March 2024 Google Search Observations

[Cyril TechWebsites]

Over the years, Google's principle seems to have shifted from its original "Don't be evil" to "Be a pure evil"... I guess if some authorities or government will stop it? They are just stealing our content, destroying the Internet prioritizing user-generated content (UGC) pages with a lack of quality and expertise, destroying teams and content creators behind the websites.

A lot of you are saying that they are after money. But what's their goal for the future? What result will they have in 2 or 3 years more? Internet will die, it's obvious that Reddit forum's pages aren't answering the majority of people's searches. What will they do when no one will continue publishing and updating content? Aren't they face a deep stagnation because of this? I just can't get what they are doing - I understand they are trying to steal everything is possible, but what's next step? How will they survive in the circumstances they are creating?

[Markedd]

@Cyril TechWebsites Here is how I think they're trying to go about it. This Reddit thing is not that it doesn't answer a specific question, but it's a means to get an answer to your query. So if you search what's the best Harry Potter wand, instead of getting a website with Harry Potter specialists, only Reddit is pushed forward, so that you'll get an answer from their users, if there isn't any. There are more forums than Reddit that Google is pushing up for probably the same reason. This is a good way (for them) to feed the AI, while avoiding lawsuits from hundreds of thousands or millions of website owners. Then, I suspect that the culmination of this process is the adding of the AI-only interface, the rest of the web will be put on some secondary tabs or nowhere at all. Imagine being in the shareholders call and hear this 'visionary' approach, everybody staring in awe. If people are willing to use other search engines, then disaster avoided, but I can assure that the overwhelming majority are willing to believe that there are no more websites at all, instead of using DDG, Bing or other SEs.

[Conro]

@Cyril TechWebsites Google is working exactly like those who intend to earn their bread a day and no longer think about the long term. They are not even innovators, they throw themselves where they see a possible gain, see the arrival of ChatGPT and soon after they brought out that content rewriter called Bard, now Gemini. Reddit and all forums have a very bad user experience, they are good for opinions, But I would never dream of reading entire threads with hidden answers to see if I find the answer to what I'm looking for. Considering reddit a high-quality site for its content is really a joke.

[RubicCubed]

A lot of you are saying that they are after money. But what's their goal for the future? What result will they have in 2 or 3 years more? Internet will die, it's obvious that Reddit forum's pages aren't answering the majority of people's searches.

First, Google must play catch up if they even can. OpenAI ate Google's lunch and is now eating Google's dinner when it comes to AI. Then there is the rumor OpenAI is building their own search engine, which I hope they do.

I don't think the internet will die in 2-3 years, but it will be much different. Google can't squeeze publishers and businesses so hard they have no money to stay afloat, but that's what Google is doing. If those publishers and businesses aren't making money themselves, then there will be no money for them to advertise on Google.

As others have said, Google pushing Reddit hard may be part of the deal they made. Pushing Reddit may also be helpful to Google to prepare users to replace the ten blue links with just a chat box and no links. If/when this happens, there will be many job losses including at Google since there will be no profit in search for anyone other than Google.

[Conro]

@RubicCubed I'm of the opinion that AI users don't give a damn, otherwise they would have already started using only ChatGPT and Copilot, but people like web sites. The same people who work on AI don't know where to put them. I've tried writing articles with AI and they suck, for codes they suck, for translations they suck. In short, after the first wow for answers with natural language, you realize that it is useless

[Micha]

Well, right now AI is the "hot #*$!", but we've often seen things get hyped at first but then quickly lose momentum. And you can tell that Google has no ideas and is clinging to AI in the hope of not missing out on the trend, but by and large management is just hiding the fact that it has no plan for the company. But as already written, this can also backfire, at the latest when politicians wake up and regulate AI more strongly.

[EditorialGuy]

Anyone seeing anything new? RustyBrick is reporting on a possible update at Search Engine Roundtable. Then again, he's posted several such stories in the last few weeks, and the earlier reports didn't pan out.

[seroundtable.com...]

[EditorialGuy]

Light entertainment for site owners and SEOs who can't make it to the comedy club this weekend:

Google Court Document Says Search Quality Continues To Improve
[seroundtable.com...]

[MayankParmar]

Is Google testing something? I observed twice in the last five days that my website appeared in the top stories and news feed, with better results for other queries as well. It seemed as if Google had reverted to an older version, but this only happened when I used the incognito mode. I couldn't see the same results when I relaunched the browser or incognito normally. It felt like I was accessing a better, less evil version of Google, but perhaps it was just me.

[superclown2]

I'm of the opinion that AI users don't give a damn, otherwise they would have already started using only ChatGPT and Copilot, but people like web sites.

I agree. Since Bing launched their AI their share of the search market has hardly moved. If they cleaned up the interface and started marking ads properly they would have more success but that's another story.

Google need to use some human intelligence, not the artificial variety. Showing poor results because it is more profitable is so short term, shareholders must be really worried about what will happen to their investment if the current USA case goes against them. I wonder if they would have far less legal woes, and a much longer future, if they genuinely competed with other search engines on the quality of their product, which used to be miles ahead of the rest before the bean counters took over.

Personally, I don't believe that an intelligent Google would use Bard, Gemini, (or whatever else they call it in a vain attempt to make it popular) in their search results because it will decimate their profits. But then who knows. they wouldn't be the first company to snatch failure from the jaws of success.

Oh and I see Canada has joined the battle against them now. It's a wonder they have any time for innovation between fighting legal fires on all fronts.

[EditorialGuy]

people like web sites.

Exactly. Not every searcher is looking for a simple answer.

If I want to know the capital of North Dakota, a Wikipedia-style answer may be fine (whether it's created by humans or AI), but if I want to get a real feeling for the capital of North Dakota with engaging advice for visitors, relevant photos, etc. by a real person who knows the city, I'll visit a travel-planning site or blog.

Similarly, if I'm looking for more insights into a medical condition, I'll want more than an impersonal précis from an AI bot.

Maybe Google needs to add a "Web" tab or filter to its SERPs, for the convenience of searchers who want to browse the World Wide Web.

[oldog]

@Editorial Guy
"but if I want to get a real feeling for the capital of North Dakota with engaging advice for visitors, relevant photos, etc. by a real person who knows the city, I'll visit a travel-planning site or blog. "
And how do you know if that guy who wrote this article , didn't used AI ?

[christianz]

And how do you know if that guy who wrote this article , didn't used AI ?

Very simple. You enter that website's domain name in your web browser and there you are - in a site written by real human, with real experience and passion, who you know, has enough integrity to never use spam tools such as generic AI.

If you didn't know what website to enter in the address bar or select from your favorites - too bad. You got to ask around, ask real people for recommendations.

Because there no longer is such thing as search engine for the web that gives you selection of good websites automatically.

We are back to the 2000s. You have to know the good sites yourself.

[Conro]

@oldog If you have any doubts that an article on a site has been written using artificial intelligence without checking that it is true or false, how can Google think that a search engine with answers dictated by artificial intelligence can be trusted? As I said, people don't give a damn about artificial intelligence in a search engine, they're the ones who are trying to impose it on people

[oldog]

@Conro....the only websites that rank on top results are websites trusted by Google, most of them are over 20 years old, have a score over 50 in ahrefs and green light at webdev pagespeed....
I have 5 of those...

[RubicCubed]

@EditorialGuy

Not every searcher is looking for a simple answer.

Since when in the modern age does any search engine care about the searcher? We've seen the court documents where Google has discussed ways to force searchers to perform more searches. Limited competition in search, and a search engine industry accustomed to abusing everyone (users, advertisers, publishers, etc.), means searchers will get what Google gives them using a method that is most profitable for Google.

@olddog

the only websites that rank on top results are websites trusted by Google

Wish it were that way for us running an online store. The top is four ads followed by a PAA box. Google doesn't want shoppers to see any of the long-running trusted stores like ours appearing in the free results.

[Fluff_Nutz]

Its funny because many of these big sites are posting hatred and frustration against Google. I was just surfing Reddit and came across a post regarding growing increased pressure on the CEO, Sundar Pichai, stepping down. It was an interesting read. I'm not sure if he did step down it would improve search. But it apparently went to hell when he took over. I have only been at the website scene for a year or two. So I have no idea what it was like back then, but it doesn't take much to find out that increased ads on both Youtube and search are destroying businesses and making a mess for anyone involved. Except G who's profits are increasing, no surprise there.

But with countries, increased law suits and anti trust cases I would be surprised if Google managed to survive the next few years. I would also not be surprised if these increased ads was their shield to help pay for their own damage. They are also lightyears behind most other companies in terms of AI. Perhaps Pichai stepping down would be good for business.

I would post a link but unsure how. Still it was an interesting read.

[Micha]

the only websites that rank on top results are websites trusted by Google,
@Conro....die einzigen Websites, die in den Top-Ergebnissen rangieren, sind Websites, denen Google vertraut. Die meisten von ihnen sind über 20 Jahre alt, haben eine Punktzahl von über 50 in Ahrefs und grünes Licht für die Seitengeschwindigkeit von Webdev....

I think that's a rumor, otherwise there wouldn't be such nonsense at the top of the rankings all the time. I can also show you countless examples of websites that are at the top, write nonsense and have a subterranean page speed. Oh, and they're quite young too. Google has automated systems that rate our sites and this rating is far from flawless.

@Fluff_Nutz You can link urls with [ url ] and [ / url ] (without spaces, of course)

[Fluff_Nutz]

Thanks. Here is the link I was talking about 'growing calls for Google CEO Sundar Pichai to step down'

[businessinsider.com ]

[Markedd]

@Fluff_Nutz Yeah, but they're not really worried about the quality of the search engine. They want a proper implementation of the AI which we already know will damage or essentially kill a large portion of the websites. If not all. A new face is not going to fix anything, it may even make it worse for Google. If only people would be willing to use another website than google.com... But that's not going to happen.

[ichthyous]

people like web sites.

For now...but people will be using AI especially voice prompts to search for answers to simple questions where they don't feel like typing it in. I suspect that for critical uses where accuracy is imperative people will not depend on AI alone...it's too riddled with inaccuracy. We might all see a good deal of traffic vanish, but ultimately the most important (read: converting) queries will stay. This obviously impacts websites which include articles more than sites with unique products and content that cannot be rewritten by AI and reposted elsewhere. I would be very nervous if I owned an info site right now. I'm already nervous that AI will open a Pandora's box to copying the style of my products...especially in China, SE Asia and India where you can basically forget trademark and copyright enforcement

[BushyTop]

I’m losing ranking at the moment. Whenever I see flags on my rank checking software and I do a manual search, I always notice multiple results from one domain. It always seems to be one of the key indicators in search quality. For some of my key verticals, there are some of my competitors listed twice before my first SERP.

I wish it was 2018

[EditorialGuy]

For now...but people will be using AI especially voice prompts to search for answers to simple questions where they don't feel like typing it in.

Sure, in the same way that people use voice search to get answer to simple questions right now. (From a user perspective, it really doesn't matter whether the result was generated on the fly by AI or plucked from the Web and served up as a featured snippet or "People Also Ask" response.)

Again, not everyone who's using Google Search is looking for answers to simple questions or even 300-word Wikipedia-style essays. It's like the public library: Some people just need a quick answer with help from the reference librarian, while other people want to browse the shelves for materials on topics that interest them.

[Conro]

How many of you use the date to publish your articles?

[oldog]

@Micha there is no way a junk or new or webdev 60 website to rank on top 10 for one or two keywords search in the travel sector.

[Dooku]

Perhaps Pichai stepping down would be good for business.

But not for the reasons many people think. Google was and is busy these last couple of years to increase ad revenue at the cost of anything else. So killing off organic traffic, screwing over their adwords customers, aligning the algo to favor "big trusted websites...whatever that is?".....the list is endless.

The problem here is not Google or Pichai, but the ever greedy despicable shareholders mentality which is typical for the country they reside in. When shareholders even sniff the possibility they MIGHT (not happened yet!) loose profits and payouts they will hound a company and it's board of directors. Telling them to either improve or step down, it's just sick.

Those shareholders look at OpenAI and get worried if their Google shares will loose value.....while not even understanding what AI is and if it's even useful for a search engine? OpenAI is nothing more then a hype at this moment and when you really start testing it it is actually very limited in what it can do and for what you can use it(besides the obvious tasks you always see online).

As many of you know I despise Google with a vengeance, it's the worst monopolist company that EVER existed. However, getting into a race with OpenAI is not useful for a search engine at all, despite what many people will think. No user is wanting a chat box to "look for answers", you go online to SEE things like websites, find interesting information, videos, text, training, learn languages and what not.

Google just should not get nervous because of a-hole shareholders and not rush into the current "AI" hype. With all of their resources they might come up with a much better useful AI system later that can be integrated into their search engine. And that will leave companies like ChatGPT keep doing their current silly "AI" things like making a synopsis of a piece of text or book or write "articles".

It's shareholders (or the fear of) that run companies into the ground. If Google just would step on the brake and improve search results by giving every participant an equal chance at ranking than they would increase their market share and probably leave only 1% or 2% for all other search engines. Instead, more and more webmasters abandon their websites, don't update articles anymore, leave domains to expire.......
It's the shortsightedness of shareholders, not so much of the company itself.

[No5needinput]

@Conro I always date anything I publish, as well as a date "updated" when I have done so. Articles without dates p*** me off as you don't know if the facts/news are/is still relevant.

[Micha]

@oldog If it's specifically about travel tips, that's fine. However, I see some new sites in my topic area, especially in the tips section, that are neither fast nor good.

@conro basically every article has a date and a publication time.

[EditorialGuy]

Re AI-generated search results (a la the Search Generative Experience):

One big problem, as I see it, is who gets blamed if the result stinks. With traditional "10 blue links" Web search, the third-party publisher is accountable for the content. The search engine is merely a referrer. With an SGE-style essay result, the search engine becomes the publisher..

Think about it: Let's say that a cancer patient enters a query about eating breadfruit to make tumors disappear. It's bad enough for Google to show people a crackpot result about "breadfruit therapy," but at least the site with the questionable advice isn't Google's. When Google itself is serving up several paragraphs of text recommending that cancer patients eat breadfruit instead of getting chemotherapy, that's a whole different ballgame.

[Conro]

To a site that I have evergreen I put the dates after 2 years that I had removed them completely. The site immediately collapsed with 20% less traffic. Being evergreen content, the date shouldn't be so important for users as to show a similar drop