Live data from Hacker News

Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

sparktoro.com

181–190 of 531 posts

Re: Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

#181
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, simple math isn't, but think about your currency conversion, your weather lookup, or your sports schedule. Where did Google get the data for those things? Does whoever provided that data have expenses, and did Google compensate them in any way for those expenses or did Google lift the data for free with GoogleBot?

I'm pretty sure they have partnerships with the major stock and currency exchanges, pro sports leagues, and weather.com to get that data. EDIT: added some sources (sorry, that's the best I could dig up in 5 minutes) [1] https://www.google.com/googlefinance/disclaimer/ [2] https://searchengineland.com/google-now-with-real-time-nhl-h... [3] https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/ibm-scores-a-weath...

US weather data is available for free from NOAA as long as the API isn't abused. Everybody else is just reselling the same data anyway.

Re: Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

#182
For me, the issue is not that search queries can now answer simple calculations or inane celebrity trivia without requiring clickthroughs to ad-ridden sites.

It's what comes afterwards, when Google inevitably starts answering queries on complex issues around medicine, politics, society or the economy with a pithy snippet grabbed from what it's machine learning thought was representative.

We've already seen that vast swathes of the population can have their vote influenced by Facebook/Twitter posts with a big "Sponsored" tag on them. No nuance, all invective.

How do you think that will play out when people will take the snippet at its word and not bother to at least click and get some idea of the author's possible biases, methodological limitations, etc.?

Re: Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

#184
post #15

So a common trope in the startup world is the difference between a feature and a company, the idea being that lots of features are masquerading as companies. This inevitably leads to them being shocked--SHOCKED--when some bigger player adds that feature, eating their lunch. I feel the same way about a lot of outbound sites on Google. There are a bunch of things I just don't want to go to another site for. Off the top…

I understand your stand, but what Google did with its featured snippets is essentially a form of bait and switch. It encouraged entrepreneurs and creators to create content that could answer specific queries with the promise that Google will drive traffic to their sites. Now Google is using the same content and depriving them of the traffic. That's pretty scummy in my opinion.

Are you arguing that Google violates copyright?

Re: Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

#185
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your stand, but what Google did with its featured snippets is essentially a form of bait and switch. It encouraged entrepreneurs and creators to create content that could answer specific queries with the promise that Google will drive traffic to their sites. Now Google is using the same content and depriving them of the traffic. That's pretty scummy in my opinion.

Hm, I think there's scumminess on both sides, since (as GP noted) even simple sites (e.g. for lyrics) are bloated and unusable. Before: User: Hey Google, what's the monthly payment on a 20-year mortgage with 3.9% APR? Google: Oh, MortgateSite would know, go there. MortgageSite: Here's your calculator. User: Okay, let me put in the numbers ... awesome, thanks! Oh, neat, they can hook me up with lenders. Let me take a…

Your second part is wrong. According to the data most users don't dig deeper, they just stop at the answer Google already gave. MortgageSite doesn't even get the traffic in the first place.

Re: Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

#186
post #15

So a common trope in the startup world is the difference between a feature and a company, the idea being that lots of features are masquerading as companies. This inevitably leads to them being shocked--SHOCKED--when some bigger player adds that feature, eating their lunch. I feel the same way about a lot of outbound sites on Google. There are a bunch of things I just don't want to go to another site for. Off the top…

It's interesting how one of the best sources of information are sites providing the information as a side dish to their core business.

For example I was searching for a lease termination letter template. There are sites dedicated to documents, letters, forms and templates. Many of them are pretty spammy or messy. Then I found a page of a real estate portal. They had just what I needed, without superfluous ads with nice UX. It's in their interest to help people to do this, because then they will probably search for a next apartment. They, of course, are fast to offer additional services on top like searching for the move services. But nevertheless, providing this service is something on edge what they are doing - a marketplace for real estate. Only then they will get some money, so the side experience should be as smooth and painless as possible.

Another example is a tax/salary calculator on a job board. Or... most what Google is doing to some extent, but with different trade-offs.

I know it's nothing new, but it was interesting for me to notice it recently so directly.

Re: Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

#187
post #109

I think what folks are missing is that a lot of these "zero-click" searches happen as a result of Google scraping your website, and displaying the results as a "featured snippet." Yes, they link to you below the featured snippet. No, more people don't click, because they've taken the answer from your website and displayed it right in their search results. For example: If I'm searching for "best nail for cedar wood" G…

On top of all that, Google's snippets aren't curated and therefore, aren't always correct. They can be (and almost certainly are) gamed. Users that don't click through open themselves up to carrying on being misinformed.

I've found them to be incorrect so often on things when I would click through to the actual page or find a better link. I don't trust just the blurb for any answers any more.

Re: Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

#188
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I think there's scumminess on both sides, since (as GP noted) even simple sites (e.g. for lyrics) are bloated and unusable. Before: User: Hey Google, what's the monthly payment on a 20-year mortgage with 3.9% APR? Google: Oh, MortgateSite would know, go there. MortgageSite: Here's your calculator. User: Okay, let me put in the numbers ... awesome, thanks! Oh, neat, they can hook me up with lenders. Let me take a…

Your second part is wrong. According to the data most users don't dig deeper, they just stop at the answer Google already gave. MortgageSite doesn't even get the traffic in the first place.

I was using that example to establish that the sites (that are losing the clicks) are just as scummy as (if not more than) Google for "stealing" the clicks. That, in turn, helps explain why users might be reluctant to dig deeper, showing that general scummy practices are at least as much to blame as Google "stealing" their content.

Re: Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that paywalls seem more common. But the early web had plenty of popups and scummy ads. Popup blockers were added to browsers quite a long time ago. Content farms were huge before Google started kicking them out in 2011. Have they made a comeback? Google's latest attempt to keep the crap under control (AMP) is very unpopular on Hacker News, but I guess it shows they are trying to do something?

> Content farms were huge before Google started kicking them out in 2011. Have they made a comeback? Have they not? Content marketing seems as alive as ever, if not more. > Google's latest attempt to keep the crap under control (AMP) is very unpopular on Hacker News, but I guess it shows they are trying to do something? Because we - myself and many of those other HNers disliking it - believe that with AMP, making web…

It's hard to tell since there is little in the news about them, but it seems like once, content farms were fast-growing businesses, and now they are bottom feeders? Or maybe they're just boring compared to all the other threats nowadays?
Post reply on HN