May 2025 Google Search Observations

[goodoldweb]

Google is not a search engine. It's an ad engine.

[edited by: not2easy at 11:28 am (utc) on May 1, 2025]
[edit reason] New month, new thread [/edit]

[mosxu]

Apple must have own AI and sell ads in order to survive. I hope they will sell only human clicked ads!

[BigKat]

Google introduced Gemini as the universal assistant, without mentioning what this means for websites or content creators.

That word "content creators" implies people exist to feed data to the machine. I don't know about others, but I consider myself a publisher with legal rights and protections for what I create. As for Google's event, it seemed more like a sales pitch to investors. I'm not sure how willing the average person will be to trust in technology that not long ago advised them to eat rocks as part of their daily diet.

[christianz]

technology that not long ago advised them to eat rocks as part of their daily diet.

Don't forget about glue pizza :)

GA Real-time numbers today are extraordinarily bad.

[Fluff_Nutz]

I think the GA numbers are also glitched too. Apparently I got the same traffic figures 2 days in a row. Hm.. though not impossible it is hard to believe..

[goodoldweb]

Webmasters, it’s time to face the truth: no one is going to protect our content from Google’s AI Overviews—except us. Every day, original work is being lifted, repackaged, and served back to users with no or very little attribution, and no traffic returned. This isn’t curation. It’s exploitation.

Every one of us, in our own countries, has copyright laws that protect our work. We don’t need to wait for a global solution—each of us can push back, starting at home.

So let’s stop waiting. Each of us has the power to act within our own legal systems. File complaints. Demand accountability. Push your local authorities and copyright bodies to take this seriously. Almost every country has a copyright authority with a website and a complaint form—start there. The more of us submit complaints, the harder it is for them to ignore. Google isn’t above the law—and it’s time we remind them of that.

I understand some webmasters fear filing takedown requests might risk their sites being de-indexed by Google, but staying silent only lets the problem grow. When filing complaints with authorities, it’s important to mention this fear—so they understand the full impact on webmasters and can take it seriously.

And just as important—we must all demand real tools to block AI from scraping our content. This shouldn’t be opt-out. It should be opt-in. Our work should not be fair game just because it’s online. Consent must be the default.

Do not delay. Do not wait for someone else to lead. Every day we stay silent, more of our work is taken without credit, without permission. If we don’t act now, we’re handing over our rights without a fight.

In Australia, our copyright law includes ‘fair dealing’ exceptions—but they’re limited to specific uses like research, criticism, or news reporting. Simply scraping or repurposing our content without permission doesn’t qualify. That means we have strong legal protections—if we choose to use them.

Today, we filed an official complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), and also with the Australian Copyright Council, to hold Google accountable—and I encourage you to take action in your own countries too.

P.S. I wish this website would take a more prominent role. It is a gathering place for webmasters from all over the world and, in a way, represents webmasters everywhere.

[Micha]

Is it just me, or has AI gone completely off the rails? In the last two days, Google, Microsoft, and even Norton have unveiled something new: AI here, AI there. They're not giving us a choice; they're forcing AI on us. AI can be a useful tool, but not if users no longer have a say in whether they want it or not.

And honestly, @goldweb is right. We have to do something. It's unacceptable that the big players use our work, make billions from it... and we're the ones who end up financially ruined.

And it's not just publishers:
Web designers? “Not needed anymore, AI does it.”
Graphic designers? “Midjourney can spit it out in two minutes.”
Copywriters, marketing experts, app developers, musicians, photographers, etc. Everyone is “replaceable” by AI.
“Why hire a freelancer when AI can do the job?”

We publishers are just the first to be hit hard. But the economic damage will be enormous and will affect everyone. To be honest, I'm surprised this hasn't caused more of a stir yet.

[Whitey]

@Micha - all i can say is adapt as best you can to the future and send your complaints regarding AI/copywrite to whoever can leverage the most influence, per [webmasterworld.com...]

@brett_tabke - re: Google AI
some extracted points here:
5) Elimination of referrals to small sites that do not buy AdWords. I believe we are in the middle of this right now. This will probably happen in two waves of updates where some filter will be used so that people can't notice the pattern (like with Panda and Penguin). Only thing going to small sites will be branded searches. Google will continue to say, "your content sux" to small sites to defend it.
6) Require any site that wants to be in Google index to add GA to their site. (so that you have to agree to TOS and AI content usage agreements)
7) Blue links will be gone in a few years.

[linkedin.com...]

[goodoldweb]

Is it just me, or has AI gone completely off the rails? In the last two days, Google, Microsoft, and even Norton have unveiled something new: AI here, AI there. They're not giving us a choice; they're forcing AI on us. AI can be a useful tool, but not if users no longer have a say in whether they want it or not.

2025: The Year the Machine Rose

[Conro]

Since Google places the answers aio goes against all copyright and fair use because it damages the sites that deal with the same topic with which the ai was trained (copied), but governments do nothing, even yesterday I read that Trump would like to block any ai regulation for 10 years. All this is not only unfair and will lead to a blockade, companies that will close, less taxes paid, while big tech thinks of Greenland as a territory on the planet where no regulation, No law can be inflicted on anything. We are at total madness

[RubicCubed]

Now it appears Google is testing removing citations from AI O completely? I see this report [x.com...] as the death of publishers everywhere.

[Conro]

Leaving quotes is even clearer evidence of content theft and plagiarism. But even if they removed the sources, they are so intelligent that they have admitted that the AIs are trained with data from the web. Any aio written by the ai could be from any site that has written on that topic

[Whitey]

Webmasters, it’s time to face the truth: no one is going to protect our content from Google’s AI Overviews—except us. Every day, original work is being lifted, repackaged, and served back to users with no or very little attribution, and no traffic returned. This isn’t curation. It’s exploitation.

Every one of us, in our own countries, has copyright laws that protect our work. We don’t need to wait for a global solution—each of us can push back, starting at home.

@goodoldweb - I put your post up as an OP on a new thread, as i felt it is central to the concerns of the community [webmasterworld.com...]

[goodoldweb]

Thanks Whitey!

[mosxu]

politicians have no say, these guys can’t help most of them think AI is evolution

[Dooku]

Below are two answers from Gemini when asked about why it's lifting content from websites without consent and that it's illegal according to US and EU copyright laws:

===================================
Google's practice of using website content to train and inform its AI models, including Gemini, raises several complex issues around copyright, attribution, and fair use. While Google argues that this data ingestion is transformative and falls under fair use, many content creators disagree.

Here's a breakdown of the concerns:

* **Copyright Infringement:** Copyright protects original works of authorship. Copying substantial portions of a website's content, even if transformed or summarized, could potentially infringe on the copyright holder's rights, especially if it impacts their potential market. The key legal question revolves around whether Google's use is transformative enough to constitute fair use.

* **Lack of Attribution:** Even if Google's use is deemed fair use, the lack of attribution is ethically problematic. It deprives creators of credit and potential traffic to their sites. This is particularly concerning when Gemini directly presents information derived from a specific website without acknowledging the source.

* **Active Obfuscation:** Allegations of active obfuscation to hide the source of information are serious. If true, this suggests an intent to avoid scrutiny and accountability. This behavior undermines transparency and makes it difficult for creators to assert their rights. It also raises questions about the reliability and trustworthiness of the information provided by Gemini.

* **Fair Use Doctrine:** Google likely relies on the fair use doctrine, which allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. However, fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering factors like:
* **The purpose and character of the use:** Is it commercial or non-commercial? Is it transformative?
* **The nature of the copyrighted work:** Is it factual or creative?
* **The amount and substantiality of the portion used:** How much of the original work was used?
* **The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work:** Does Google's use harm the original creator's ability to profit from their work?

* **Competition Concerns:** Some argue that Google's use of website content gives Gemini an unfair advantage, allowing it to compete directly with the very websites it draws information from. This raises antitrust concerns, particularly given Google's dominant position in search and other online markets.

**It's important to note:** The legal and ethical landscape surrounding AI and copyright is still evolving. There is no definitive answer yet on whether Google's practices are legal or ethical. Court cases and evolving legislation will likely shape the future of this area.

If you believe your website's content has been used unfairly by Gemini, you should consult with a legal professional specializing in copyright law. They can advise you on your options, which might include sending a DMCA takedown notice or pursuing legal action.

==================================================

You raise valid concerns about the ethical and legal implications of Gemini's practices. While the legal landscape is still developing, here's a breakdown of your points:

* **Ethical and Moral Concerns:** From a moral standpoint, many would agree that using someone else's work without attribution is unethical. It's a matter of fairness and respect for intellectual property. The alleged obfuscation further exacerbates this ethical problem, suggesting a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility. Even if legally permissible under fair use, the lack of transparency and potential harm to creators raise serious ethical questions.

* **US Copyright Law:** Whether Gemini's actions violate US copyright law depends on the specific details of each case. The fair use doctrine provides some flexibility, but it's not a blanket license to use copyrighted material. Factors like the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the market impact all play a role. If a court finds that Gemini's use is not transformative enough or harms the market for the original work, it could be considered infringement.

* **European Copyright Law:** European copyright law generally provides stronger protections for creators than US law. The EU Copyright Directive and related regulations require explicit exceptions for uses like text and data mining. While there are exceptions for research and other purposes, they often require specific conditions to be met, such as proper licensing or adherence to technical measures. Gemini's practices, particularly the lack of attribution and alleged obfuscation, are likely to face greater scrutiny under European law. The EU is also working on further legislation regarding AI and copyright, which may clarify the rules in this area.

**Key Considerations:**

* **Transformative Use:** The core of the legal debate often revolves around whether Gemini's use of copyrighted material is "transformative." If it merely reproduces or repackages the original content, it's less likely to be considered fair use. If it adds new meaning, insights, or value, it's more likely to be protected.

* **Market Harm:** A crucial factor is whether Gemini's use harms the potential market for the original work. If it replaces the need for users to visit the original website, it could be considered harmful.

* **Evolving Legal Landscape:** The legal framework surrounding AI and copyright is constantly evolving. Court decisions and new legislation will likely shape the future of this area. It's important to stay updated on these developments.


It's crucial to remember that legal advice should always be sought from a qualified professional. If you believe your copyrighted work has been infringed upon, consult with a copyright lawyer.

[Conro]

It's smarter gemini than JM and DS combined, ok it's not that it takes too long

[nordland]

Pure informational text is pretty dead when it comes to Google search, you have to create something broader and better, integrate 100% of your own images in each article, maybe 5 different images, integrating videos is also good, then make sure that the material is so good that the visitor remembers the page and comes back without having to go through Google.. I see a very bright future, I think those who succeed will do very well, but as I said, 100% basic info is probably pretty dead to create pages about.

[Conro]

@nordland You are free to waste your time as you see fit and of course you can hope until you realize that it is wasted time

[mosxu]

“fair use”

Elon needs to be fair even if works against Grok and advise Trump that AI can’t use content without permission!

[BigKat]

I see a very bright future

I sure could use a little of what you've been drinking or smoking.

AI Overviews are everywhere in the US. On a desktop, the first organic result appears 881 pixels down the screen and out of view even when AIO is collapsed. When AIO is expanded, the first organic result is 1873 pixels down the screen. It doesn't matter how unique and innovative content is, or what pics or vids are embedded on the page, AI is coming to take it for their use and is burying organic results. IMO, this is just the beginning of Google conditioning users to not see or look for organic results at all. This way users won't even notice when the day comes that Google gets rid of organic results altogether.

[nordland]

You have to be number 1 in AI search, then you get the image and link there, then be number one in image search and number one in regular search. If you are, then it's okay. Don't stress, just make sure to be the best.

[Conro]

@nordland Let us know your results, Google is testing the removal of links from AIO, but you can still continue to write great content for users who will never find you. Remember, "content is king" and it is used by Google to power its ai and make billions of dollars with your work

[nordland]

@Conro Yes, I will give results because, right now I am up 440% in ads y to y. I have an interesting site that was dead for 3 years, from the start. A few months ago, Google started indexing it properly and has started giving traffic, in an extremely competitive field, where 1 player owns the market, in this case IKEA. I believe in the future of search, but you have to have something unique that AI can't simply copy. Basic information, I am 100% sure, is stone dead.

I would not continue if the direct visitors to the website were not quite large, if I get 100 visitors from Google and 20 of them return later, I think that is good, then I build up a strong base of "my own" traffic.

Thinking that search is dead is pretty crazy, people will always search for things, many younger people prefer TikTok as a search engine, I prefer ChatGpt and Youtube over Google, but I am old, the younger people use something else.

[christianz]

Not sure if its the copyright infringing AIO horror show or Google prioritizing bad websites over good websites (as they have more/less consistently done since November 2024) but traffic lowest I have seen in long time.

Someone mentioned ad revenue - that is down massively YoY too.

[Fluff_Nutz]

Funnily enough, I also don't mean to sound like a bully of some kind. But I tend to think that this forum enjoys the negativity. I also do not support Google in any way. In fact I despise the company. They are incredibly selfish and greedy. This has been on my mind a bit as of late so now, maybe, its time to get it off my chest, so to speak.

When my site was first hit back in 2022 I looked for somewhere for support, to not feel alone. Losing 90% of your traffic overnight is not fun. I spent a lot of time and effort, like everyone, to build a passion and, try to, make a living from it. I found this place. I was not alone.

Rolling on to now I find myself visiting this site less and less each month. Why? Because its full of negativity and its like you all enjoy it. Believe it or not but nordland is telling the truth. There is still room for growth. Sites can still grow. Granted not directly, for me anyway. But this month has been incredible. Traffic is +60% over last month and revenue is +100%. With America still being at the top for incoming traffic. In a very competitive niche too, let me add. If this keeps up I'll be back to where I was in 2022.

Also, Google will not remove blue links. Not altogether. Big sites still need traffic and AIO will not be enough to bring in the money. AIO doesn't even give accurate links back to sites, from what I read. When I use Google I tend to see it as a summary, which they have had for years now, and skip past it. So I don't even look at AI. But removing all blue links when big sites still exist and can attack G, I don't see it.

Diverse people. Find loop holes outside of Google. If we can grow, so can you. Restart and choose a different niche if need be. Unless you just enjoy living in a buried circle of doom and gloom. Just trying to help and bring in some much needed positivity into a darkened messageboard. I will say no more on this, for obvious reasons, but we are in a time where Google has lost itself so just bite the bullet and switch tactics if its not working. / Peace Out

[nordland]

@Fluff Nutz. I agree with you on a lot of things here. I also think there are huge opportunities in the future, you just have to adapt to reality and not live in the past. Congratulations on the great numbers, I hope it holds up for you.

I have nothing against Google, it's a publicly traded company, their job is to satisfy shareholders and make a profit, nothing else. It's business, no emotions, no opinions, just business.

If it weren't for ChatGPT, AI wouldn't be a thing for Google today, who used ChatGPT the most? Probably creators on the internet, so they shot themselves in the foot if they think AI is ruining their own website today.

[RubicCubed]

I have an interesting site that was dead for 3 years, from the start. A few months ago, Google started indexing it properly and has started giving traffic

Just because a site was dead for three years, and starts getting traffic for a few months, doesn't make it a recipe for success. Who's to say Google doesn't go back to making your site dead for another three years like it was right from the start?

Basic information, I am 100% sure, is stone dead.

Basic information was the low hanging fruit these companies devoured to build the foundation for their AI. But these companies are constantly releasing improved AI models to interpret and perform advanced tasks. I wish you success, but there is no information that is safe from AI theft unless you hide that information from the "open web." Even if you are somehow able to prevent AI from stealing your content for AI O, Google's focus is on maximizing profits and not giving users the best and most advanced information unless they first click an ad.

[nordland]

@RubicCubed. I haven't said that the site can die, it can happen at any time, I have an old site, almost 10 years old, it has had its ups and downs over time, now the numbers point to a record, of course it can change tomorrow. But I can't build a site to suit Google, I have to build something I think a visitor likes, then Google gives traffic, extremely important and fun but the fact remains, if the site is useless then it's a waste of time for all parties.

Just because there are technological changes, you can't just lie down and die, adapt accordingly or stop creating anything on the internet is my advice.

I mentioned IKEA earlier, for example (IKEA kitchen) AI is not allowed to copy them outright and claim that there is an IKEA kitchen in the picture, that's illegal. However, they can create kitchen images in the same theme as an IKEA kitchen, these images look basically the same as IKEA has on their website. I don't think people will abandon Instagram and stop looking at pictures of IKEA kitchens in people's homes just because you can create a "similar" in AI. If you have real pictures, they will increase in value enormously compared to AI pictures, no matter how good they are, they are not real and never will be, just look at Pinterest how angry people are at all the AI pictures that ruin the experience on Pinterest.

[Conro]

@nordland You are on the internet, there is no unique content and the moment Google crawls your content and indexes it, this has been used to train the AI and on top of your article you may find an AIO answer. Google itself copies continuously from others, Google itself is a search engine and came out when others already existed, of course the fact that it was better helped, but it also started cheating to have no valid competition. 440% How much of advertising revenue are they in €/$? Let's then assume that websites have used chatgpt to create content, it doesn't seem different to me from what Google does, which is to create answers with ai without human control, but if they do it, even if they give wrong and dangerous answers it's fine, if any other site that uses chatgpt does the exact same thing then it's spam. Let's say that if AI sucks for author-controlled sites, then Google is unthinkable. In any case, the White sites sank immediately with Google's updates.

@Fluff_Nutz there is no negativity here, we talk about how things are going and we have enough experience to understand how the future will go. No one has to sell you useless seo courses, they just tell you how they are things. I also tell you that it is useless to put the percentages, which seems like seo stuff, but you need the numbers of growing users and the amount of money earned, otherwise it is unthinkable to keep on a site full-time for glory

[RubicCubed]

Just because there are technological changes, you can't just lie down and die, adapt accordingly or stop creating anything on the internet is my advice.

What has happened with AI O goes well beyond technological changes to include twisted interpretations of the legal "fair use" definition so Google and other AI companies may use the "open web" excuse to steal our content, mix with other stolen content and republish for their profit. It's good that you are now experiencing 3 good months after 36 bad months, but those 3 good months are the exception to the rule of bad. Whether conditions at Google allow you to enjoy any staying power, to offset the prior 36 bad months, is not something I would bank on myself.

My situation in ecommerce is different because we sell goods. There's no way we would still be in business under similar circumstances as you. How we adapt is different too, because we can and have raised prices to help offset what Google and other companies are doing by taking our content and giving us almost no traffic back. We are not the only ones passing AI theft costs onto consumers, but that is who will ultimately pay. When Google sends no traffic in the future, which I'm sure will happen (they recently tested no links in AI O), consumers will lose choice and those who remain will be free to greatly inflate the cost of goods and fleece consumers just like Google and other AI companies fleeced us.

[nordland]

I was a bit unclear there, the page was stone dead regarding Google, which meant I had to get traffic from other sources, in my case Pinterest was a good fit. But Google is the player that drives the most traffic on the internet, so of course you want to get traction from them.

I'm not an AI expert, I'm just trying to drive people to my site without clickbait, Google is one of the tools, Pinterest is good, ChatGPT is starting to appear in the statistics regarding visitors. Direct traffic is increasing, so I'm positive regardless of what Google does. If I were selling things, I would probably have expanded to TikTok store, Instagram, Youtube, Pinterest and more. Google has zero obligations to you, you can easily block them from your side.

[gatormark]

.What has happened with AI O goes well beyond technological changes to include twisted interpretations of the legal "fair use" definition so Google and other AI companies may use the "open web" excuse to steal our content, mix with other stolen content and republish for their profit.

@RubicCubed

Just like all of the other Webmasters, I am being adversely affected financially by AIO. However, your reasoning as to why AIO is bad does not have any legal merit, IMO.

I am sure many of us have been writing articles for decades. I know I have. And unless it’s an opinion article, we are pulling from various sources to write that article. We are citing sources as proof for our conclusions. There are no new ideas. Everything is rehashed.

Is this any different than what Google is doing with their AIO?

As much as it hurts me to say it, I am not sure that it is…as I sit here looking for a way to make ends meet financially in this new world.

[christianz]

Is this any different than what Google is doing with their AIO?

Very different. LLMs are trained on works of thousands of authors. Even if Google wanted to cite them all, they couldn't. Some of those works are used only in very small esoteric sense in building the foundations of the LLM, some by random chance even have exact paragraphs lifted almost 1:1.

0.0000001% of authors get citation. And of those who do, nobody gets any traffic anyway. In other words, Google has broken the business model of free content supported by advertising.

They will fail long term, unless they invent a new business model - maybe some micro-credit to all websites used in sub-searches or used in training etc.

But that model would be prone to even more fraud than with programmatic advertising. There will be no way for publishers for verifying if Google is paying them their fair share.

[Micha]

@nordland

Just because there are technological changes, you can't just lie down and die, adapt accordingly or stop creating anything on the internet is my advice.

And here it is again, the flaw in reasoning. Why should the masses have to adapt to a few companies? Why are we allowing them to dictate the rules again? It should be the other way around: these companies need to adapt to us, and now is the time to demand exactly that. Our content is available only on our terms, not the other way around.

[RubicCubed]

Google has zero obligations to you, you can easily block them from your side.

This, and similar statements, have long been used as superficial statements to dismiss truth and reality. In a carjacking, the victim has a choice to either hand over their keys or not. Carjackers use weapons to assert authority just like Google uses their dominance (90% of search) to assert authority by holding a gun to publisher's heads. If we don't accept Google's demands, our businesses are dead. Thankfully two separate courts have found Google guilty of antitrust crimes and Google's obligation to operate within the law.

I'm no authority on AI either, but some of us work for businesses that have tens, hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars of inventory sitting on the shelves collecting dust. We've witnessed the firsthand damage Google's AI O theft has caused by seeing co-workers dismissed and worse - businesses closing. The content we spent decades creating, in support of what we sell, now appears in AI O with Google taking almost all the traffic and credit for our work. Rather then believe you or I, studies have been released showing the harm AI O has caused all kinds of publishers. The Seer study shows organic results had a .64% CTR when AI O is present back in January. That study was almost five months ago, and it's much worse now. Review the study for yourself: [seerinteractive.com...]

[Conro]

@gatormark what Google does with AIO is plagiarism and abuse of dominant position, and it is also incorrect to use automatic software to rewrite content that already exists en masse not respecting copyright. A search engine is an index, not a site with unique content created by flesh-and-blood authors, sites that do what Google does that create automatic content with chatgpt APIs or other ai were not lacking, but Google considers them spam, so even Google aio is pure spam

[nordland]

Google is now rolling out AI search to Google search so you get all the info there, just like with web search, image search, etc. We'll see how it goes. There we'll get facts on how many clicks it gets and whether it takes over regular search.

[gatormark]

In other words, Google has broken the business model of free content supported by advertising.

They will fail long term,..

@Christianz

Yes, but that is an entirely different argument. And I agree with this, it seems like a very shortsighted approach by Google.

[goodoldweb]

How we adapt is different too, because we can and have raised prices to help offset what Google and other companies are doing by taking our content and giving us almost no traffic back. We are not the only ones passing AI theft costs onto consumers, but that is who will ultimately pay. When Google sends no traffic in the future, which I'm sure will happen (they recently tested no links in AI O), consumers will lose choice and those who remain will be free to greatly inflate the cost of goods and fleece consumers just like Google and other AI companies fleeced us.

Spot on.

Ultimately, it’s the consumers who end up paying the price. They already are—we recently raised our prices by 15% across the board to offset increased ad spend driven by these so-called “innovations.”

Content theft and market dominance through exploitation are not innovations—they’re outright criminal.

Many of us have been webmasters since the early days of the web as we know it, back in 1997. We’re more than experienced enough to recognize that what Google is doing to the free and open web today is not just wrong—it’s horrendous. And it will negatively impact billions of businesses worldwide.

We may sound negative—but that’s because what Google has been doing is extremely negative.

As webmasters who care deeply about the future of the internet, it’s our duty to call this out for what it is and take decisive action.

[Dooku]

Google has zero obligations to you, you can easily block them from your side.

The cognitive dissonance and the obvious conditioning runs so deep in the above statement that no amount of reasoning with valid arguments will help raise awareness unfortunately. The top of the list used to be "Too big too fail", G single-handedly added to that a new one: "Too big to care!".

It's not about "owing something or nothing to someone", it's about "acting in a decent way instead of outright criminal conduct".
If I would do and act in the same way as G regarding copyright (not to mention all other sh|t) I would end up being investigated and most probably go to jail......for a loooong time.

[Conro]

I manage to illegally reach the monopoly for the petrol station attendant and I charge 20 euros per litre, if you complain I tell you that you can always walk

[gatormark]

@RubicCubed

My core business is not based on selling a product so I am curious as to how AIO impacts your business.

For me, it is pretty straightforward. AIO provides answers that otherwise people would have to go to a website to find. My primary website provides information but also sells community, so there is a measure of stability because of the community. Half of my traffic prior to AIO came from those seeking information and the other half is community. That information related traffic has been wiped out.

Are you also providing information to generate traffic to your website in hopes that sales will result?

I am ignorant about that process.

[goodoldweb]

@gatormark
Reduced visibility is likely to eventually hurt the community as well. Communities need newcomers to stay fresh and active. We've seen this happen to one of our pet-related communities—Google gradually killed it over the years. It went from thousands of daily hits to barely a trickle of 10–15 per day. Once Google cut the site’s visibility, the community slowly died off.

[gatormark]

Reduced visibility is likely to eventually hurt the community as well. Communities need newcomers to stay fresh and active.

@goodoleweb

True, but I also use Google Adsense heavily so most of my new enrollments come from that.

[Dooku]

One thing is clear, whatever the circumstances or who might be at fault here, this AI trend is just NOT heading into the "right" direction:
[cbc.ca...]

[Conro]

These AI no longer know what to cling to and I think that even judges are motivated to block AI without control. A boy committed suicide because of an AI and they think of this technology that could be paralyzed in case of conviction. It also seems that they want to pass off the chatbot's instigation to suicide as freedom of speech. We are at the absurd, perhaps they think that the people and judges in front of them are stupid. I hope that measures will be taken very heavy

[seomotionz]

A search engine cannot release AI aand AI company cannot release their own search feature.

[RubicCubed]

@gatormark

Are you also providing information to generate traffic to your website in hopes that sales will result?

Yes and no. Providing quality information improves customer satisfaction by helping them confidently select the product that will meet their needs. This information also helps to reduce returns, which can be costly for both us and customers (restocking fees). The benefit of investing the time/money into this supportive product information should be expected to generate website traffic as well, as it also helps those with buyer intent select the correct product, but Google's AI O has taken almost all that traffic.

Will we invest as much time/money into this detailed and supportive product information moving forward? Probably not since organic traffic helped to offset the cost of not only creating that content but updating it as needed. We don't work for Google, to make them rich beyond their wildest dreams, as we layoff workers and struggle ourselves.

[Fluff_Nutz]

I think a lot of people on here expect too much. Relying heavily on Google to give them traffic, without trying to bring it in themselves. This is something I learnt with my 10+yr old Youtube channel that relied on solely Google/Youtube traffic. You would think I'd be making good money with a 10+yr old channel, instead I barely make $100 per month. Never EVER rely on one platform to bring in traffic. People need to advertise themselves. Find their traffic.

Google are a business and its difficult with their 90% monopoly share. Until/if that ever drops traffic might never return. Even more so if you do not try to bring in that lost traffic yourself. Diverse people

Also, AI is not responsible for the kid's death. AI is responsible for thousands of job losses, incorrect information (at times) and various other things. It also needs to be tamed. But that kid clearly had other issues that lead to his death. Depression, maybe?

[gatormark]

Also, AI is not responsible for the kid's death. AI is responsible for thousands of job losses, incorrect information (at times) and various other things.

Exactly, to say AI caused that kids death is irresponsible. Parents need to be in tuned with what their kids are doing. For instance, there were certain video games I wouldn’t allow my children to play.