Google answers the question

[egem1367]

Lately I've seen in my area, google seems to be basically answering every question at the top of the page. Some times these results look very much like they have been taken from mine and other's hard work, but when you click on them, they take you back to another google search. Has anyone seen an increase in this sort of thing lately?

[goodroi]

Google has been trying to answer the simple questions for a long time. They keep creeping into more areas and testing different ways of answering the question in the SERPs. It will likely keep increasing.

[keyplyr]

Their webpage, their rules. If we don't like it, we can always block Googlebot from getting our content.

[tangor]

Yeah. right. :)

The encroachment on what is fair use DATA/FACTS (which cannot be copyrighted or protected without framework presentation and provonance research in nearly ALL countries which are signatories to the Berne Convention) is an on going problem/REALITY.

3-2=1 unless you have a copyrighted/patent which proves otherwise.

Good luck on protecting that in the market place as every scraper out there is diluting ALL CONTENT EVERYWHERE regardless of niche or topic and G is relying on that to show the "answer" first (thus killing pass through traffic to the site quoted). Also bear in mind their AI is activelly reworking content found as "original" and even letting loose bots to write actual news stories with no human intervention.

They set out to index the web, now they are homogenizing it. :)

[egem1367]

It's not sustainable. They can do and say what they like, but if the publishers can't make money, there will be no google. They have to realize that. The publishers are the life blood of google.

[Shaddows]

The publishers are the life blood of google.

Yeah, and there's so few of them that Google needs to be on their guard.

I mean, if 99.99% of publishers left, they remaining 0.01% might only be enough results to fill 100 pages of SERPs per query.

I always look through at least 101 pages. What will I do?
</sarcasm>

Seriously, Google is perfectly happy for a few sites to fail at the margins. Those that are left will have just as much "addressable" money, but fewer people chasing it. Just like the normal market economy, it's tough for the haves-nots.

Maybe webmasters will be the next Rust Belt, decrying the loss of (relatively) low-skilled fact presentation to other channels, looking for someone to Make SERPs Great Again.

[egem1367]

You know it's odd. I'm writing on these boards thinking some of these things are a given. Please read the news....Wired, WSJ, and many others are basically saying thing I'm saying. Google has already been sued by Russia and Europe. This isn't some abstract thing. Google is making changes to it's engine right now as we speak. In Europe they are forming a new company(?) to compete with other sites on their shopping pages. I don' t see why everyone is throwing their hands up at these things. We can petition at least. We can talk about what would be a better way. Why do we just have to say, oh well that's the way it is?

[glakes]

I mean, if 99.99% of publishers left, they remaining 0.01% might only be enough results to fill 100 pages of SERPs per query.

So true. The stolen/scraped content that Google ranks now would be enough to fill the serps for years. But stolen content does not pay Google's bills. It's advertisers and users that click ads that pay the bills. Google has already lost a lot of shoppers, and along with them those that advertise products. Google can only kick webmasters in the crotch so many times before they say enough is enough. I know that I have removed very old sites from Google (noindex). The last one I removed was ranking #1 for its main keyword, though I paid little attention to it as the site was more of a hobby then anything else. It had really good information though, and being certified/recognized in that industry made the content trustworthy. With all of Google's shenanigans, I just did not feel they deserved to have access to the content and still feel that way. They can use a scraped/spun version instead. LOL

[egem1367]

Those links DO go right back to google. Look at this example: search for top 50 horror films. You will get a carousel at the top. It doesn't tell you where those results come from, but the search engine is pulling them from somewhere, and if you click on any of those 50 movies go back to google results. So the engine is pulling the results from where? And then it just links back to it's self and more ads that go directly to google. We know the results were not created by google. It's users "taught" the engine this, and now they get all the rewards?

[tangor]

Cake and eat it, too. Only the bakers get shafted.

[anefarious1]

This topic has been discussed in the Adsense forum:

[webmasterworld.com...]

Some webmasters are in denial, but information based websites are being phased out.

[timemachined]

Well this is definitely one way for the world to end. If robots take all the jobs and the rest of the jobs don't pay a living wage and G only wishes to promote conglomerates and send everyone else the way of the job centre, G will be serving results to police and politicians while the streets burn. Who updates G's stolen information when the websites no longer exist as they can't pay their hosting? I guess Wikipedia will be the fall back.

Edit: And as for those links in the answer box that go back to google, a more pointless merry go round I have never been on. Someone have a word with elon musk and tell him search is dead. we need more tunnels and hyperloops on the internet first. Get rid of google.

[timemachined]

glakes, who's fault is it that G lost shoppers searching? It's a war Google lost and they are continuing to do things wrong. Amazon will not survive on tax breaks forever. It's the American model of doing things: cheap and both citizens and small retailers fall for it. If small retailers didn't use Amazon, they wouldn't have to sell so cheaply and lose so much of a cut of their profits.

Same with us, if we didn't put up with being used in this fashion and started online rioting and blocking G, then advertisers start to drop off as there is less competition. Right now, if blocked G, I would not lose a thing as it's hardly giving me anything. Sure they can still have amazon and ebay, but after a while if more and more blocked Google, where's their search profit going to come from? Serving ebay and amazon? I predict search will come from several independent and yet to be known apps in the near future, g will become continually irrelevant and so will we if stick our hopes on it.

[MrSavage]

Their new public liason, Danny Sullivan says this:

...and the public that depends on Google for answers.

So if this "new" guy they bring in endorses the idea that Google is providing answers (using content they didn't themselves take the time to upload onto the internet) then it should at least be eye opening. It's something worth considering moving along. Of course people will suggest it was a slip of the tongue. If so, that's even more telling! You certainly know where his head is at because he used the word "answers" and not websites/links/results.

So if I said, let's build a great images based website that gets ad click revenue, based on the usage by both Google and Bing for images, it's called a pretty dumb idea. By the same token, there is nothing to suggest that typical answers, lists, guides, tutorials, recipes, etc, isn't going the same way as image search. It's image find now. The word "search" is dying. You could actually replace "search" with "scrape" these days. It's really the truth. The back end searches yes, but it only searches to find the good stuff that can be spun into an answer box. A few survive yes, but for everyone else, it's a decline situation. Google has very little to do with discovery. Their liaison comes out with his first statement and condones the use of everyone's content. Shill speak: just block Google if you don't like it.

[EditorialGuy]

Some webmasters are in denial, but information based websites are being phased out.

"Content farms" and their ilk probably don't have a great future. In my sector, there are any number of sites that regurgitate commonly-available information in the form of 300-word articles with stock photos. I'm not bothered a bit by their failure.

As for answer boxes, facts aren't subject to copyright, and search engines have as much right to crib them from other sources as you do. If you want to succeed with an information site, you need to add real value.

[timemachined]

I think a court of law would have a problem with content lifted from a site rather than man hours spent crafting a different version. After all, even Google doesn't like robot infused content writing. But perhaps because it hasn't reached a point where it is indistinguishable.

Come on, be honest, Google enacts theft, you can bleat on about copyright all you like but if you lift content 'without permission' it is theft. However, if a person takes a fact and represents it manually in a different way, then that's perceived to be ok. Google does not do this.

I presume somewhere in terms and conditions it actually states in the contract between website and Google that they can lift your content as part of the agreement. That is the ONLY way they cannot be sued. Answer box is theft as it is republishing another person's work word for word. Therein lies an old fashioned 5% rule but a court would need to decide whether something new is being created from lifting millions of bits of content from other websites, delivering less traffic of if it constitutes stealing of other people's work.

This copyright nonsense where people are stating what G does is allowable is exactly that, nonsense. It's akin to a company hiring unpaid staff to create content, it's illegal. Unless in the contract between website and Google, it is theft. Reply that facts are free information and look silly, does G manually rewrite what it steals or lift content robotically word for word?

There's you answer, it's illegal.

Edit: Sorry EditorialGuy, I respect your stance on this forum but you cannot possibly get away unchallenged by suggesting all facts are free info without reflecting upon origination of content. That when the fact is buried in amongst a handcrafted text of 1000 words that took four hours to write and G just lifts a part robotically for its own amusement, that is theft. Unless in a contract.

This is where webmaster power comes into play. One week of action but a lawsuit would be more beneficial. So let's consider remuneration for every answerbox text lifted. How's about £40 to £80? But then we have to consider lost traffic, so let's multiply that over ten years and call it £400 to £800 on lost sales on each answer box quoted.

+As author I give anybody permission to repost the above text anywhere they wish, even Google to represent the search question "Does Google answerbox constitute theft?" I will forgo the £400 payment on this single piece of text but retain the right to ask payment for the rest. (if lucky enough to get that position which is only reason website owners allow it)

Edited again: Google vs Wikipedia, why didn't Wiki just go round scraping everyone's website, instead of enacting authors and being so cheap to ask the public for free money and thinking itself a charity? Google, the same company that wanted to steal your local library and put it online. A novel concept albeit THE LOST REVENUES and the trade off being America's best style of CHEAPNESS WINS.

[tangor]

It's a lottery. All can play, but only a few can win.

Facts (from a copyright point of view) cannot be copyrighted. Presentation of facts, layout, annotations of same, CAN be copyrighted.

A service (such as g) based on product offered (websites) has the right to structure what it finds to present to THEIR users. (We've seen more and more of that happening over the last 10 years).

The question gets answered. We said okay by being agreeable to the crawl/serp. Some of what we see now is self-inflicted based on a premise that has morphed over the years. Who to blame? Not sure Solomon can figure that out.

But it is what it is, these days, and where we go from here might include governmental regulations (which I am NOT a fan of happening!).

[timemachined]

Yes it began with working outside of normal meta parameters and contextual, and now has morphed into the biggest content theft the world has ever seen. It should be on the cover of National Geographic 'The Greatest Human Extinction Event Has Begun.'

I don't know why I don't sign on for benefits and just let Google have my website, sheesh, why don't we all do it? "here G, have our websites, host it, you've stolen it anyway and placed it on AMP (a place which I can't find out how to delete my content as G remove url doesn't seem to work), we have better things to do, like picking up benefits payments and considering working down a mine. Or I could set up a dropship shop on Amazon and let their poxy system undercut me continually so that again, benefits seems a better option all thanks to tax haven relief."

[EditorialGuy]

Facts (from a copyright point of view) cannot be copyrighted. Presentation of facts, layout, annotations of same, CAN be copyrighted.

Just as important--the "fair use" doctrine comes into play, at least in jurisdictions (such as the United States" where fair use is recognized. This explanation may be helpful:

[fairuse.stanford.edu...]

[timemachined]

Yes 5% rule / fair use.

However this is not just a private company but an essential public service in over 160 countries. One that also has far reaching financial responsibilities above and beyond its commitment to American companies, eBay, Amazon. In that respect, should the fervour gather momentum, national interest could beat back overseas corporate interest. And that's a place non of wish to be in. G is the capital letter of Greed. Their board of directors may well pay for that one day. On a sheet of profit, not against billions in cash.

It is a problem. Should Google be a search engine that supplies relevant results and continue to provide its information with traffic to the correct results, or should it become a wikipedia of information, retain the visitor, reduce traffic by 90% and steal content from its partners and no longer pass on the intended traffic from such a partnership?

Even the most foolish man can see they are going too far and on the wrong path. If they want to be wikipedia, it's time we found another search engine to support. Rarely have I visited wiki needing to click a referenced link. The same will apply to the all new info mine Google.

[EditorialGuy]

If they want to be wikipedia, it's time we found another search engine to support.

Why "support" any search engine? Make your content discoverable, and all of the search engines will find it.

[MrSavage]

Be aware on who you want to debate. Typing and bandwidth efforts need to be considered in some instances. Waste. Of. Time. Know what I mean?

On this topic, this oversight by many is this sobering thought. That answer box is the black hole. That is where the traffic is more and more likely to find the black hole. So that #1, #2, #3, #4 position really don't mean anything. It's logic. Those actual links or SERPS as they were formally known as, have zero relevance if the answer box accomplished its mission. The more the box evolves, either A) the searcher is satisfied with what they read in the box, or B) the searcher clicks that link found within the box. So if you think that C) going below the box into the actual search results is possible, then consider what percent of the traffic you will be getting. Is any website or content worth investing in at that point?

To summarize, in theory the answer box is or will be deeming the actual SERPS irrelevant. You can debate whether it's 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% etc that might have a need to search below the box, but whatever the case, it's going to make your efforts largely futile, unless as someone mentioned you are the "lucky lottery winner". So I'm just dubbing the search box as the SERPS black hole. Geez where did all my traffic go? Black hole.

Moreover, even if Google was to pay for use of the content, it still means the black hole will suck up all the traffic for anyone else who is in #2, #3, etc position. If you were getting paid, be assured that Google would expand the box with more text.

The most ignorant view possible is that what you see today is what you will see in a month or two from now. Tech always evolves. I've already seen one of my images used for a snippet with text from another website. So that content on Google was taken from 2 different websites. There is no way any shill here can say the text count or source count within an answer box won't expand. Look no further than image search if we need some insight on how this goes. If you are really thick, then consider the word "answer" and when you create an attempt at an answer that doesn't answer, guess what? You try to improve it so it does answer. Otherwise what the F are you doing in the first place?

[timemachined]

EditorialGuy + Exactly so we end up with a search engine that steals content and reverting to paying for advertising on the side of a bus. Webmasters are surely not stupid enough to pay the piper that is nicking their content and reducing their traffic for director share holding profit at the same time.

[EditorialGuy]

To summarize, in theory the answer box is or will be deeming the actual SERPS irrelevant. You can debate whether it's 5%, 10%, 20%, 30% etc that might have a need to search below the box, but whatever the case, it's going to make your efforts largely futile, unless as someone mentioned you are the "lucky lottery winner".

You're assuming that every searcher wants a quick and simple answer. For a site that targets people who want in-depth answers, the answer box can be a source of quality traffic. (As a user, I often click through from answer boxes, for example. And as a publisher, I've come to the conclusion that people with greater interest and longer attention spans are my most profitable audience.)

But all of this is really beside the point. "Answer boxes" and similar features have become de rigueur among search engines, and railing against the evolution of search is no more productive than complaining about the existence of the income tax.

[MrSavage]

I think I mentioned this before. Some responses are not worth the bandwidth.

Dummies click ads. That is what I found. Smart people these days use ad blockers. Dummies will seek nothing past the box. Exceptions sure but not worth talking about.

To generalize, if Duck Duck did this, who cares? Even if Bing did it, who cares? As it is, those two other nothingburgers would have little impact on traffic.

Imagine if the newspaper industry, music industry, movie industry all shrugged their shoulders. LOL at income tax comparison. Sure, let the torrent sites give all thing away for free. Afterall, its the way! Oh the full movies on YouTube, those are just the way so let it be. Afterall, not paying for content is the way. Golly gee!

You say evolution of search? What are you talking about. IT IS NOT SEARCH. You mean search for what content to scrape and spin? It's srape and spin not search. Get with the times.

There are lots of examples in history where people ignore things that go on around them. As long as they do well, all is fine. Credibility is a hard thing to find.

[EditorialGuy]

Dummies click ads. That is what I found. Smart people these days use ad blockers.

That hasn't been my experience, and in any case, we earn a lot more from affiliate programs than we do from ads. I much prefer the people who stick around our site for a while and then make an affiliate booking or purchase to the hit-and-run visitor who's playing Trivial Pursuit and is surreptitiously searching for the capital of North Dakota while pretending to use the bathroom.

You say evolution of search? What are you talking about. IT IS NOT SEARCH. You mean search for what content to scrape and spin? It's srape and spin not search. Get with the times.

It is what is. Venting about the present won't make search engines revert to what they were in 1998.

[MrSavage]

Sometimes the idea of picking up discarded cigarette butts with my teeth is more desirable than certain conversations here. Discussions and observation are part of any industry. Imagine if discussion was not permitted because it might be perceived as too negative or perceived as simply complaining. If it's positive, no problem? I'll dig up Cutts quote on the subject of the answer box just to shut some peoples mouths on this subject.

There are lots of examples in history where people ignore things that go on around them. As long as they do well, all is fine. Credibility is a hard thing to find.

[robzilla]

but when you click on them, they take you back to another google search

I've not seen this myself, except for simple factual queries like "How old is Barack Obama", but that's probably not what you're referring to.

Do you have an example query or screenshot you can share?

Their liaison comes out with his first statement and condones the use of everyone's content.

I don't think that's fair to Sullivan. You're not the first [webmasterworld.com] to have made that interpretation, but it's still only your interpretation, and a rather far-fetched one at that. It's not a slip of the tongue: "answers" is simply the most appropriate and realistic term for him (and anyone working with search in 2017) to use, encompassing all types of results a search engine can give in return to a query, regardless of where the answers are sourced from.

Sometimes the idea of picking up discarded cigarette butts with my teeth is more desirable than certain conversations here.

Some responses are not worth the bandwidth.

The most ignorant view possible is...

Discussions and observation are part of any industry.

Respectful discussions are, indeed, but your characteristically antagonistic approach always reveals how the very concept of discussion (or social interaction, for that matter) eludes you. Maybe you should ditch the message boards and start a blog so that you're guaranteed not have to waste precious bandwidth reading diverging opinions, and we don't have to deal with your bullying. Everybody wins!

[ByronM]

Isn't most of those "Cards" above the fold simply webmasters and content providers opting in with JSON-LD by providing Google a semantic understanding of your site for popular content types?

[MrSavage]

I'm wondering if we should mention the "People also ask" box below the answer box. If people can't get what they want from the first box, maybe the second or third, or fourth, or fifth drop down in the "People also ask" section will divert traffic to websites. As a last resort, you can find actual website results waaay down the page. If you expand all drop downs, in combination with the top answer box, you have the essence of a web page. Content, content, content, brought you by Tom, Dick and Harry. Sticky fingers folks. This is the way and the scope of the internet is becoming rather Google. Which according to people still bringing in the cash, is totally cool. Heck, people will still sell and offer SEO service so you too can get into that box or get high rankings far down the page under all the answers and text clutter.

What was all the fuss coming from the newpapers and news source when it came to Google News? Was is something like cutting into their piece of the pie? Not sure if that's along the same lines as lifting website content, chopping what isn't needed (aka known as leaving the carcass behind), then spinning onto Google.com pages.

It looks like somebody learned how to use the quote function! Shills and apologists can be called out and that's fair. This discussion should be on the facts. Defending Sullivan? He said "answers". It's a fact. Personal friends from the industry would certainly fall into the apologist camp. Most people dismissed the comment (see the apologist camp), but considering the effect on the SERPS the answer box has, in addition to the "People also ask" means it's very much worth calling out.

People come and whine about lost rankings. There are threads and complaints all OVER THE PLACE. Most times now the "answer" is simple. It's not SEO. It's not some penalty. It's not some other website coming ahead of you. More than ever it's as simple as saying your space has been encroached upon. Nobody wants to say that perhaps your "niche" now features thousands of answer boxes and "People also ask" sections ABOVE where you show up on the page. Either that or the mobile traffic gets cut off at the 4, 5 or 6 deep ads at the top of the results page.