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

Fewer Than Half of Google Searches Now Result in a Click

sparktoro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 531 posts

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

#241

Post by anotheracc »

ergothus wrote: post #16
scott_s wrote: post #4

The presumption here, as I understand is, is that a zero-click search happened because Google used one of their inline apps to answer a question. (For example, if I search "population of new york city", I get a big and bold answer along with a graph that shows NYC's population over time, as well as LA and Chicago.) But I'm not convinced that's necessarily true. I frequently search for things to get a general idea of…

I've also had several fights with google over my refinements. If I search for 2 words, odds are stupidly high that most of the results will NOT include one of my two words. Thanks Google, for deciding I didn't really mean to type that. I follow up with added quotes, etc to enforce what I actually typed, so there will be a lot of Google-induced churn. Google has focused so highly on the peak that more and more searche…

Preach ergothus - it's making me crazy.

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

#242

Post by ribosometronome »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #187
sli wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They can get it painfully wrong last time. I came down with something like optic neuritis a few years ago. It's often one of the first signs of MS in many folk. When I googled something like "MS life expectancy", the blurb said something like "3-7 years" -- with subtext indicating it's 3-7 years LESS than average rather than "you're kicking it in 3 years".

Turns out I didn't have optic neuritis.

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

#243

Post by adtac »

checktheorder wrote: post #218
SilasX wrote: 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…

>MortgageSite: HEY! It looks like you're new to this site. Want to get on our mailing list? Dear every web developer in the world who makes no effort to fight your employers' marketing department on this: I hate you.

sometimes I try to mess with sites that ask for an email address for a mailing list by entering their own addresses: like "support@domain.com", "webmaster@domain.com", etc.

let them deal with their own spam, then they'll understand.

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

#244

Post by avip »

anotheracc wrote: post #233
ALittleLight wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way about ranking new websites. In high school, friends and I made a website for which we did zero search engine optimization (nor were we even aware of search engine optimization). We still ranked in relevant queries and easily got an audience of about ten thousand uniques a month. Today, I struggle to get sites I make to show up on Google at all. For my most recent website, even searching for phrase…

Google has turned an Ocean into a pond - I think we'll all be the better for it once they're gone. Regularly cannot turn up results that I know exist - a modest change that has no relation to the query meaning and the results often turn up. This is not the Google Search Engine I remember.

I had to google turn an ocean into a pond as I was not sure what the phrase entails. I got few images of small cars and your comment. QED

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

#245

Post by soup10 »

charlesju wrote: post #225
cyrusshepard wrote: post #86

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…

It's important to note that this is strategically incredibly important for Google because this forms the backbone of their voice AI. The better at answering questions directly, the better their voice AI becomes and that leads to a lot of future products.

AdWords is and always has been the goose that lays the golden eggs, none of Google's other initiatives have ever rivaled that revenue. That's why they put so much effort into bolstering and optimizing their search results pages.

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

#246

Post by mcv »

concert-gilled wrote: post #116
sli wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The websites that the results aren't curated either. Clicking through to the site could provide the same incorrect information.

But that's the responsibility of that website. Of course it's bad if Google lists a site with wrong information as the first hit, but I think it's worse when Google blindly copies that false info and lists it as their own zero-click result. By doing that, Google itself takes responsibility for the information.

Although sometimes the site is actually correct and Google still gets it wrong by copying the info incorrectly or losing some context or qualifiers.

I loved zero-click results back when DucfDuckGo first introduced them, but I'm less enthusiastic about Google's implementation of them.

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

#247

Post by skinnymuch »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #81
bduerst wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users can use encrypted.google.com to search on mobile, but yeah, there should be a search setting for them.

I've heard of this strategy before, but it has never worked for me. Encrypted.google.com just redirects to google.com, and I still get AMP. I now use https://github.com/bentasker/RemoveAMP , but that's only possible because I'm lucky enough to have a Jailbroken iPhone. :/

Are you using a userscript app or extension for jailbroken iOS devices?

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

#248

Post by kryogen1c »

anotheracc wrote: post #224
judge2020 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the downfall of AOL was Google because Google had a better product. In order for google to fall, you need a product that's better (or more of what people want; you need to give them a reason to change their search engine).

I have no trouble believing Google is going to fall. Their results have gone into the toilet - I ragequit Google search about once a day and do something else like forum searches.

Same. I cant tell if my questions are just getting more specific and technical, but Google search results have been getting pretty useless in the past year or so

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

#249

Post by wolco »

SilasX wrote: post #188
binthere wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those sites or sites like them made the content initially that google now steals.

I remember a world without lyric sites. These sites provide value. The top links google shows may not because of page layout or bloated sizes but those are the links google presents there are lyric sites with no javascript. Meanwhile tons of mortgage related calculator pages exist on most bank sites and other non-spamming pages.

Clicking a google search result takes seconds to load the link while clicking a ddg link feels much faster. The additional tracking and redirections start to make things feel sluggish.

Post reply on HN