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

51–60 of 531 posts

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

#51

Post by criddell »

cletus wrote: post #15

So a common trope in the startup world is the difference between a feature and a company, the idea being that lots of features are masquerading as companies. This inevitably leads to them being shocked--SHOCKED--when some bigger player adds that feature, eating their lunch. I feel the same way about a lot of outbound sites on Google. There are a bunch of things I just don't want to go to another site for. Off the top…

A bunch of those things aren't really searches though, are they?

I do queries like "2 tbsp in tsp" or "45 * 22" or "$25 CDN in USD" all the time and I don't think of them as a search.

Same goes for my Echo. I ask it all the time for today's weather or what time the Texas Rangers are playing or who is the starting pitcher for the Giants tonight. None of that feels like a search.

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

#52

Post by SilasX »

puranjay wrote: post #29
cletus wrote: post #15

So a common trope in the startup world is the difference between a feature and a company, the idea being that lots of features are masquerading as companies. This inevitably leads to them being shocked--SHOCKED--when some bigger player adds that feature, eating their lunch. I feel the same way about a lot of outbound sites on Google. There are a bunch of things I just don't want to go to another site for. Off the top…

I understand your stand, but what Google did with its featured snippets is essentially a form of bait and switch. It encouraged entrepreneurs and creators to create content that could answer specific queries with the promise that Google will drive traffic to their sites. Now Google is using the same content and depriving them of the traffic. That's pretty scummy in my opinion.

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 look.

MortgageSite: Thanks for the referral, Google!

Everyone wins.

Today, it's more like:

User: Hey Google, what's the monthly payment on a 20-year mortgage with 3.9% APR?

Google: Oh, that would be this much: ... . Here are some sites where you can dig deeper.

User: Um, okay, might be worth a look. Let's try MortgageSite.

MortgageSite: uhhhhhhh hold on a second. Hey, see our BUY THIS PRODUCT mortgage calculator. AND THIS ONE

User: Uh, okay, I'll just type in--

MortgageSite: HEY! It looks like you're new to this site. Want to get on our mailing list?

User: You know what? Screw it.

MortgageSite: Confound you, Google, for stealing our traffic!

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

#53

Post by ocdtrekkie »

criddell wrote: post #51
cletus wrote: post #15

So a common trope in the startup world is the difference between a feature and a company, the idea being that lots of features are masquerading as companies. This inevitably leads to them being shocked--SHOCKED--when some bigger player adds that feature, eating their lunch. I feel the same way about a lot of outbound sites on Google. There are a bunch of things I just don't want to go to another site for. Off the top…

A bunch of those things aren't really searches though, are they? I do queries like "2 tbsp in tsp" or "45 * 22" or "$25 CDN in USD" all the time and I don't think of them as a search. Same goes for my Echo. I ask it all the time for today's weather or what time the Texas Rangers are playing or who is the starting pitcher for the Giants tonight. None of that feels like a search.

Well, simple math isn't, but think about your currency conversion, your weather lookup, or your sports schedule. Where did Google get the data for those things? Does whoever provided that data have expenses, and did Google compensate them in any way for those expenses or did Google lift the data for free with GoogleBot?

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

#54

Post by canadianwriter »

When Rand last posted about this it inspired me to look into other channels such as email and social. Basically clicks are disappearing for ALL channels, this isn't just a Google thing, it's a digital marketing thing as a whole. My thoughts here: https://kolemcrae.com/no-more-clicks-makes-me-sad/

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

#55

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #10
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

This is the subtle truth that I've seen a few folks on Twitter talking about for the past year or so: That Google has slowly but steadily reduced both the outbound clicks to other websites, but also the portion of their revenue that's based on ads hosted by other websites, while bringing both the "results" and the ad placements in-house, where they no longer have to pay out a share to site owners. Whereas Google was…

Honestly, the second google started owning and promoting their own properties on search results, anti-trust regulators should have jumped on it. I'm really not sure how Google can be protected by Section 230 and at the same time control and publish so much directly. Last time I read an article on the topic, google controls 23% of the top 100 sites.

I've heard a decent amount of wrong takes on Section 230. But this is the most bizarre, yet.

Neither the CDA, nor section 230 specifically, create the sort of publisher/platform dichotomy people seem to be hung up on.

And Section 230 does exactly the opposite of what people commonly think it does. It's actually right there, in the text:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of (a) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable [...]

That seems really easy to understand: you can delete nazi propaganda, porn, bad jokes, or just random user content from your platform without running the risk of thereby assuming liability for the rest.

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

#56

Post by inetknght »

8ytecoder wrote: post #11
laputan_machine wrote: post #3

I don't think I understand this concept. If I search for something using Google, and don't click on a link, doesn't that mean my search was fruitless? What else do we mean by 'zero-click searches'? Edit: Unless it's the simple '6 x 10' or 'What is the time in London', in which case, are we surprised these queries are handled by $SearchEngine? DDG does the same thing (albeit, uses a third party website and gives credi…

Example query - “Leonardo DiCaprio‘s net worth”. While previously this would have resulted in a click to the top website that put in the effort to compile this information, now google would highlight that exact sentence with the answer right there. The site loses a click through and any potential revenue.

> The site loses a click through and any potential revenue.

I'm having trouble understanding how the site would have lost potential revenue. All the query wanted to know was the net worth of someone. I don't imagine anyone casual enough to use Google to answer that who would be willing to spend a lot of time trying to figure that out using an advertisement-laden "free" website. I don't imagine anyone professionally interested in that answer who'd use Google as their primary resource nor would they click on ads on the target site.

On the other hand, Google gets to know who's talking about whom. That in and of itself is/can be valuable. I can see an argument be made for abuse of monopoly here. On the other hand, I think what Google does indeed benefit the consumer in this case. The casual user's experience is likely improved and the professional user's experience still wouldn't use Google as a primary resource.

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

#57

Post by ocdtrekkie »

avocado4 wrote: post #39
8ytecoder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example query - “Leonardo DiCaprio‘s net worth”. While previously this would have resulted in a click to the top website that put in the effort to compile this information, now google would highlight that exact sentence with the answer right there. The site loses a click through and any potential revenue.

Consumers win in this scenario.

Do they really though? See my comments on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20688022

Essentially, if Google's data source isn't getting paid, the data source is not going to remain accurate, and hence, neither will Google.

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

#60

Post by lifeisstillgood »

So I maybe failing to grok this but

~45% of google traffic is "organic" - I search, I find a link I leave google

~5% is as clicks (!)

~50% is zero click - it's common enough a query that google just answers it right there, flights, trains timetables, cinema, exchange rates

This is kind of a huge shift and also kind of not important at all

Millions of us want, say, cinema listings, and off the back of those listings might easily buy a ticket. I can see this as a huge business for Google and certainly disruptive but I am not sure we are losing much by Google vetting it's dollar instead of the same dollar going to the ticketing company behind a multiplex

Is this the old fear about microsoft - that all any ISV was doing was market research for microsoft?

If you are a distribution channel selling a barely differentiated product to millions of people - well the writing has been on the wall for a while.

Post reply on HN