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

281–290 of 531 posts

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

#281

Post by goatinaboat »

root_axis wrote: post #277
goatinaboat wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this is a phone book that sorts not alphabetically (no pun intended) but according to its own interests. No phone company ever did that.

Of course it doesn't sort the internet alphabetically, that'd make no sense and be a bad user experience as well as optimize for URLS starting with A.

I don’t mean literally alphabetically but according to some objective measures. In the old days it was by incoming links (PageRank). But now it is opaque and many people are finding that it orders by whatever is best for Google, not for the user.

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

#282

Post by goatinaboat »

akersten wrote: post #279
goatinaboat wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s OK for the NYT to attempt to “prevent another Trump situation”. They have an editor and that person is legally responsible for what they publish. They don’t even pretend to be non-partisan. But Google takes a position then hides behind “common carrier” status. It’s not reasonable that they can pick and choose. Either they’re the phone company or they’re a publisher. It’s their right to be either of course, but t…

Common carrier and safe harbor are 100% separate and distinct concepts. The same way that a forum could have a theme ("political party X posts only") and still be allowed to remove illegal content is Safe Harbor (both curation at their discretion and no responsibility for illegal posts) - and I don't see how one could be against that - and Google is nowhere near that, whatever "positions" you envision them to have ta…

Stay tuned for the next batch of revelations from Project Veritas.

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

#283

Post by perl4ever »

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.

The point is that Google frequently adds another level of incorrectness, that may not be identifiable without checking the source. This is pretty common on Wikipedia, and when people link to things in discussion forums, as well.

And anything Google does, is done at vast scale, which makes me, at least, think it might be substantially affecting society.

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

#284

Post by jodrellblank »

cortesoft wrote: post #255
jodrellblank wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfect world: User: I can afford a livable four walls and a roof from a small amount of savings, without needing to mortgage decades of my future. Brilliant.

Are you arguing that everyone should be able to buy a house, that they can live in forever, with cash they have with little savings? The problem with that is that if a poor person can afford a house with cash, then a slightly richer person would just go, "wow, I can buy a really big house! Or two!", and suddenly there is no more space.

That would be nice, wouldn't it?

Maybe they wouldn't be allowed to buy two, because in "a perfect world", a place to live is a necessity, not a profit vector. Keeping housing supply limited to boost house prices, to appeal to house-owning voters and wealthy landlords, to extract six figures of money from normal people over decades, is nothing like "perfect".

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

#285

Post by igravious »

HenryBemis wrote: post #258
soup10 wrote: post #245

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.

Oh my God! This is so useful! I hate that I can't right-click on a search result to copy a URL. We definitely used to be able to do this, didn't we?

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

#286

Post by root_axis »

goatinaboat wrote: post #281
root_axis wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it doesn't sort the internet alphabetically, that'd make no sense and be a bad user experience as well as optimize for URLS starting with A.

I don’t mean literally alphabetically but according to some objective measures. In the old days it was by incoming links (PageRank). But now it is opaque and many people are finding that it orders by whatever is best for Google, not for the user.

There is not nearly enough room on the front page for everyone that wants to be there, google has to make subjective decisions about what shows up there, it's impossible to do it any other way.

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

#287

Post by gniv »

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…

I disagree. There is an implicit contract between website publishers and search engines that it’s ok to do this. The website can set nosnippet in robots if they want to not have the snippet in search results.

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

#288

Post by cyrusshepard »

gniv wrote: post #287
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…

I disagree. There is an implicit contract between website publishers and search engines that it’s ok to do this. The website can set nosnippet in robots if they want to not have the snippet in search results.

It's a devil's bargain. If you opt-out of snippets, it simply means somebody else claims the top spot, and you are left with even less traffic (by a significant amount)

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

#289

Post by zymhan »

gniv wrote: post #287
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…

I disagree. There is an implicit contract between website publishers and search engines that it’s ok to do this. The website can set nosnippet in robots if they want to not have the snippet in search results.

So by having a website, I implicitly agree to Google's search practices?

That doesn't seem right.

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

#290

Post by amelius »

root_axis wrote: post #286
goatinaboat wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mean literally alphabetically but according to some objective measures. In the old days it was by incoming links (PageRank). But now it is opaque and many people are finding that it orders by whatever is best for Google, not for the user.

There is not nearly enough room on the front page for everyone that wants to be there, google has to make subjective decisions about what shows up there, it's impossible to do it any other way.

They could randomize it. Allow everybody to be on the front page an equal number of times.
Post reply on HN