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

61–70 of 531 posts

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

#61

Post by jnaddef »

When I read the title I thought it was going to be an article praising Google, but the author seems to actually think less clicks is bad?

I remember back in the early 2000s when I had to click through 1st to 10th result trying to find what I was looking for, sometimes even having to go to 2nd page of results.

Now I use search for everything : name of a built-in function, quick calculation, checking the spelling or wording of a sentence, short biography of someone... For none of that I will need to click on the result because the answer is given to me without needing to click anything.

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

#62

Post by blacksmith_tb »

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.

We do, though the counterargument is that sites that currently publish content like that will have no incentive to keep doing it. If that proves true, presumably in long run you won't be able to get good answers to similar questions, which I suppose could force Google to create their own content, a sort of search-engine version of Netflix and Amazon's move into film-making.

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

#63

Post by TheSoftwareGuy »

luckylion wrote: post #30
michaelmrose wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you once communicated the fact that 2+2 is 4 and Joe makes very good spaghetti you own the copyright to the text you published but neither the fact nor the opinion belongs to you in any meaningful way nor should it.

That's true, but a collection of facts ("a database") falls under copyright.

IANAL, but as long as google is only distributing the individual facts (not the database of facts) they would be in the clear, legally

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

#64

Post by SpaceManNabs »

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…

Don't know about everything else, but Genius is unparalleled for lyrics to rap and hip hop. I honestly don't see Google having clout to get Zack Fox to do some commentary; Tidal and spotify pretty much cornered that.

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

#65

Post by jnaddef »

jnaddef wrote: post #61

When I read the title I thought it was going to be an article praising Google, but the author seems to actually think less clicks is bad? I remember back in the early 2000s when I had to click through 1st to 10th result trying to find what I was looking for, sometimes even having to go to 2nd page of results. Now I use search for everything : name of a built-in function, quick calculation, checking the spelling or wo…

I would still recommend clicking on the link for coding issues, sometimes the algorithm will get you a snippet of SO's accepted answer even though it is not correct : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20149304/how-to-set-the-...

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

#66

Post by Causality1 »

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…

For pop-culture things or very simple queries Google will do, but for everything else I rely on Wolfram Alpha.

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

#67

Post by bduerst »

oceanstone wrote: post #46
bduerst wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>with seemingly no opt out (on the consumer or publisher side) I though AMP was opt-in for publishers? As in you have to write the front-end spec and pick a CDN to cache with.

Yep, it's opt in for publishers. For users, the only way to opt out currently is to view in desktop mode.

Users can use encrypted.google.com to search on mobile, but yeah, there should be a search setting for them.

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

#68

Post by ocdtrekkie »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #55
4ntonius8lock wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

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.

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

#69

Post by ALittleLight »

buboard wrote: post #20
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…

Anecdotally, i am noticing a steady decline in adsense RPMs for the exact same audience over past 2 years, and adsense is now most of the time not filling the ad slot. Also, it has gotten very hard to rank in google for new sites. SEO blackhat tactics rule, and even local businesses use them. Google went from win win to win-get lost. Sadly, now that webmasters need it the most, investments in alternatives to search a…

I feel the same way about ranking new websites. In high school, friends and I made a website for which we did zero search engine optimization (nor were we even aware of search engine optimization). We still ranked in relevant queries and easily got an audience of about ten thousand uniques a month.

Today, I struggle to get sites I make to show up on Google at all. For my most recent website, even searching for phrases that are unique to my website doesn't cause it to rank. This is more frustrating to me, because I have a Google ad for my website, which drives all of my traffic - so I know Google knows about my website and what keywords are relevant to it.

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

#70

Post by richardwhiuk »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #53
criddell wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How did that site get the sports schedule? Did they just copy it from somewhere else?
Post reply on HN