecSchueler »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #233

Here is the experience when clicking a link on mobile: * Page loads, immediately when I start scrolling and reading a popup trying to get tracking consent * If I am lucky, there is a "necessary only". When unlucky I need to click "manage options" and first see how to reject all tracking * There is a sticky banner on top/bottom taking 20-30% of my screen upselling me a subscription or asking me to install their app. U…

> This is btw. usually all before I even established if the content is what I was looking for, or is at any way useful to me

And to find that out you have to hit Page Down about twenty times, scanning as you, because the content is padded out to increase ad coverage.

Re: AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

#243

Post by AlecSchueler »

HSO wrote: post #234
throwaway81523 wrote: post #133

Of course slow, shitty web sites also cause a massive drop in clicks, as soon as an alternative to clicking emerges. It's just like on HN, if I see an interesting title and want to know what the article is about, I can wince and click the article link, but it's much faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments. That difference is almost entirely from the crappy overdesig…

> faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments Or, youre confusing primordial desire to be aligned with perceived peers -- checking what others say, then effortlessly nodding along -- with forming your own judgment.

Or they know themselves better than you do and it's exactly what they claimed.

Re: AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

#244

Post by nextzck »

HSO wrote: post #234
throwaway81523 wrote: post #133

Of course slow, shitty web sites also cause a massive drop in clicks, as soon as an alternative to clicking emerges. It's just like on HN, if I see an interesting title and want to know what the article is about, I can wince and click the article link, but it's much faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments. That difference is almost entirely from the crappy overdesig…

> faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments Or, youre confusing primordial desire to be aligned with perceived peers -- checking what others say, then effortlessly nodding along -- with forming your own judgment.

I think this is a really good take. It was mean for sure but you’re right. Why do we do this? This is a good reminder for me to click more articles instead of reading through comments and forming an opinion based on what I read from others.

Re: AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

#245

Post by Huxley1 »

This situation makes sense since everyone wants quick answers, and AI summaries are really convenient. A lot of people just read the summary without clicking through to the original content. But this can be a real problem for creators who rely on traffic. Does anyone have ideas on how to balance both user needs and support for creators?

Re: AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

#247

Post by [deleted] »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #240
HSO wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments Or, youre confusing primordial desire to be aligned with perceived peers -- checking what others say, then effortlessly nodding along -- with forming your own judgment.

I think that's a mean and disingenuous. I often click on the HN comments before reading the article because the article I very often nothing more than the headline and I'm more interested in the discussion.

[deleted]

Re: AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

#248

Post by 8note »

what wrote: post #146
didibus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny story, I used that to know the cooked temperature of burgers, it said medium-rare was 130. I proceeded to eating it and all, but then like half way through, I noticed the middle of this burger is really red looking, doesn't seem normal, and suddenly I remembered, wait, ground beef is always supposed to be 160, 130 medium-rare is for steak. I then chatted that back to it, and it was like, oh ya, I made a mistake…

Do you actually put a thermometer in your burgers/steaks/meat when you’re cooking? That seems really weird. Why are people downvoting this? I’ve literally never seen anyone use a thermometer to cook a burger or steak or pork chop. A whole roasted turkey, sure.

thermometers were recommended by folks like alton brown and kenji to get really consistent results.

i havent heard it for burgers, but steaks for sure.

Re: AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

#249

Post by ncallaway »

zahlman wrote: post #71
ncallaway wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear lord please don’t use an AI overview answer for food safety. If you made a bet with your friend and are using the AI overview to settle it, fine. But please please click on an actual result from a trusted source if you’re deciding what temperature to cook meat to

I've been finding that the proliferation of AI slop is at its worst on recipe/cooking/nutrition sites, so....

Please find a trusted source of information for food safety information.

It's genuinely harder than it's ever been to find good information on the internet, but when you're dealing with food safety information, it's really worth taking the extra minute to find a definitive source.

https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-i...

Re: AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

#250

Post by 8note »

Jean-Papoulos wrote: post #201
mtkd wrote: post #50

Conversely, it's useful to get an immediate answer sometimes 6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at?" was a few clicks, long SEO optimised blog post answers and usually all in F not C ... despite Google knowing location ... I used it as an example at the time of 'how hard can this be?' First sentance of Google AI response right now: "Pork is safe to eat when cooked to an internal temperature of 145°F (63°C)"

Incredible, you are the problem. Didn't think I'd see such an idiotic answer on HN, please for the love of god do not use AI to know what is safe to eat.

id consider that google thinks its good enough for people to base their food safety off of it, and they deserve to get sued for whatever theyre worth for providing said recommendations when somebody trusts them and gets sick
Post reply on HN