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
Rage Baiting Tim Cook And Sundar Pichai
January 30, 2026
Rage baiting makes the Internet go round and The Verge published an editorial taking aim at two of Big Tech’s leaders: “Tim Cook And Sundar Pichai Are Cowards.” Article writer Elizabeth Lopatto dubbed Cook and Pichai as “cowards,” because of some disgusting actions by X users. X users utilized Grok to make AI images that undressed women and minors. That’s not good.
Lopatto thought these actions would inspire Pichai and Cook to remove X from Google’s and Apple’s app stores. She claims that these two are too afraid of Elon Musk to remove X. Lopatto cites the developer guidelines for Google and Apple app stores. Both guidelines don’t allow these disgusting action.
An enraged Lopatto wrote that Pichai and Cook won’t remove X (despite the breech of guidelines), because they don’t want to upset a right-wing media ecosystem that Musk owns. Each of these Big Tech leaders have too much to lose in her summation:
“Cook’s Apple has a massive dependency on China, and smartphones, computers, and chips are currently exempt from the tariffs on China. Cook can present Donald Trump with as many golden gifts as he wants, but those tariffs don’t have to stay that way. Google’s Pichai is similarly weak. Trump has threatened Google numerous times over his placement in search results, and so far YouTube has managed to mostly avoid scrutiny over its content moderation policies because Pichai has been content to coddle Trump with promises that everything he does is the biggest thing in Google search history.”
She continues to claim these men “sold their principles for power” and “don’t even control their own companies.” Lopatto is correct that Pichai and Cook are hypocrites and so is everyone in Big Tech. It is concerning that AI algorithms are making degrading images of women and minors. It is 2026, and perhaps as the Verge works hard to become the industry standard for rock solid technology news and analysis, new intellectual paths just have to be clicked. Ooops. Sorry, I meant explored. My bad.
Whitney Grace, January 30, 2026
An SEO Marketing Expert Is an Expert on Search: AI Is Good for You. Adapt
December 2, 2025
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[1]_thumb](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/green-dino_thumb_thumb1_thumb-1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[1]_thumb")
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I found it interesting to learn that a marketer is an expert on search and retrieval. Why? The expert has accrued 20 years of experience in search engine optimization aka SEO. I wondered, “Was this 20 years of diverse involvement in search and retrieval, or one year of SEO wizardry repeated 20 times?” I don’t know.
I spotted information about this person’s view of search in a newsletter from a group whose name I do not know how to pronounce. (I don’t know much.) The entity does business as BrXnd.ai. After some thought (maybe two seconds) I concluded that the name represented the concept “branding” with a dollop of hipness or ai.
Am I correct? I don’t know. Hey, that’s three admissions of intellectual failure a 10 seconds. Full disclosure: I know does not care.
Agentic SEO will put every company on the map. Relevance will become product sales. The methodology will be automated. The marketing humanoids will get fat bonuses. The quality of information available will soar upwards. Well, probably downwards. But no worries. Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The article is titled “The Future of Search and the Death of Links // BRXND Dispatch vol 96.” It points to a video called “The Future of Search and the Death of Links.” You can view the 22 minute talk at this link. Have at it, please.
Let me quote from the BrXnd.ai write up:
…we’re moving from an era of links to an era of recommendations. AI overviews now appear on 30-40% of search results, and when they do, clicks drop 20-40%. Google’s AI Mode sends six times fewer clicks than traditional search.
I think I have heard that Google handles 75 to 85 percent of global searches. If these data are on the money or even close to the eyeballs Google’s advertising money machine flogs, the estimable company will definitely be [a] pushing for subscriptions to anything and everything it once subsidized with oodles of advertisers’ cash; [b] sticking price tags on services positioned as free; [c] charging YouTube TV viewers the way disliked cable TV companies squeezed subscribers for money; [d] praying to the gods of AI that the next big thing becomes a Google sandbox; and [e] embracing its belief that it can control governments and neuter regulators with more than 0.01 milliliters of testosterone.
The write up states:
When search worked through links, you actively chose what to click—it was manual research, even if imperfect. Recommendations flip that relationship. AI decides what you should see based on what it thinks it knows about you. That creates interesting pressure on brands: they can’t just game algorithms with SEO tricks anymore. They need genuine value propositions because AI won’t recommend bad products. But it also raises questions about what happens to our relationship with information when we move from active searching to passive receiving.
Okay, let’s work through a couple of the ideas in this quoted passage.
First, clicking on links is indeed semi-difficult and manual job. (Wow. Take a break from entering 2.3 words and looking for a likely source on the first page of search results. Demanding work indeed.) However, what if those links are biased by inept programmers, the biases of the data set processed by the search machine, or intentionally manipulated to weaponize content to achieve a goal?
Second, the hook for the argument is that brands can no longer can game algorithms. Bid farewell to keyword stuffing. There is a new game in town: Putting a content object in as many places as possible in multiple formats, including the knowledge nugget delivered by TikTok-type services. Most people it seems don’t think about this and rely on consultants to help them.
Finally, the notion of moving from clicking and reading to letting a BAIT (big AI tech) company define one’s knowledge universe strikes me as something that SEO experts don’t find problematic. Good for them. Like me, the SEO mavens think the business opportunities for consulting, odd ball metrics, and ineffectual work will be rewarding.
I appreciate BrXnd.ai for giving me this glimpse of a the search and retrieval utopia I will now have available. Am I excited? Yeah, sure. However, I will not be dipping into the archive of the 95 previous issues of BrXnd “dispatches.” I know this to be a fact.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2025
Google Is Going to Race Penske in Court!
September 15, 2025
Written by an unteachable dinobaby. Live with it.
How has smart software affected the Google? On the surface, we have the Code Red klaxons. Google presents big time financial results so the sirens drowned out by the cheers for big bucks. We have Google dodging problems with the Android and Chrome snares, so the sounds are like little chicks peeping in the eventide.
—-
FYI: The Penske Outfits
- Penske Corporation itself focuses on transportation, truck leasing, automotive retail, logistics, and motorsports.
- Penske Media Corporation (PMC), a separate entity led by Jay Penske, owns major media brands like Rolling Stone and Billboard.
—-
What’s actually going on is different, if the information in “Rolling Stone Publisher Sues Google Over AI Overview Summaries.” [Editor’s note: I live the over over lingo, don’t you?] The write up states:
Google has insisted that its AI-generated search result overviews and summaries have not actually hurt traffic for publishers. The publishers disagree, and at least one is willing to go to court to prove the harm they claim Google has caused. Penske Media Corporation, the parent company of Rolling Stone and The Hollywood Reporter, sued Google on Friday over allegations that the search giant has used its work without permission to generate summaries and ultimately reduced traffic to its publications.
Site traffic metrics are an interesting discipline. What exactly are the log files counting? Automated pings, clicks, views, downloads, etc.? Google is the big gun in traffic, and it has legions of SEO people who are more like cheerleaders for making sites Googley, doing the things that Google wants, and pitching Google advertising to get sort of reliable traffic to a Web site.
The SEO crowd is busy inventing new types of SEO. Now one wants one’s weaponized content to turn up as a link, snippet, or footnote in an AI output. Heck, some outfits are pitching to put ads on the AI output page because money is the name of the game. Pay enough and the snippet or summary of the answer to the user’s prompt may contain a pitch for that item of clothing or electronic gadget one really wants to acquire. Psychographic ad matching is marvelous.
The write up points out that an outfit I thought was into auto racing and truck rentals but is now a triple threat in publishing has a different take on the traffic referral game. The write up says:
Penske claims that in recent years, Google has basically given publishers no choice but to give up access to its content. The lawsuit claims that Google now only indexes a website, making it available to appear in search, if the publisher agrees to give Google permission to use that content for other purposes, like its AI summaries. If you think you lose traffic by not getting clickthroughs on Google, just imagine how bad it would be to not appear at all.
Google takes a different position, probably baffled why a race car outfit is grousing. The write up reports:
A spokesperson for Google, unsurprisingly, said that the company doesn’t agree with the claims. “With AI Overviews, people find Search more helpful and use it more, creating new opportunities for content to be discovered. We will defend against these meritless claims.” Google Spokesperson Jose Castaneda told Reuters.
Gizmodo, the source for the cited article about the truck rental outfit, has done some original research into traffic. I quote from the cited article:
Just for kicks, if you ask Google Gemini if Google’s AI Overviews are resulting in less traffic for publishers, it says, “Yes, Google’s AI Overview in search results appears to be resulting in less traffic for many websites and publishers. While Google has stated that AI Overviews create new opportunities for content discovery, several studies and anecdotal reports from publishers suggest a negative impact on traffic.”
I have some views on this situation, and I herewith present them to you:
- Google is calm on the outside but in crazy mode internally. The Googlers are trying to figure out how to keep revenues growing as referral traffic and the online advertising are undergoing some modest change. Is the glacier calving? Yep, but it is modest because a glacier is big and the calf is small.
- The SEO intermediaries at the Google are communicating like Chatty Cathies to the SEO innovators. The result will be a series of shotgun marriages among the lucrative ménage à trois of Google’s ad machine, search engine optimization professional, and advertising services firms in order to lure advertisers to a special private island.
- The bean counters at Google are looking at their MBA course materials, exam notes for CPAs, and reading books about forensic accounting in order to make the money furnaces at Google hot using less cash as fuel. This, gentle reader, is a very, very difficult task. At another time, a government agency might be curious about the financial engineering methods, but at this time, attention is directed elsewhere I presume.
Net net: This is a troublesome point. Google has lots of lawyers and probably more cash to spend on fighting the race car outfit and its news publications. Did you know that the race outfit owned the definitive publication about heavy metal as well at Billboard magazine?
Stephen E Arnold, September 15, 2025
First, Let Us Kill Relevance for Once and For All. Second, Just Use Google
September 9, 2025
Just a dinobaby sharing observations. No AI involved. My apologies to those who rely on it for their wisdom, knowledge, and insights.
In the long distant past, Danny Sullivan was a search engine optimization-oriented journalist. I think we was involved with an outfit called Search Engine Land. He gave talks and had an animated dinosaur as his cursor. I recall liking the dinosaur. On August 29, 2025, Search Engine Land published a story unthinkable years ago when Google was the one and only game in town.
The article “ChatGPT, AI Tools Gain Traction as Google Search Slips: Survey” says:
“AI tool use is accelerating in everyday search, with ChatGPT use nearly tripling while Google’s share slips, survey of US users finds.”
But Google just sold the US government at $0.47 per head the Gemini system. How can these procurement people have gone off track? The write up says:
Google’s role in everyday information seeking is shrinking, while AI tools – particularly ChatGPT – are quickly gaining ground. That’s according to a new Higher Visibility survey of 1,500 U.S. users.
And here’s another statement that caught my eye:
Search behavior is fractured, which means SEOs cannot rely on Google Search alone (though, to be clear, SEO for Google remains as critical as ever). Therefore, SEO/GEO strategies now must account for visibility across multiple AI platforms.
I wonder if relevant search results will return? Of course not, one must optimize content for the new world of multiple AI platforms.
A couple of questions:
- If AI is getting uptake, won’t that uptake help out Google too?
- Who are the “users” in the survey sample? Is the sample valid? Are the data reliable?
- Is the need for SEO an accurate statement? SEO helped destroy relevance in search results. Aren’t these folks satisfied with their achievement to date?
I think I know the answers to these questions. But I am content to just believe everything Search Engine Land says. I mean marketing SEO and eliminating relevance when seeking answers online is undergoing change. Change means many things. Some of these issues are beyond the ken of the big thinkers at Search Engine Land in my opinion. But that’s irrelevant and definitely not SEO.
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2025
SEO Plus AI: Putting a Stake in the Frail Heart of Relevance
July 30, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I have not been too impressed with the search engine optimization service sector. My personal view is that relevance has been undermined. Gamesmanship, outright trickery, and fabrication have replaced content based on verifiable facts, data, and old-fashioned ethical and moral precepts.
Who needs that baloney? Not the SEO sector. The idea is to take content and slam it in the face of a user who may be looking for information relevant to a question, problem, or issue.
I read “Altezza Introduces Service as Software Platform for AI-Powered Search Optimization.” The name Altezza reminded me of a product called Bartesian. This outfit sell a machine that automatically makes alcohol-based drinks. Alcohol, some researchers suggest, is a bit of a problem for humanoids. Altezza may be doing to relevance what three watermelon margaritas do to a college student’s mental functions.
The article about Altezza says:
Altezza’s platform turns essential SEO tasks into scalable services that enterprise eCommerce brands can access without the burden of manual implementation.
Great AI-generated content pushed into a software script and “published” in a variety of ways in different channels. Altezza’s secret sauce may be revealed in this statement:
While conventional tools provide access to data and features, they leave implementation to overwhelmed internal teams.
Yep, let those young content marketers punch the buttons on a Bartesian device and scroll TikTok-type content. Altezza does the hard work: SEO based on AI and automated distribution and publishing.
Altezza is no spring chicken. The company was found in 1998 and “combines cutting-edge AI technology with deep search expertise to help brands achieve sustainable organic growth.”
Yep, another relevance destroying drone based smart system is available.
Stephen E Arnold, July 30, 2025
SEO Dead? Nope, Just Wounded But Will Survive Unfortunately
May 27, 2025
SEO or search engine optimization is one of the forces that killed old fashioned precision and recall. Precision morphed from presenting on point sources to smashing a client’s baloney content into a searcher’s face. Recall went from a metric indicating that a query was passed across available processed content. Now it means, “Buy, believe, and baloney information.”
The write up “The Future of SEO As the Future Google Search Rolls Out” explains:
“Google isn’t going to keep its search engine the way it was for the past two decades. Google knows it has to change, despite them making an absolute fortune from search ads. Google is worried about TikTok, worried about, ChatGPT, worried about searchers going to something new and better.”
These paragraphs make clear that SEO is not going to its grave without causing some harm to the grave diggers:
“There are a lot of concerned people in the search marketing industry right now. The bottom line is while many of us like to complain and we honestly have good reason to be upset, complaining won’t help. We need to adapt and change and experiment. Experiment with these new experiences, keep on top of these changes happening in Google and at other AI and search companies. Then try new things and keep testing. If you do not adapt, you will die. SEO won’t die, but you will become irrelevant. The good news, SEOs are some of the best at adapting, embracing change and testing new strategies out. So you are all ready and equipped for the future of search.”
Let me share some observations about this statement from the cited write up:
First, the SEO professionals are concerned. About relevance and returning precise on point information to the user? Are you kidding me? SEO professionals are worried about their making money. Google, after using SEOs as part of their push to sell ads, the SEO crowd is wracked with uncertainty.
Second, adaptation is important. A failure to adapt means no money. Now the SEO professionals must embrace anxiety. Is stress good for SEO professionals? Probably not.
Third, SEO professionals with 20 years of experience must experiment. Are these individuals equipped to head to the innovation space and crank out new ways to generate money? A few will be able to be the old that that learns to roll over on late night television. Most — well — will struggle to get up or die trying.
What’s my prediction for the future of SEO? Snake oil vendors are part of the data carnival. Ladies and gentlemen, get your cure for no traffic here. Step right up.”
Stephen E Arnold, May xx, 2-25
Google AI Search: A Wrench in SEO Methods
April 17, 2025
Does AI finally spell the end of SEO? Or will it supercharge the practice? Pymnts declares, “Google’s AI Search Switch Leaves Indie Websites Unmoored.” The brief write-up states:
“Google’s AI-generated search answers have reportedly not been good for independent websites. Those answers, along with Google’s alterations to its search algorithm in support of them, have caused traffic to those websites to plunge, Bloomberg News reported Monday (April 7), citing interviews with 25 publishers and people working with them. The changes, Bloomberg said, threaten a ‘delicate symbiotic relationship’ between businesses and Google: they generate good content, and the tech giant sends them traffic. According to the report, many publishers said they either need to shut down or revamp their distribution strategy. Experts this effort could ultimately reduce the quality of information Google can access for its search results and AI answers.”
To add insult to injury, we are reminded, AI Search’s answers are often inaccurate. SEO pros are scrambling to adapt to this new reality. We learn:
“‘It’s important for businesses to think of more than just pure on-page SEO optimization,’ Ben Poulton, founder of the SEO agency Intellar, told PYMNTS. ‘AI overviews tend to try and showcase the whole experience. That means additional content, more FAQs answered, customer feedback addressed on the page, details about walking distance and return policies for brands with a brick-and-mortar, all need to be readily available, as that will give you the best shot of being featured,’ Poulton said.”
So it sounds like one thing has not changed: Second to buying Google ads, posting thoroughly good content is the best way to surface in search results. Or, now, to donate knowledge for the algorithm to spit out. Possibly with hallucinations mixed in.
Cynthia Murrell, April 17, 2025
Does Google Have a Monopoly? Does AI Search Make a Difference?
July 9, 2024
I read “2024 Zero-Click Search Study: For Every 1,000 EU Google Searches, Only 374 Clicks Go to the Open Web. In the US, It’s 360.” The write up begins with caveats — many caveats. But I think I am not into the search engine optimization and online advertising mindset. As a dinobaby, I find the pursuit of clicks in a game controlled by one outfit of little interest.
Is it possible that what looks like a nice family vacation place is a digital roach motel? Of course not! Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
Let’s answer the two questions the information in the report from the admirably named SparkToro presents. In my take on the article, the charts, the buzzy jargon, the answer to the question, “Does Google Have a Monopoly?” the answer is, “Wow, do they.”
The second question I posed is, “Does AI Search Make a Difference in Google Traffic?’ the answer is, “A snowball’s chance in hell is better.”
The report and analysis takes me to close enough for horse shoes factoids. But that’s okay because the lack of detailed, reliable data is part of the way online operates. No one really knows if the clicks from a mobile device are generated by a nepo baby with money to burn or a bank of 1,000 mobile devices mindlessly clicking on Web destinations. Factoids about online activity are, at best, fuzzy. I think SEO experts should wear T shirts and hats with this slogan, “Heisenberg rocks. I am uncertain.
I urge you to read and study the SparkToro analysis. (I love that name. An electric bull!)
The article points out that Google gets a lot of clicks. Here’s a passage which knits together several facts from the study:
Google gets 1/3 of the clicks. Imagine a burger joint selling 33 percent of the burgers worldwide. Could they get more? Yep. How much more:
Equally concerning, especially for those worried about Google’s monopoly power to self-preference their own properties in the results, is that almost 30% of all clicks go to platforms Google owns. YouTube, Google Images, Google Maps, Google Flights, Google Hotels, the Google App Store, and dozens more means that Google gets even more monetization and sector-dominating power from their search engine. Most interesting to web publishers, entrepreneurs, creators, and (hopefully) regulators is the final number: for every 1,000 searches on Google in the United States, 360 clicks make it to a non-Google-owned, non-Google-ad-paying property. Nearly 2/3rds of all searches stay inside the Google ecosystem after making a query.
The write up also presents information which suggests that the European Union’s regulations don’t make much difference in the click flow. Sorry, EU. You need another approach, perhaps?
In the US, users of Google have a tough time escaping what might be colorfully named the “digital roach motel.”
Search behavior in both regions is quite similar with the exception of paid ads (EU mobile searchers are almost 50% more likely to click a Google paid search ad) and clicks to Google properties (where US searchers are considerably more likely to find themselves back in Google’s ecosystem after a query).
The write up presented by SparkToro (Is it like the energizer bunny?) answers a question many investors and venture firms with stakes in smart software are asking: “Is Google losing search traffic? The answer is, “Nope. Not a chance.”
According to Datos’ panel, Google’s in no risk of losing market share, total searches, or searches per searcher. On all of these metrics they are, in fact, stronger than ever. In both the US and EU, searches per searcher are rising and, in the Spring of 2024, were at historic highs. That data doesn’t fit well with the narrative that Google’s cost themselves credibility or that Internet users are giving up on Google and seeking out alternatives. … Google continues to send less and less of its ever-growing search pie to the open web…. After a decline in 2022 and early 2023, Google’s back to referring a historically high amount of its search clicks to its own properties.
AI search has not been the game changer for which some hoped.
Net net: I find it interesting that data about what appears to be a monopoly is so darned sketchy after more than two decades of operation. For Web search start ups, it may be time to rethink some of those assertions in those PowerPoint decks.
Stephen E Arnold, July 9, 2024
Publication Founded by a Googler Cheers for Google AI Search
June 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
To understand the “rah rah” portion of this article, you need to know the backstory behind Search Engine Land, a news site about search and other technology. It was founded by Danny Sullivan, who pushed the SEO bandwagon. He did this because he was angling for a job at Google, he succeeded, and now he’s the point person for SEO.
Another press release touting the popularity of Google search dropped: “Google SEO Says AI Overviews Are Increasing Search Usage.” The author Danny Goodwin remains skeptical about Google’s spiked popularity due to AI and despite the bias of Search Engine Land’s founder.
During the QI 2024 Alphabet earnings call, Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai said that the search engine’s generative AI has been used for billions of queries and there are plans to develop the feature further. Pichai said positive things about AI, including that it increased user engagement, could answer more complex questions, and how there will be opportunities for monetization.
Goodwin wrote:
“All signs continue to indicate that Google is continuing its slow evolution toward a Search Generative Experience. I’m skeptical about user satisfaction increasing, considering what an unimpressive product AI overviews and SGE continues to be. But I’m not the average Google user – and this was an earnings call, where Pichai has mastered the art of using a lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing.”
AI is the next evolution of search and Google is heading the parade, but the technology still has tons of bugs. Who founded the publication? A Googler. Of course there is no interaction between the online ad outfit and an SEO mouthpiece. Un-uh. No way.
Whitney Grace, June 5, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
