261–270 of 531 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't they be liable for mis-information? Wouldn't that solve the entire problem?
Yes, Google and similar companies should be 100% responsible for anything published on their platforms. No more “safe harbour”. They have chosen to take positions in many issues, that makes them more like newspapers than phone companies.
My main takeaway from this was where the hell are they getting that data? A little digging… apparently if you install Avast antivirus they're tracking all of this and selling /providing to Jumpshot - wow. > Baker said Jumpshot’s data comes from 100 million devices worldwide, whose users have downloaded free security software from partner Avast. The devices include smartphones, laptops and tablets. https://marketingla…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Google and similar companies should be 100% responsible for anything published on their platforms. No more “safe harbour”. They have chosen to take positions in many issues, that makes them more like newspapers than phone companies.
They're not like either. If anything they're like a phone book for URLs instead of phone numbers.
My main takeaway from this was where the hell are they getting that data? A little digging… apparently if you install Avast antivirus they're tracking all of this and selling /providing to Jumpshot - wow. > Baker said Jumpshot’s data comes from 100 million devices worldwide, whose users have downloaded free security software from partner Avast. The devices include smartphones, laptops and tablets. https://marketingla…
You didn't need to dig through anything - it was right at the bottom of the article.
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 for this reason that's I've stopped embedding micro data in the HTML I write.
Micro data only serves Google. Not my clients. Not my sites. Just Google.
Every month or so I get an e-mail from a Google bot warning me that my site's micro data is incomplete. Tough. If Google wants to use my content, then Google can pay me.
If Google wants to go back to being a search engine instead of a content thief and aggregator, then I'm on board.
--==[ USE AN AD-BLOCKER ]==--
and never see those Google top and ads, and widgets, and what-not, again. I use EFF Privacy Badger + uBlock Origin but to each their own.
----
Now ... the charts are very interesting, but are a misrepresentation in several ways (although not necessarily intentionally).
1. What @cyrusshepard says: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20688712
2. Preference for more established / larger / more popular websites in the "organic"/non-ad results. This is something I can't prove, but my and my acquaintances' experience suggests that, gradually (mostly before the last 5 years, i.e. not a new thing by now), Google has shifted toward tending to direct you more to those kinds of sights. Perhaps others have studied this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't they be liable for mis-information? Wouldn't that solve the entire problem?
Yes, Google and similar companies should be 100% responsible for anything published on their platforms. No more “safe harbour”. They have chosen to take positions in many issues, that makes them more like newspapers than phone companies.
Even if they were responsible, it's still legal to lie. You don't see pseudoscience websites being taken down because they are objectively false either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Another reason is the use of add-ons such as: "Google search link fix - Prevents Google and Yandex search pages from modifying search result links when you click them." I have stopped using Google a few years ago, but just in case I keep this (or similar) add-ons of my Firefox. I have no idea of the popularity of such addons, but they would also impact the tracking that Google does.
It's embarrassing that I wasn't aware of this extension, given how useful it seems - thanks!