Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google changes its search box

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 961 posts

Re: Google changes its search box

#661

Post by vasco »

kxrm wrote: post #317
carlosjobim wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have been humming along fine. Do you depend on site visitors for making a living? That's what this is about.

Yes! However most of my users were established through my network, not search. I know that sites relying on ad income will and are being hurt tremendously by this effort on Google's part. However, if you are in the startup space and make money on services you offer, search should be one of several strategies you are deploying for user growth.

This is like saying people should just win the lottery or something. Your conditions are extremely niche

Re: Google changes its search box

#662

Post by rikschennink »

pflenker wrote: post #110
ekidd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which as some running a website raises a fascinating question. If Google is just going to crawl my sites and present information as an AI summary on their site, then what exactly do I gain by allowing Googlebot to crawl my sites?

A couple of years back I worked with a company which maintained specific data which was the main traffic driver on that page. Google approached them and wanted to pay for the rights to get the data and display it on top of the search results, a feature which was fairly new back then. This was an interesting dilemma because it was very clear that the money was way less than the loss in ad revenue due to traffic drop,…

A similar dilemma presents itself when blocking AI spiders.

You’re free to block them, but the websites cloning your content won’t. So either way they’ll get the content they’re after.

Worse, when/if the time comes that LLMs source their claims they’ll refer you to the websites that cloned your content.

Re: Google changes its search box

#663

Post by nicbou »

gwbas1c wrote: post #600
bbondo wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people aren't going to publish recipes Sure they are. I can attest that musicians will gladly publish their music even when no recompense is offered. Surely culinary artists are the same.

We just won't get countless recipe websites where you have to scroll, scroll, scroll through slop about someone's day to read a scraped recipe that every other website has. This is just disruption.

Does the current Google search results indicate that they will be any different?

It’s also not disruption if your product relies on the output of the industry it kills. What will AI train on when it destroys the economics of sharing information with others?

Re: Google changes its search box

#664

Post by nicbou »

satvikpendem wrote: post #592
mrtksn wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but this means that you’re no longer eligible to make living from your ideas, which can be fine by you but it eliminates entire class of people who used to make living from intellectual work. This also could have been fine, it can bring back authenticity however for this to happen no one should be making money from it. Instead, only megacorps make money and they can just ignore your ideas and generate theirs. Th…

Not making a living from ads specifically, sure, but many have things like Substack which actually directly incentivizes them to make good content rather than serving ads.

Substack is not all websites. There are more than one kind of website out there.

Re: Google changes its search box

#665

Post by emayljames »

jasonkester wrote: post #642
johnny_canuck wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ultimately that strategy is good for the consumer right? In this context, if Google is going to give me the recipe without having to scroll through the story, that seems like a win to me. The ad-revenue driven Internet of web 2.0 is finally dead and I'm not sure I'm all that sad.

But google won’t give you the recipe. It’ll give you a pretty piece of text that resembles a recipe. You’ll only find out it’s not a recipe when it fails to produce a cake. But then, the sites it's training on are starting to do the same thing, so maybe it won’t matter. Just last night, I pulled up four sites with “gluten free almond cake” recipes. One specified less than 1/4 the flour it would have needed, and anoth…

You don't need butter to make cake, it ends up lighter and softer without it

Re: Google changes its search box

#666

Post by pera »

This is absurd, why is Google so desperate to kill the best thing they once had? I would love to know what happens inside a corporation to destroy itself in such way.

I also don't remember ever seeing anything being force-fed as much as LLMs, why?

Re: Google changes its search box

#667

Post by jasonkester »

emayljames wrote: post #665
jasonkester wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But google won’t give you the recipe. It’ll give you a pretty piece of text that resembles a recipe. You’ll only find out it’s not a recipe when it fails to produce a cake. But then, the sites it's training on are starting to do the same thing, so maybe it won’t matter. Just last night, I pulled up four sites with “gluten free almond cake” recipes. One specified less than 1/4 the flour it would have needed, and anoth…

You don't need butter to make cake, it ends up lighter and softer without it

You need to compensate for not adding it though. The recipe without was literally the same ingredient list as the site it copied, just missing a line.

And almond flour does its thing by carmelizing in combination with butter and sugar, turning your whole cake into a sort of giant macaron. You can’t pull it off without any one of those things.

Re: Google changes its search box

#668

Post by acron0 »

tardedmeme wrote: post #656
jasonkester wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But google won’t give you the recipe. It’ll give you a pretty piece of text that resembles a recipe. You’ll only find out it’s not a recipe when it fails to produce a cake. But then, the sites it's training on are starting to do the same thing, so maybe it won’t matter. Just last night, I pulled up four sites with “gluten free almond cake” recipes. One specified less than 1/4 the flour it would have needed, and anoth…

You can buy recipe books at brick and mortar stores, and they're mostly not AI slop yet.

My partner recently bought a receipe book that was probably 100% slop, from the recipes themselvea to the images for each dish.

Re: Google changes its search box

#669

Post by unselect5917 »

torben-friis wrote: post #12
ivraatiems wrote: post #4

Kind of Google to create a market opening for its competitors like this. I hope Kagi, Bing, and DuckDuckGo are taking notes.

My literal first thought was "do I seriously need to use bing now?".

I've been using Brave for years. And I'm in the process of moving off of gmail. Why bing of all engines?

Re: Google changes its search box

#670

Post by nicbou »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #287
ekidd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which as some running a website raises a fascinating question. If Google is just going to crawl my sites and present information as an AI summary on their site, then what exactly do I gain by allowing Googlebot to crawl my sites?

Maybe you want your ideas to spread? If your sites purpose is getting ad impressions then yea no point. But if your purpose is to spread ideas then it is still useful.

I have spent nine years putting out free information. Surely you realise that I have to pay rent and buy food while I do it?

My income isn’t ads, just getting a cut of the sale on the complex products I help you buy. Even that sort of curation takes time and effort.

Even for all the things I do for free without any revenue whatsoever - most of it, really - I do want to feel some recognition. I don’t want the interaction to be mediated by an advertising company.

Post reply on HN