August 2025 Google Search Observations

[mosxu]

AI Mode doesn’t seem to cut it either the business model is cooked:

No clicks no money!

[Fluff_Nutz]

I have to agree with those that think its less about quality and more about G just trying to maximize their own agenda. I used their AI Mode box the other day, first time. I wanted a quick answer. Did I get a quick answer? No! I actually did not

What AI Mode is for me is a box that seems to want you to stay on there. It does not give me answers, without first, repeating my own question in several different and unique ways for it to finally understand me. It took a good 5-10min and I finally gave up on it. I never got my answer. Considering that ads will be added to it too. Think about it. For those expecting quick answers with AI you are massively mistaken and wrong. Instead its just another way to keep people on their platform.

The days of getting good answers with minimal effort is over. Shame but its like everything in life. Products of all kinds start off really well. The effort is shown. Then, over time, money, greed and just being ''corporate blind' changes all of that. The quality of the product just ends up being a shadow of what it once was.

[Conro]

@Fluff_Nutz people have noticed very well the worsening of organic results in recent years, but the problem is that they don't understand that it is Google that has worsened the results, it is not the sites that have suddenly worsened. Users are not even happy with chatbots, just see how many of them wanted to delete it from WhatsApp despite not using it. Just look at the numbers of people who use chatbots such as gemini, chatgpt, copilot, perplexity etc. Compared to search engines, it's basically a spit in a lake. Google would have to eliminate the serps if it wants to be a chatbot, at which point users will be able to choose whether to continue using Google chatbot or a real search engine that sends users to websites. However, Google does not do this, harming sites and users at the same time

[longjohnbronze]

Today (as of right now) we're seeing a drop of ca. 40% compared to both yesterday and one week ago. Traffic is globally diversified, so this can't be a local effect like "school holidays just started". Doesn't seem to be anything technical on our end, server responds normally. If this persists, this would be the largest sudden shift we've seen in about a decade.

[Dooku]

I used their AI Mode box the other day, first time.

For the last few weeks I have been using the paid version of Chatgpt. It does work great for information and instructions.
For example I need to reinstall Ubuntu to a newer version including Mail-In-a-Box. All instructions and commands were correct, very few to no hiccups at all.
The same when retrieving engine oil and EP grease specs and to compare the results from different brands.

I can imagine people not even visiting websites any more when they need that kind of information because it's presented in a clear and structured way right in front of your nose.
The above examples saved me a LOT of time compared to how I used to do the same stuff(collecting all that info from dozens of different websites).

However, the reason google is doing a piss poor job with their AIO boxes is indeed to keep the visitor running around in circles......hoping they end up clicking a link that makes google money.

But when I do my research the old fashion way I do like to hang around on a website and read more besides the info I came for.....I like to learn.
In my opinion a search engine just can NOT be an AI operated system with AIO boxes. This fear of missing out with AI combined with the en#*$!tification has now started the demise of google and they can not stop it. The first signs are already there of market share being shuffled around with other players in the field. It will go slow in the beginning, but wait until the momentum increases.

[ichthyous]

Today (as of right now) we're seeing a drop of ca. 40% compared to both yesterday and one week ago.

Same here, search is -39% this morning. Started with a big downturn in UK traffic late yesterday and now a huge 50% drop in USA traffic this morn. Notice how the traffic just stops cold for hours at a time? From 2am to 10:30am so far traffic has just gone to almost nothing....highly manipulated to say the least!

[edited by: ichthyous at 2:37 pm (utc) on Aug 5, 2025]

[christianz]

I can imagine people not even visiting websites any more when they need that kind of information because it's presented in a clear and structured way right in front of your nose.
The above examples saved me a LOT of time compared to how I used to do the same stuff(collecting all that info from dozens of different websites).

Over time there will be less information available via ChatGPT as more websites lock more stuff down and block ChatGPT crawlers and agents. You can't anymore access latest information from my site via asking ChatGPT, for example.

[christianz]

Low quality pseudo-information like marketing fluff and AI slop will remain readily available. And ChatGPT will further build in its #*$!iness by consuming its own outputs masquerading as websites. Like some organism perpetually consuming its on fecal matter.

[Dooku]

@Christianz, That is what I tried to explain showing the pro's and cons of the current state of affairs.
As I said, I still like to visit websites because I like to learn even more then what I came for.
The google AIO boxes are just rubbish compared to Chatgpt......but how long will that last for Chatgpt?
Eventually the information will get stale as websites will not update or put it behind some (pay)wall.
It seems that everyone in Silicon Valley has taken the wrong turn in pursuit of growth and profits.
Don't worry, this can not keep going this way they are burning money and destroying the "information ecosystem".

[foxyalicia]

Re: post topic, my Search stats are better and better. But this is more about me finally cleaning up messes which I should have dealt with long ago than anything to do with Search itself.

Re: RubicCubed's Quote from the Google case, I think it's a jump to conclude Google is pushing bad query results in order to increase the number of queries. That quote seems to be a response to such a suggestion, designed to politely point out the counterproductive nature of such measures.

We could increase queries quite easily in the short term in user negative ways (turn off spell correction, turn off ranking improvements, place refinements all over the page).

I understand this person to be saying, "Sure, we could quadruple queries by doing things like turning off autocorrection. But people have come to rely on autocorrection. If someone is left having to retype a term several times to get it right, it's going to destroy the user experience and they're gonna start using Bing if it persists. So sure, we'll quadruple queries short-term, but we'd lose users long-term."

I've participated in enough meetings where a dumb idea was put forward, and adept people spoke in this way to tell them their idea is dumb without saying so outright.

The easy ways are almost all bad.

Regarding AI, it's not going anywhere. People will be upset, people will file lawsuits, etc. But it drives the broader economy forward and banning or limiting it in the U.S. is pointless because the U.S. isn't the only country. (I'm curious what the E.U. hopes to achieve with its new law on AI.) Plus, though it's verboten to admit it in polite circles, most who've used AI have found it to be a game-changer. A relative of mine has a master's in writing and uses AI to answer emails and do the bulk of formal job writing. It's all tweaked afterward, but the problem of getting over the hurdle to get started on a bit of business writing is eliminated.

I hate when AI answers a query that might have otherwise led a user to my content. But the reality is that users who choose AI over the links are essentially AI users. If Google didn't offer AI at the top of Search results, a lot of users would turn to ChatGPT, etc., first instead of Google.

TL;DR Queries are either Google or AI. Google has to implement AI in order to compete. I want users turning to Google Search instead of AI because at least Google's AI is followed by website links. Not to be dramatic, but Google's AI is saving websites because without it, the public--which is using AI more and more every day--will go straight to ChatGPT, etc., to get their tidy little summaries, and will never see website links below that alternate AI response.

[Conro]

@foxyalicia I think you didn't understand much. Google has Android and Gemini you can also find it in the Messages app, Just to say that they put it everywhere. If users don't use Gemini despite billions of Android devices and prefer chatgpt if I were in Google, I would ask myself some questions. ChatGPT is talked about as if it had a huge pool of users, but in reality they are nothing compared to Google's traffic. If people wanted to use a chatbot they didn't enter Google, but they are used to using the search engine and obviously if they find a quick answer ready they will use that, this does not detract from the fact that if he preferred AI he would use a chatbot directly. It makes you smile that you don't understand where Europe wants to go with the ai act, you will realize it in a few years in China and the United States, when unemployment skyrockets, moreover the ai can also be trained in a transparent way and respecting copyright. If certain companies do not agree, they are obviously hiding something or can even be a danger. Maybe you work in the field of artificial intelligence, otherwise I can't explain this gaslighting of yours so evidente, how can you say that with artificial intelligence Google is trying to save websites, if Google take all the traffic with the answers to the foreground. Google is trying to save itself and that's it, you have to be blind or biased not to see.

[Martin Ice Web]

very big drop -50%. Started yesterday at 12AM.

Remaining traffic comes in surges. first half of an hour is nearly no g-traffic. Then the second half of the hour traffic picks up.
Lots of bots again.
And several times the day sudden traffic to one page - so this are different pages over the day - for maybe 1 minute,
-User engagement is ZERO.
-Search term and serps are completely mismatched.

It looks like they flipped the serps to the june core update but worse.

[Micha]

It's the same at my shop. Since yesterday dropped by 46%. Otherwise, it's exactly the same as Martin just wrote.
On my news site, it's exactly the opposite. Since Saturday, it has seen record visitor numbers (and advertising revenue). News traffic has skyrocketed. Let's see how long it lasts.

[christianz]

Same here. Fresh new acceleration in traffic decline.

[haramamba]

@Martin Ice Web

And several times the day sudden traffic to one page - so this are different pages over the day - for maybe 1 minute,
-User engagement is ZERO.

The same thing. A burst of visits from US broadband IPs to a particular page. This happens 2-3 times per day.
100% bots because they do not execute javascript.

[Martin Ice Web]

100% bots because they do not execute javascript.

Some yes, some not. Did some investigation on the IPs.
Some of them lead to datacenters -> bots
Some of them lead to ISPs -> users
But it is more 80% bots. So u are right.

But this behaviour comes only up during updates.

[Bill_H]

We are seeing an amazing session map that exactly follows/parallels the previous month day by day - but with a 25% drop in sessions since the July update finished. Sorry but that has to be some sort of throttling.

[foxyalicia]

@foxyalicia I think you didn't understand much. Google has Android and Gemini you can also find it in the Messages app, Just to say that they put it everywhere. If users don't use Gemini despite billions of Android devices and prefer chatgpt if I were in Google, I would ask myself some questions. ChatGPT is talked about as if it had a huge pool of users, but in reality they are nothing compared to Google's traffic. If people wanted to use a chatbot they didn't enter Google, but they are used to using the search engine and obviously if they find a quick answer ready they will use that, this does not detract from the fact that if he preferred AI he would use a chatbot directly. It makes you smile that you don't understand where Europe wants to go with the ai act, you will realize it in a few years in China and the United States, when unemployment skyrockets, moreover the ai can also be trained in a transparent way and respecting copyright. If certain companies do not agree, they are obviously hiding something or can even be a danger. Maybe you work in the field of artificial intelligence, otherwise I can't explain this gaslighting of yours so evidente, how can you say that with artificial intelligence Google is trying to save websites, if Google take all the traffic with the answers to the foreground. Google is trying to save itself and that's it, you have to be blind or biased not to see.

I'm neither dumb nor gaslighting anyone. I'm basing my opinion on my observations.

Not everyone is downloading ChatGPT except the heaviest users of AI (such as those using it for work). The average person seems to be simply putting queries into Google and preferring the AI response since it's right there at the top and specifically answers their query. These same people live in the same world of those using ChatGPT, and are aware that others getting "perfect AI responses" from it. If they weren't getting "perfect AI responses" from Google's AI, they'd be tempted to download ChatGPT. Google knows this.

The fact that I or anyone here prefers to read through a webpage to gain deeper understanding has no bearing on the reality that most people don't. The vast majority of people simply want a quick, succinct answer they can easily understand. Google knows this. Google knows that it loses users to ChatGPT if it doesn't offer its own AI.

As for Europe, I'm curious to see how it goes. Keep in mind I haven't read the law and don't claim to know its particulars. The law has little or no impact outside of Europe. If European website data is valuable enough, LLMs based outside of Europe will find a way to access it. If the law limits Europeans' use of AI, then those of us outside of Europe will have an advantage over Europeans.

I never claimed that Google is nobly stepping in to help websites. Google is looking after Google. What I said was that by provising AI in Search results, Google is luring users from downloading or opening ChatGPT. So instead of a user getting an AI response with no links from ChatGPT, Google gives the user the AI response plus links.

Put simply, say Bob has a website explaining how transmissions work. Does Bob want a person to type "how to change transmission fluid" into ChatGPT or into Google? Either ChatGPT or Google AI will give an answer that satisfies 50%+ of users. But at least Google Search's AI response will be alongside links. Bob at least has a shot at getting traffic when users use Google AI, whereas he has zero shot if users use ChatGPT. Bob may be upset that Google AI is taking 50%+ of the traffic he used to get, but he's not seeing the big picture.

The average person seems to be perfectly satisfied with AI responses. By offering AI results in Search, Google is giving websites like Bob's at least a shot at getting a click. AI exists. There's no way to put that genie back in its bottle, especially in the U.S. with both political parties pandering to big tech.

It sucks but here we are. To survive and thrive, websites can't merely offer information. They need to offer things that AI can't provide. Each website needs to figure out what that is in order to compete. If I were Bob, I'd add tons of photos and videos to step-by-step instructions on changing transmission fluid. And Bob is going to have to keep a step ahead of advancements in AI.

Ha ha ha no, I don't work in AI. If I did, I'd have enough money to be at brunch on a beach right now instead of working on my computer.

[Micha]

@foxyalicia You are describing how humanity will become dumber in the coming years. On Europe: It is not a question of us being restricted here, but of copyright being upheld. I do not see this as a competitive disadvantage – quite the contrary.

[christianz]

As for Europe, I'm curious to see how it goes. Keep in mind I haven't read the law and don't claim to know its particulars. The law has little or no impact outside of Europe. If European website data is valuable enough, LLMs based outside of Europe will find a way to access it.

And they will be liable in Europe, where they do business also.

[Conro]

@foxyalicia Why should users download Chatgpt when Google offers Gemini everywhere? I remember Gemini had more or less the same traffic as Copilot, but the king of chatbots without a race is Chatgpt. If Gemini doesn't get as much traffic and Chatgpt has an extremely low amount of traffic compared to Google search engines, evidently, the users don't care about any chatbots if they still enter Google. Then it's obvious that users use AIO, it's there in the foreground, even my site would get tons of traffic if Google put it in the foreground, this doesn't mean that my site is perfect for users, just that it's a Google preference to get them as much traffic as possible.

I would understand the presence of AIO and AI mode if Google had a traffic slump, but it seems to be all stable, with some traffic switching to Bing.

I've already done what Bob did, put more images that simplify the guides, but I didn't get much, yet the AIO answers on the topic I cover are anything but perfect, being guides techniques with example steps. and the traffic it brings to sites is almost zero, I'm telling you this because a site I've been following since the last update now has half the traffic and continues to fall, it's present in many AIOs, but what makes the difference is the collapse of keywords that it's having day after day. AIO Cannot create the images with real steps that I put in my site yet Google puts an aio at the top of almost all technical queries.

The traffic from all ai to websites is extremely low and you can also ignore it. I recommend you reading this article,It will probably improve for ecommerce, as chatbots recommend sites where certain products or services are discussed and are asked for information. [gsqi.com...]

[EditorialGuy]

But at least Google Search's AI response will be alongside links. Bob at least has a shot at getting traffic when users use Google AI, whereas he has zero shot if users use ChatGPT.

I get traffic from ChatGPT every day. Not a lot, but it isn't inconsequential.

Side note: To borrow your example of Bob having a site on car transmissions, "How to change your transmission fluid" may lend itself to an AI response, but "How to change your transmission" probably doesn't. Not every query is satisfied by a simple answer. Different people search for different things with different desires and expectations.

[foxyalicia]

Why should users download Chatgpt when Google offers Gemini everywhere?

That's part of my point. google's bread and butter comes from answering queries. It used to answer the queries solely by displaying search results. To compete with ChatGPT, Google offers clear, succinct AI answers, as well.

I would understand the presence of AIO and AI mode if Google had a traffic slump, but it seems to be all stable, with some traffic switching to Bing.

I understand. I assume Google implemented AI in order to prevent that from happening.

AI search is here, it’s growing, and you can’t miss article after article about the death of SEO, organic search, Google search traffic, etc. It’s a little out of control right now… Sure, AI Search traffic from tools like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, etc., will continue to grow, but if you look at the actual data, organic search (and Google Search in particular) still drives a majority of traffic to most websites.

Isn't that partly because AI search is new? I'm not sure what search engines are using it, apart from my knowledge that Google is starting to implement it in its Search algorithm. I've used ChatGPT and only rarely seen a link (only when ChatGPT presumably is having trouble answering the query).

The traffic from all ai to websites is extremely low and you can also ignore it. I recommend you reading this article,It will probably improve for ecommerce, as chatbots recommend sites where certain products or services are discussed and are asked for information.

I understand you to mean that ChatGPT et al will be better for search when it comes to ecommerce sites. I don't have an ecommerce site but as a shopper, I'd agree that using Google's Shopping tab results is annoying. I also would think that if ChatGPT et al don't implement brand/site authority as a metric, which killed so many sites as it dominated HCU two years ago, that factor will benefit many sites. But I'm unclear which search engines rely solely on AI?

I accept as true the article's statement that AI drives only a tiny percentage of search. But I assume this is because ChatGPT et al don't operate to offer search results; they offer answers. So I can see where asking ChatGPT where to get good BBQ in Atlanta might be useful, but Google is always going to win with that question because Google can link to online reviews and Google Maps. Whatever the case, the article is about AI not taking over from Google Search, a related topic but not the topic at hand.

I was describing why Google would offer AI answers to queries. My point was that most people who query "the price of tea in China" don't want to read a thesis on the history of the Chinese tea trade; they want that succinct AI answer or snippet with the answer. A general query like this is very different from "USB search protector" because with the first search, users are hoping they won't have to click further; whereas with the second search, they're expecting to click because they want to buy.

LOL Google is looking out for Google. I'm not Google's paid spokesperson. I'm simply saying, as things currently stand, I'd rather have a user use Google Search rather than ChatGPT, because at least with Search, there's a chance of a click-through.

[Conro]

@foxyalicia A fresh fresh post. Honestly, I don't trust Google anymore, I don't want to work on something that can disappear at any moment. Every time I read something from them I see it as a joke or a half-truth. Better to devote yourself to something else than a "casino-style" business Where you can lose it all in a moment if you're not kissed by luck. I talk about luck because by now it is not clear what Google likes or dislikes, simply rankings increase or collapse without knowing why (I am talking about honest sites, not spam or artificially pumped up with links). [searchengineland.com...]

[Chris travel 30]

I actually wanted to share my observations again last week, in a fit of euphoria. But then I thought to myself: Let's wait and see what happens next.
And lo and behold, that's exactly what happened.
During the update, traffic and affiliate sales remained roughly unchanged. Towards the end and after completion of the last update, both rose sharply, almost to the previous year's level.
As some others here have also reported, since the evening of August 5, we have seen a massive decline in user quality, ranking shifts, and a drop in sales.
This is even the case on several sites that are not related to each other thematically. This leads me to conclude that parts of the update will probably be revised again, probably even overshooting the mark once more, before taking another step forward.
All in all, it's the same frustrating pattern again. First, you're thrown a bone and you get your hopes up, then comes the next blow.

[Martin Ice Web]

Todays traffic is - ignoring the low traffic - completly useless.
I wonder why poeple still use google. It is so frustrating as a user to look for something and have to dig pages deep to find what i was looking for.
Years ago i would have find tons of good websites within the first 10 results. Nowadays i find myself looking on page 4 or 5 to find something usefull.
Never did that before.

[shadowlight]

Reading the entire court document from 2019 ( justice.gov... [justice.gov] ) will put it into perspective

"We could increase queries quite easily in the short term in user negative ways (turn off spell correction, turn off ranking improvements, place refinements all over the page). If we, as a company, want to go there we should discuss that. It is possible that there are trade offs here between different kinds of user negativity caused by engagement hacking. But I will say that I am deeply deeply uncomfortable with this, and I'd be surprised if the ads team wants this. The nature of how you would easily increase queries is a key reason I don't like queries as an end metric. The easy ways are almost all bad. Having queries as a metric will, in my opinion, have a subtly bad effect as a launch metric even if we ' decide not to do the bad things'."

IMO the document rubiccubed posted says its all, here are a few more excerpts from the document.

Short term revenue has always taken precedence.

We can improve *engagement* in the short term. I know ways we could do this. This is the *equivalent of rpm heroics*, but that does not heIp you! But we don't have the levers (or muscle) to increase queries in the code yellow way.

- we have spun up efforts with your team to look at
- desktop (by porting over mobile UI)
- UI tweaks to improve access points (0 query suggest, query box size etc). suggest ranking etc.
- latency efforts which are a high priority already but will get more attention.
- the explore team is working with the goal of increasing user journey length.
- Aside from latency, we have historically not been able to move queries in the very short term in a meaningful
way. Some suggest changes do so, and some system changes do so

Here are some quote’s from another post:

Anyone else with solid technical foundations (CWVs, accessibility/usability, TOCs, breadcrumbs and matching rich schema) seeing drops?

I still think this update is punishing technical SEO, treating strong implementations as “over-optimization.”

This could fit in with their ‘latency efforts’ to help ‘improve *engagement*’ in an effort to ‘increase queries in the code yellow way’. We all know that sites with bad CWV's can have a negative impact in regards to bounce rate, especially on mobile.

I don't buy this theory. Penalizing sites for good speed optimization and some honestly implemented technical SEO would be too stupid even for Google.

I would say that it is pretty stupid to implement in a more aggressive and widespread way the very things that this document suggest and clearly states are ‘bad things’ after they lost the case. A case they are also going to appeal Reuters [reuters.com].

They are either safe in the knowledge that the outcome of the whole case won’t affect them in any meaningful way or they are indeed ‘too stupid’ and short term revenue is their one & only concern.

[Micha]

Google is once again claiming that clicks from their AI-powered search are better, and of course every metric showing fewer clicks must be wrong. Has anyone here actually found these so-called “high-quality clicks”? I’m still looking, personally.

[blog.google ]

[BigKat]

Google is once again claiming that clicks from their AI-powered search are better, and of course every metric showing fewer clicks must be wrong. Has anyone here actually found these so-called “high-quality clicks”?

Google's poor reputation for being honest, along with their numerous antitrust convictions in court, can't compare to Pew Research Center's many years of unbiased studies and solid reputation. There's no question Google should not be trusted.

Being in ecommerce, our conversion rate from total Google traffic has improved slightly. This is not because Google's AI has improved matching users to the products we sell but is instead because Google stole our info page content and traffic. What Google traffic remains is scant visitors to our product pages. Isolating traffic to product pages, Google's conversion rate has fallen dramatically (over a third) as compared to previous years when AIO and all those ads and refinement boxes weren't present. Summed up, we have much less traffic and what little traffic Google is sending to our product pages converts much worse. It's a huge net loss for us, but at least Google's profits are soaring. And that's the point of Google's circus act - to make us believe Google is better when actually it's much worse.

[Conro]

We have all dreamed of it, Google has not taken away traffic, on the contrary it sends more quality clicks, which is then one click a day and only if the answer to aio sucks we don't say it. Yet another Google gaslighting. [seroundtable.com...]

[ichthyous]

USA search traffic is frozen in time again this morning...insane. Overall search is -12% but USA is -40% at almost 11:30! This is becoming a regular pattern now...for hours on end the USA traffic just stops cold, usually in the morning. Canada is also -55% this morning, but Canada traffic has been demolished since last year, so hard to tell.