21–30 of 101 posts
For all the tiny violins that could be played about how life is getting harder for SEO practitioners, this marks a fundamental and very unwelcome change in the Web. Google have decided that it’s more profitable to keep people on its own site than redirecting them elsewhere, a big change in its contract. Before, it was ‘structure your site well and we’ll send you traffic’. Now it’s becoming, ‘structure your site well…
For all the tiny violins that could be played about how life is getting harder for SEO practitioners, this marks a fundamental and very unwelcome change in the Web. Google have decided that it’s more profitable to keep people on its own site than redirecting them elsewhere, a big change in its contract. Before, it was ‘structure your site well and we’ll send you traffic’. Now it’s becoming, ‘structure your site well…
What kinds of searches are you thinking about? I like that I can google for the weather or Dr. Fauci's age and get an answer directly. The results page always has links if I care to dig deeper but 99% of the time I'd rather get the answer and move on.
While keeping people on their platform is concerning and contrary to their prior position of getting out of the way of people’s information, I appreciate the snippets for one reason, I don’t have to worry about malware. Going to unknown sites is risky and even if not you may never the less get a clickjack telling people they are infected and need to click to clean up their system. It’s a no-win state.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_...
It'll be fascinating to watch if Google eventually falls. They have really interesting strategic weaknesses. Advertisers will go where the people go, but Google's balance sheets suggest there is enormous scope for a middleman to go and negotiate with the Apples/Mozillas/Microsofts of the world to give them a better cut of the search revenue. I can imagine a key based system where I register a token with, say, "Hoogle…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't trust them to not infect your system why do you trust their content? You don't trust their content but you trust their content? (And before people start pointing fingers at ad providers, reminder Google is one of the largest?)
I think the idea is: I trust the content of the website (ex. the actual weather forecast) but I don't trust/like the way it is served on their website (intrusive ads, cookie acceptance, heavy pages, etc). The fact that the core of the content is displayed directly through Google bypasses the problems above.
Yeah, just what've been saying for some time now. As Google is struggling for growth, it'll squeeze ad revenue off the extant web, turning it into a piece of shit even more than it is already. The same thing happened with eg. free PHPbb forum providers in early 2000s which were plastered with banner ads more and more (many mobile sites are like this already). I don't see a way that Google can win this race to the bot…
The story changes if the web continues to grow and more folks do more business over the web.
For all the tiny violins that could be played about how life is getting harder for SEO practitioners, this marks a fundamental and very unwelcome change in the Web. Google have decided that it’s more profitable to keep people on its own site than redirecting them elsewhere, a big change in its contract. Before, it was ‘structure your site well and we’ll send you traffic’. Now it’s becoming, ‘structure your site well…
What kinds of searches are you thinking about? I like that I can google for the weather or Dr. Fauci's age and get an answer directly. The results page always has links if I care to dig deeper but 99% of the time I'd rather get the answer and move on.
Yes, Wikipedia’s content is available for Google to take and display on its own site. But by not pushing through the traffic Google risks starving it off long term.
I used to work for a very large forum and information site, and as more of our content got picked up by Google’s snippet boxes, the more no-click searches and the corresponding decline in traffic we saw.
Google’s push to increase revenue is slowly but surely killing the golden goose.
For all the tiny violins that could be played about how life is getting harder for SEO practitioners, this marks a fundamental and very unwelcome change in the Web. Google have decided that it’s more profitable to keep people on its own site than redirecting them elsewhere, a big change in its contract. Before, it was ‘structure your site well and we’ll send you traffic’. Now it’s becoming, ‘structure your site well…
What kinds of searches are you thinking about? I like that I can google for the weather or Dr. Fauci's age and get an answer directly. The results page always has links if I care to dig deeper but 99% of the time I'd rather get the answer and move on.
So, by your own numbers, websites that create the content have just lost 99% of your page views to Google.
>What kinds of searches are you thinking about?
Sounds like pretty much all your searches can be used as examples then.
For all the tiny violins that could be played about how life is getting harder for SEO practitioners, this marks a fundamental and very unwelcome change in the Web. Google have decided that it’s more profitable to keep people on its own site than redirecting them elsewhere, a big change in its contract. Before, it was ‘structure your site well and we’ll send you traffic’. Now it’s becoming, ‘structure your site well…
What kinds of searches are you thinking about? I like that I can google for the weather or Dr. Fauci's age and get an answer directly. The results page always has links if I care to dig deeper but 99% of the time I'd rather get the answer and move on.
The other side of that coin is that you also have to pay the cost of losing of the freedom to be discovered online if you have something to say. If you have a brilliant way of telling people the weather with 100% accuracy then you're not going to get anywhere with that because no one leaves Google to get the weather forecast any more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't trust them to not infect your system why do you trust their content? You don't trust their content but you trust their content? (And before people start pointing fingers at ad providers, reminder Google is one of the largest?)
I think the idea is: I trust the content of the website (ex. the actual weather forecast) but I don't trust/like the way it is served on their website (intrusive ads, cookie acceptance, heavy pages, etc). The fact that the core of the content is displayed directly through Google bypasses the problems above.
There's what you don't like, and there's what you don't trust (in the computing security sense of the word).
If you don't trust them to not do stuff that actually harms your computer, you shouldn't trust their content.
The sites that serve most of the malware on the internet don't have stuff Google is going to quote in a search result...
-
Now there's the stuff you don't like, their big ads, and their slow page and what not, but that's their content. They need to pay for it somehow.
People will pay $5 for coffee from some random coffee shop they've never visited, but they won't pay 99 cents for an app someone put a few years of development into with 5 star reviews.
-
If you like their info, but not how they want to deliver it, why not abandon it until they change their tune? Why act like Google is doing some great service robbing them of their traffic just because you don't like how they serve info?
Especially when enough people apparently are ok with it that Google felt they were the best place on the internet to steal this info from?