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

781–790 of 961 posts

Re: Google changes its search box

#781

Post by subscribed »

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.

I'm not going to drive to the bookstore only to find out the recipe I need twice a year is not there because the local cousine doesn't even know the ingredients.

Oh, maybe I should drive to the major city and check several bigger bookstores?

Or order it online? But that would be from the third country because this one is weirdly blind to variety. That will be €20 for a book and some €10 postage.

You're sure I can just get my recipe from the store?

Re: Google changes its search box

#782

Post by larodi »

ekidd wrote: post #65
simonw wrote: post #10

Nilay Patel has been talking about "Google Zero" - the moment when Google effectively stops sending any traffic to other sites - for a few years now: https://www.theverge.com/24167865/google-zero-search-crash-h...

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?

Exactly nothing, nada, zero. And given it does not only crawl, it trains on it, so that never ever should people come back to search for it again.

Re: Google changes its search box

#783

Post by vdelpuerto »

ekidd wrote: post #65
simonw wrote: post #10

Nilay Patel has been talking about "Google Zero" - the moment when Google effectively stops sending any traffic to other sites - for a few years now: https://www.theverge.com/24167865/google-zero-search-crash-h...

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?

honest question here, why there are lot of comments about SEO is dead?

Re: Google changes its search box

#784

Post by larodi »

jcattle wrote: post #694
monkpit wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1, Google serves info directly and consumers rejoice Step 2, Google extinguishes the web and nobody has a reason to publish content, consumers lament but are trapped, Google has created a platform to serve content instead of links Step 3 (or maybe 2a), Google is now monetizing their content machine Step 4, Google offers people a way to contribute to the content machine, make some $$ per N views, whatever. People…

I mean this is already (kind of) the case for video. There's no real mainstream way outside of youtube to make meaningful money with free video content. But yes, interesting thought which does kind of make sense. The marketplace-ification of the textual web.

how about Tiktok - seems quite meaningfully getting money to people. Of course with short-format video, but still video, right?

Re: Google changes its search box

#785

Post by subscribed »

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

LOL, that's some confident pan-cake misinformation.

Re: Google changes its search box

#787

Post by ozim »

arisAlexis wrote: post #697
ozim wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then we go and pay to Cloudeflare or other cloud providers you host sites with to prevent Google from scraping. Let the big guys fight it out. There is money in protecting the websites. If you host with OVH they are interested in you making money so you can pay them.

Ok but how would people find your website then

How are people finding your website now?

You are on top of Google search results or something? I think I am on some last page that no one will click like 2nd page of results.

Re: Google changes its search box

#788

Post by ulfw »

Everything in Tech is nothing but AI shit now. I know I am old but I lost all interest in tech.

For me AI is a technology not a product but there is nothing else anymore

Re: Google changes its search box

#789

Post by seb1204 »

loloquwowndueo wrote: post #219
elevation wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without google crawling your site, you don't get any new traffic What about the stories of marketing managers who learned months after the fact that their credit card had expired and their google ad spend had ceased with no affect on traffic? Google isn't always an effective promotional vehicle.

Sounds like a pretty ineffective manager: wasn’t buying the correct ad placement in the first place, used a personal card to sign up for an ostensibly corporate service, didn’t keep track of expiration dates for the card, and was also ignoring email notifications from Google about the expired card. Let me know if I’m missing any other reasons why this manager should be fired instantly.

Could be a smaller company.

Re: Google changes its search box

#790

Post by tremon »

johnny_canuck wrote: post #537
thelastgallon wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of Walmarts squeezing strategy with all the manufacturers. Business with us at the price we say or out of business.

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 ultimately that strategy is good for the consumer right?

No. It may be good for the consumer right now, but not ultimately (and on top of that, I would argue that reducing everyone to a consumer is already the wrong framing -- you need to ask what's good for the citizens). Having ten competing supermarkets with various interweaving supply lines is ultimately much better than having one giant supermarket, because that one monopolist is able to squeeze both consumers and suppliers to the detriment of both.

Post reply on HN