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

301–310 of 531 posts

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

#301

Post by vageli »

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.

> 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.

Who made this contract? I never signed one. If I came to your place of business and copied your content and provided it somewhere else, I would be infringing your copyright. Do I have to put up signs specifying that at my place of business? Why is this any different? My web content is not the property of someone else and by publishing my information that is in no way an implicit grant of the right to reproduce it.

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

#302

Post by gniv »

cyrusshepard wrote: post #288
gniv wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> If you opt-out of snippets, it simply means somebody else claims the top spot

Citation? I thought snippets are just for display, not ranking.

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

#303

Post by meowface »

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.

Yeah. I personally like the feature, in theory, as an end user, but the signal:noise ratio for it has not been great for me.

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

#304

Post by gniv »

vageli wrote: post #301
gniv wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Who made this contract? I never signed one. If I came to your place of business and copied your content and provided it somewhere else, I would be infringing your copyright. Do I have to put up signs specifyin…

I believe citing small pieces from a large text is covered by fair use.

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

#305

Post by wbl »

igravious wrote: post #285
HenryBemis wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Don't like the product? Switch. While you still can.

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

#306

Post by checktheorder »

adtac wrote: post #243
checktheorder wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I like you.

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

#307

Post by martin_a »

Nasrudith wrote: post #141
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the inherently problem is that they need to be held liable for the rest. Because the rest is often criminal activity of which those platforms are making a profit. Perhaps removing Section 230 isn't enough , by your definition, because we need a law that explicitly holds platforms liable for profits generated from illegal activity.

That is a curious definition of need. Are landlords liable in your world for renting apartments to people who run ponzi schemes?

When they get to know about that fact and do not take steps to end this behaviour, although it would be in their possibilities, they might be held liable, too.

So ocdtrekkies point stands, imho. Google is directly profiting from shady activities through their services and therefore has no incentive to control or stop that behaviour. That's a tricky thing.

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

#308

Post by celebnetworth »

This is Brian from the website celebritynetworth.com. I submitted the following statement to the House subcommittee on Antitrust detailing the history of Google scraping our information. The TL:DR is that Google approached us about getting an API to our data. We said no. Google scraped the whole site anyways. Google frequently displays our information directly in its results without any attribution in a large snippet that takes up the entire screen. The answer box is so large and dominating of the SERP that users have no ABILITY to click through. Let alone need. Google's actions have absolutely decimated our business. Here's our statement with image examples dating back to 2012: https://medium.com/@brianwarner/celebritynetworths-statement...

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

#309

Post by propogandist »

igravious wrote: post #285
HenryBemis wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's been this way for ages, although for chrome (iirc) this is managed via hyperlink auditing [1] which allows google to track what you're clicking even though the link appears 'clean'.

The click through google redirect also allows them to track things like relevancy of the content and time on site (if you return to google SERP by clicking the back button), in-case the target site isn't using google analytics (unfortunately most sites do).

[1] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage /links.html#hyperlink-auditing

Hyperlink auditing can be blocked with uBlock Origin / uMatrix

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

#310

Post by cortesoft »

jodrellblank wrote: post #284
cortesoft wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Some houses are still going to be more desirable than others... how do we determine who gets which?
Post reply on HN