Yep, Technology Publications Face the Grim Stealer
March 13, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I was not familiar with an online publication called Growtika. I am curious about the pronunciation of the neologism. Well, not that curious. The article “The Internet’s Most-Read Tech Publications Have Lost 58% of Their Google Traffic Since 2024” caught my attention. As I have said on previous occasions, I believe everything I read on the Internet. I have a particular fondness for click data. Once I did not believe everything I read online. Once I thought that clickstream data were accurate. I won’t tell you how interesting counting clicks is. Please, use your imagination. There are clicks, Clicks, and CLICKS.
Yep, the family has a bit of a problem. A saber tooth tiger has appeared, and he is going to do what saber tooth tigers do. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The write up makes clear that some mysterious force has chopped online traffic off at the knees. As a dinobaby who knows that Google is the primary source of findability and clicks, I surmise that the loss of traffic is not due to the immense popularity of Swisscows and Metager. That leaves me with the thought that Google either [a] has decided cannibalism is a good source of revenue, [b] that AI Gemini thing is wrecking havoc on technology publication Web site, or [c] leadership at the Google is just going to do what alleged monopolies do in a seemingly unregulated ecosystem; that is, whatever leadership decides is just ducky.
What does the write up present?
I note this passage:
We tracked the organic search traffic of CNET, Wired, The Verge, TechRadar, and six others from early 2024 to today. Combined, they’ve lost 65 million monthly visits. Some lost over 90%.
That suggests that technology news and information sites have a date with the Grim Stealer of revenues.
The article points out:
At their peaks, ten major tech publications pulled a combined 112 million organic visits per month from Google in the US. By January 2026, that number had fallen to 47 million. All ten sites are down, though not by equal amounts. Some lost 30%. Others lost over 90%.
I would suggest that the traffic is not coming back any more than a saber tooth tiger will be found prowling around your subdivision or local coffee shop. The notion of traffic is a quaint holdover when Web search was the way to find information online. Google replaced the slog through library catalogs with its “free” search service. I read an article written by a reference librarian which told people how to search Google. That article should have included a sidebar about setting up an online chat with a group of Clovis people and their method of finding information. One could talk to the SEO experts, but that might have as much impact as a chat with a shaman if you can find one that is coherent.
With the shift from the search that killed libraries to the new AI method, individual sources of information are no longer relevant. Why? Who cares where the information comes from? As one of my clients told me decades ago, “I don’t care where the information comes from, any information is better than none.” Hey, how about that enlightened MBA attitude?
The cited article says that the Verge dropped from 5.3 million clicks to about 800,000 in January 2026. That works out to keeping the outfit afloat with 15 percent of the clicks it had in February 2024. The Verge wants money. The problem is that converting visitors to subscribers follows the brutal data from the now-almost-dead paper magazine business. One mails many pleas to subscribe and if one percent convert, it was party time. Maybe the Verge should try bulk emails to boost its subscriber base and, therefore, its clicks. I would point out that more traffic to the Verge would be a signal to a certain provider of search to suck down and process more intensely the Verge’s content. I think there are some colorful phrases to describe this knock on effect. Will “sign your own death warrant?” work? Nah. It’s a poohbah tech outfit.
The write up offer three reasons for the traffic hit. These are:
- Google AI shortcuts to reading and thinking
- Reddit lost its fizz
- ChatGPT or similar services instead of traditional search.
These are reasonable, if unsupported, assertions. However, I am a dinobaby, and I like to point out the obvious. Humans do not want to do work unless big money is involved. Reading is difficult and takes time. Framing a functioning search query that works requires mental “work” which takes away from “real” work like sitting in meetings. Reviewing a list of hits from a commercial database is hard and expensive. Making sense of a list of hits from a traditional search system is even harder. Hey, check out those Yandex.ru results. How’s your Russian?
The reason clicks are down is that smart software, regardless of quality, is the easiest way forward. Since Google has the most online traffic in the world, Google is the reason that these technology news sites are cratering. Does Google care? Not at the moment. The firm will care once it realizes that it has been exposed to the “next big thing.” That next big thing will kill it just as Google has punched the doomsday button for technology information online services.
Net net: Change has arrived. Time does not reverse itself no matter what the quantum cats say.
Stephen E Arnold, March 13, 2026
Comments
Got something to say?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
