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

291–300 of 531 posts

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

#291

Post by dessant »

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.

You don't have to inform anyone about your content not being redistributable, that is not how copyright works.

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

#292

Post by henryfjordan »

reaperducer wrote: post #267
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…

No, more people don't click, because they've taken the answer from your website and displayed it right in their search results. 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 m…

I just got one of those emails for the first time about my personal site that's basically my resume. Apparently my text is small on mobile (it's not...) and some other crap

I don't get why google thinks it's acceptable to critique my site without prompting. It honestly just feels rude. They want me to do a whole bunch of micro-optimizations on a site that already works fine because it doesn't fit their standard of "high quality". I think I've gotten exactly 0 clicks from Google search results ever and I don't really ever want any.

If it were possible to get a human's attention at Google I'd start sending my own criticism their way but of course it doesn't work like that...

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

#293

Post by benoliver999 »

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 suck. And something about the way they are presented seems to make people believe them.

I think it gives that one-shot answer to questions people have, even when the real answer is nuanced and multi-faceted.

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

#294

Post by root_axis »

amelius wrote: post #290
root_axis wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that's a bad idea, but the vast majority of google users would not desire this behavior, especially the way google is used today where users try specific terms to relocate content they have looked up before.

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

#295

Post by slx26 »

ryanmercer wrote: post #127

To be fair a lot of the time I can get the info I need directly from the search. - I use Google as a calculator and a unit of measure converter including currency - I don't hesitate to "define WORD" when I don't know a word which gets displayed at the top - What is the capital/population/square miles of - Who is/cast of/CHARACTERNAME actor - What muscles are used with movement/machine - synonym/antonym WORD - SONG ly…

if google is your default search engine, just click CTRL + L and write what you want to search.

pretty much all browsers support CTRL+L, CTRL+T, CTRL+W, CTRL+(SHIFT)+TAB... which are really useful

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

#296

Post by autokad »

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 0 click search more than I click because but not limited to: 1 ) to get the correct spelling of a word that spell check cant find a suggestion 2 ) avoid going to a site that I might potentially get malware (example searching music lyrics) 3 ) avoid having to deal with slow loading and bloated pages

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

#297

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#298

Post by philipov »

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 think "hypocritical" is a more appropriate description than "Ironic"

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

#299

Post by balozi »

A less techie theory: Witness the rise of the Google Skeptical Search user. In essence, Google search users maybe developing an attitude of skepticism towards the quality and usefulness of the results they receive. It started with news searches and its spreading to everything else search related. The sensing being that Google's search results are not an honest reflection of the information that is available.

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

#300

Post by root_axis »

goatinaboat wrote: post #276
akersten wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Positions like what? And no, banning radicals from their platform for violating their terms of service is not a position. 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.

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…

> 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 they must choose.

This is 100% wrong, the opposite is true. The law explicitly protects website operators from being liable for content posted by 3rd parties while simultaneously granting them the explicit freedom to curate content that they deem objectionable.

Post reply on HN