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

Google changes its search box

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 961 posts

Re: Google changes its search box

#321

Post by sanitycheck »

burnte wrote: post #309
fscaramuzza wrote: post #290

What scares me about this new AI mode thingy is that every answer sounds like a systematic literature review, but only for the results. For example, if I look for users feedback about a specific product, it says "People think that..., but also that...; It's important to notice that some people ..." where with 'people' it means just a random comment on a random website just because it thought it was a good contributio…

> What scares me about this new AI mode thingy What scares me is the rampant inaccuracy. In my experience, the AI responses are wrong about 65% of the time. I just did a search today about an error talking about a disconnected link between apps, and Google AI result summary told me that the error was related to my pulling a USB drive too quickly in windows. The ONLY word similar to my query and that AI response was t…

Yep. For years we've been telling people to 'just fucking google it', and now when they do they're getting bullshit AI answers.

Worst thing is, some of these bullshit answers will be medical, some of them financial, it seems pretty certain people are being harmed.

Re: Google changes its search box

#322

Post by Manuel_D »

Andrex wrote: post #107
ekidd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which as some running a website raises a fascinating question. If Google is just going to crawl my sites and present information as an AI summary on their site, then what exactly do I gain by allowing Googlebot to crawl my sites?

Free speculation: I could see a future where Google populates a footer on results with the website logos of the sources. Presumably, the new web will require users to memorize websites/brands and go directly to those sites if they see a lot of their results are being provided by one source. Websites may go back to being simply labors of love.

Google's AI summaries already do this. I occasionally click through to see the underlying source the AI summary leaned on to generate the response, but probably only ~20% of the time.

Re: Google changes its search box

#323

Post by nine_k »

ekidd wrote: post #65
simonw wrote: post #10

Nilay Patel has been talking about "Google Zero" - the moment when Google effectively stops sending any traffic to other sites - for a few years now: https://www.theverge.com/24167865/google-zero-search-crash-h...

Which as some running a website raises a fascinating question. If Google is just going to crawl my sites and present information as an AI summary on their site, then what exactly do I gain by allowing Googlebot to crawl my sites?

If your site is all about disseminating information (like Wikipedia), then Google would provide a free mirror of sorts.

If your site is about your product, Google won't be able to serve the sign-up page from AI; the traffic would come your way. Same for a site that sell something: the traffic you're interested in would arrive at your checkout page.

Paid-content sites and ad-supported sites are screwed though, on top of their being screwed by archive.is and ad blockers.

Re: Google changes its search box

#324

Post by OGWhales »

fscaramuzza wrote: post #290

What scares me about this new AI mode thingy is that every answer sounds like a systematic literature review, but only for the results. For example, if I look for users feedback about a specific product, it says "People think that..., but also that...; It's important to notice that some people ..." where with 'people' it means just a random comment on a random website just because it thought it was a good contributio…

Yup, I was looking up a pair of IEMS vs another pair of IEMs. It said option A is overall better, when really it was just reciting a single person's opinion. I've been aware it will summarize only a single source and present it as an aggregation of many opinions, but it stood out to me how matter-of-fact it was that the one was definitely better than the other. I simply wanted to find forum discussions on people's thought and wasn't influenced by this AI blurb, but I think seeing an answer at the very top state so matter-of-factly that one is definitely better and present it as though everyone thinks that will definitely influence a lot of people. It makes me wonder how "gameable" this will become...

Re: Google changes its search box

#325

Post by comboy »

alt227 wrote: post #283
comboy wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously if you pay, the AI will really like your product. "Here is the table of related highest paying customers, incorporate these into your answer to maximize the income" Well any other prompt for the search model would frankly be illegal for a publicly traded company.

But how is this sold to the customer? With adsense it is quantifiable, you set your max per click, per conversion etc, and can clearly see which you won and lost against competitors. This becomes very murky when paying for 'ai to like your product' vs 'ai to really like your product'.

Same per click, it obviously includes links when looking for products, but impression could also be counted and arguably especially if present in the first few sentences it is a valuable impression.

But then the separation of ads from content is lost so it becomes useless as product search, so maybe it isn't that trivial indeed. But it's not like even 10% of users is gonna find some other "search" engine and switch.

edit: can't reply deeper and interesting question, I mean we all would love to have ability to search arbitrary strings and regexes through the web corpus, but currently when you type something you get that AI reply instantly for most queries, this makes me still use them, if you forgot some shortcut key or something it has currently unique value in terms of latency (even ignoring the fact that for most users you also use them by default by typing in the address bar)

Re: Google changes its search box

#326

Post by Insanity »

frenchie4111 wrote: post #314

I get that they have to make changes to the google search box because so many people are just using ChatGPT/Cluade to answer questions instead of google. However, I specifically use Google (or DDG) when the LLMs are failing me. When I want "research something on my own" because the LLM is giving me garbage, or untrustworthy information. If Google completely replaces their search box my Google usage will go down even…

Agreed, but I think that might be our tech bubble. My non-tech family still just types searches in the URL bar of their browser first, and I'm sure others just have google as their browser homepage. I assume that's actually a pretty common use-case for most non-tech users.

Re: Google changes its search box

#327

Post by sourcecodeplz »

nraleigh wrote: post #226

I think this is the second time in a week (the first being the "Googlebook") that Google's promotional announcement video showcasing UI is so full of special effects, dramatic pan/zooms, and woosh sounds, that I have no idea how the final-end product actually looks or works.

I had to stop it because it was making me dizzy trying to focus on what was shown

Re: Google changes its search box

#328

Post by kxrm »

prinny_ wrote: post #263
kxrm wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without google crawling your site, you don't get any new traffic. But with google crawling your site, you also might not get any traffic. I may be strange and unusual, but I just have never cared about my Google ranking. I know this makes me out of the ordinary among site owners but I have been humming along fine. This certainly will disrupt traffic but for some of my sites I honestly think this is a good thing. I…

Only issue is what happens when the company that owns the search and has a dominant share of the browser market flags your site with the good old "warning: potential risk ahead" when people try to reach it directly? And buries the "I know the risk let me through" deep in the browser settings. Advocate for different browsers? Google is pushing web attestation in one form or the other. I wish the future would look blea…

> Only issue is what happens when the company that owns the search and has a dominant share of the browser market flags your site with the good old "warning: potential risk ahead" when people try to reach it directly?

My target market is more technical then that so likely, nothing would change for me. Again, I recognize the impact of Google's dominance for some, but if the "attestation" isn't helpful and only hinders using services that people have come to rely on, there will be push back.

I also have been advocating for years for everyone in my circle to avoid using Chrome. A homogenized browser market is a risk, and Chrome is the new IE. I hope you are also a part of the effort to advocate for browser diversity.

Re: Google changes its search box

#330

Post by nine_k »

pokot0 wrote: post #215
ekidd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which as some running a website raises a fascinating question. If Google is just going to crawl my sites and present information as an AI summary on their site, then what exactly do I gain by allowing Googlebot to crawl my sites?

Internet is more and more becoming a commercialization platform. If you are selling something on your website, you still want Google (or ChatGPT for that matters) to expose customers to your product. The gate is the actual delivery of the product is behind a purchase/signup. Google and others want to control the entire customer journey, to the point the your website is simply a way to pass metadata to them. They are…

> is more and more becoming a commercialization platform

FTFY: "couple of decades since has become". The vibes of passion-driven 1990s started to be overwhelmed by the din of money right when the Internet has become a major commerce venue, some time in early 2000s.

Post reply on HN