Latest news with #SearchEngine
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Google will now let you pick your top sources for search results
Google is rolling out a new feature called 'Preferred Sources' in the U.S. and India, which allows users to select their preferred choice of news sites and blogs to be shown in the Top Stories section of Google's search results. Enabling this feature means you will see more content from the sites you like, the company says. When users search for a particular topic, they will see a 'star' icon next to the Top Stories section. They can tap on that icon and start adding sources by searching for them. Once you select the sources, you can refresh the results to see more content from your selected sources. Google said that for some queries, users will also see a separate 'From your sources' section below the Top Stories section. This feature enables users to get information from sources they like, but that would also likely trap them in an ideological bubble without exposing them to different points of view on a particular topic. Google debuted this feature as a Search Labs feature on an experimental basis, so users had to opt in to enable it. The company said that during the test phase, more than half of the users selected four or more sources. Now, the company is making it available to all users for English language searches in the U.S. and India. Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
a day ago
- Business
- Forbes
Quality Clicks: Google Rebuts Its Critics Sans Data
Amid evidence of an online catastrophe for publishers both large and small, Google is officially challenging the narrative that its AI Overviews tool is leading people to click into search engine results pages less frequently. The rebuttal comes through a now-prominent blog post by Google VP and Head of Search Liz Reid, who is contending that regardless of the numbers, the addition of the AI blurb at the top of a search is leading to more 'quality clicks.' 'Overall, total organic click volume from Google Search to websites has been relatively stable year-over-year,' Reid wrote Aug. 6. 'Additionally, average click quality has increased and we're actually sending slightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago (by quality clicks, we mean those where users don't quickly click back — typically a signal that a user is interested in the website).' Quality Time with Google So the idea is that users will drill down deeper into things, spurred on by the introduction made by the AI tool. But this misses the point: it's the loss of aggregate traffic that hurts publishers and those trying to garner attention online, and since Google has had a practical monopoly on search for, well, decades, the impact of fewer clicks is big. But rather than leave it there, Reid added: 'This data is in contrast to third-party reports that inaccurately suggest dramatic declines in aggregate traffic — often based on flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the roll out of AI features in Search.' The reader can assume that 'this data' refers to the first line, the organic click volume remaining 'relatively stable year-to-year' and not to the rest of it. However, outside parties are specifically taking aim at the former claim, noting that Google does not provide data to counter studies like those by Pew that definitely show lower levels of click-through traffic. With Their Own Eyes In addition to Pew's research, critics of the Google response point to their own evidence. 'Do the hundreds of thousands of Google Search Console [GSC] screenshots showing impressions remaining flat (or increasing) this year, while clicks dramatically decline – since AI Overviews were rolled out more broadly – count as 'flawed methodologies' or 'isolated examples'?' writes Amsive Vice President of SEO Strategy & Research Lily Ray. 'Thousands of us are seeing it… but it must just be some big coincidence?' 'Gaslighting of the highest order,' adds Florentina Schinteie, SEO Strategist for In-House Teams and Former Head of SEO at DesignRush. The Re-Skilling of the Web Here's another bit from the above blog post: 'While overall traffic to sites is relatively stable, the web is vast, and user trends are shifting traffic to different sites, resulting in decreased traffic to some sites and increased traffic to others. People are increasingly seeking out and clicking on sites with forums, videos, podcasts, and posts where they can hear authentic voices and first-hand perspectives. People are also more likely to click into web content that helps them learn more — such as an in-depth review, an original post, a unique perspective or a thoughtful first-person analysis. Sites that meet these evolving user needs are benefiting from this shift and are generally seeing an increase in traffic.' This seems in some ways eerily similar to the arguments of big bosses bullish on AI in the job market. Old jobs, they admit, will go away, but new jobs, they contend, will also be created. So it's a wash. Well… Workers will have to re-skill, then – what does that look like? The burden, you'd assume, would be on the workers themselves, which is convenient for whoever's moving the goalposts. The same concept is in play here. Reid suggests it's on the publishers to quickly add content … forums? Podcasts? But all of that aside, that first claim of the 'stability' of traffic is under fire. It's not just Pew, either. 'Research by AI search and SEO platform Authoritas, submitted as part of a legal complaint to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, found that when an AI Overview is present, publishers are seeing a drop of 47.5% in per-query clickthrough rate on desktop, and 37.7% on mobile,' wrote Charlotte Tobitt Aug. 7 at PressGazette. 'Similarweb data found that among the top 100 news and media websites globally, the average rate of zero-click searches has gone from 50.5% to 52.7% in the past year. Among a wider dataset, zero-click news searches were said to have increased from 56% when AI Overviews were first launched in the US in May 2024 to almost 69% in May this year.' Publishers also report huge losses in traffic. Covering this last week, I cited this article in Columbia Journalism Review, which lays out some of these claims. For those who are skeptical about Reid's post, as a stand-in for a larger Google response: it's the numbers. The claim just doesn't seem credible, and no one from Google is coming up with any real proof. Panda and Penguin Another way to view Google's side of the issue, represented by Reid's arguments, is that the addition of AI Overviews is just like former Google algorithm changes, like Panda in 2011, and Penguin in 2012. These shifts were done with the stated goal of meeting user needs and driving positive change. Advertisers had to scramble. Digital marketers had to adapt by crafting content and sites to attract the priorities of the 'new boss' of Google favor. Conceptually, the same is true here – but the shift is much bigger, and the paradigm changes a lot more. The result appears to be a showdown between Google (which, in classical Marxian parlance, owns the means of production) and publishers, who, absent some course correction, may be left out in the cold, with simple admonitions to get started podcasting.
TechCrunch
7 days ago
- Business
- TechCrunch
Google denies AI search features are killing website traffic
Numerous studies indicate that the shift to AI search features and the use of AI chatbots are killing traffic to publishers' sites. But Google on Wednesday denied that's the case, at least in aggregate. Instead, the search giant says that total organic click volume from its search engine to websites has been 'relatively stable' year-over-year and that average click quality has slightly increased. 'This data is in contrast to third-party reports that inaccurately suggest dramatic declines in aggregate traffic — often based on flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the roll out of AI features in Search,' writes Google VP and Head of Search, Liz Reid, in a new blog post. Though Google hasn't shared any specific data to back up its conclusions, even if we assume Google's claims to be true, this doesn't necessarily mean that AI isn't having an impact. Even Google has to admit this, as Reid acknowledges that 'user trends are shifting traffic to different sites, resulting in decreased traffic to some sites and increased traffic to others.' That word 'some' is doing heavy lifting here, as Google doesn't share data about how many sites are gaining or losing. And while chatbots like ChatGPT have certainly seen traffic increase in recent months, that doesn't mean online publishers aren't suffering. Image Credits:Google Google has been revamping its search engine for years to answer more questions directly on the search results page, and now does so with AI through its 'AI Overviews' that appear at the top of search results. Google also allows users to interact with an AI chatbot for some queries. Yet Google denies that this is significantly reshaping the search landscape. Rather, it points to users shifting their attention to other sites to start their queries. Reid explains, 'People are increasingly seeking out and clicking on sites with forums, videos, podcasts, and posts where they can hear authentic voices and first-hand perspectives.' Reading between the lines, it seems like isn't necessarily people's first stop on the web these days. But that's something we've known for some time. Back in 2022, a Google exec even said that social sites like TikTok and Instagram were eating into Google's core products, like Search and Maps. 'In our studies, something like almost 40% of young people, when they're looking for a place for lunch, they don't go to Google Maps or Search,' said Google SVP Prabhakar Raghavan, who ran the company's Knowledge and Information organization at the time (he is now its Chief Technologist). 'They go to TikTok or Instagram,' he noted. Google has also long been worried that had become people's first stop for online shopping searches, and had become the first stop for researching topics of interest. Over many years, the company has tried to come up with compelling features for both consumers and retailers that would attract more users to Google Shopping. These efforts have included universal shopping carts, local inventory checks, deal finders, shopping from product images on websites, and more. It even made its Shopping listings free for merchants in 2020. Meanwhile, as users complained that Google Search quality was declining, the search giant was seeing so much demand for Reddit that it finally added a 'Reddit' filter to allow users to narrow down results on relevant search queries. (Now that filter simply reads, 'forums.') So perhaps there's some truth in Google's denials — it's not AI that's entirely responsible for killing search. Search was already dying. Close-up of a person's hand holding an iPhone and using Google AI Mode, an experimental mode utilizing artificial intelligence and large language models to process Google search queries, Lafayette, California, March 24, 2025. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) Image Credits:Smith Collection/Gado / Getty Images Google's new blog post also attempts to move the goal posts a bit about what it means for websites receiving Google's clicks. Now, instead of counting clicks, it wants publishers to think about click quality. The company says average click quality has increased, and Google is sending 'slightly more quality clicks' to websites than a year ago. (Google explains that a quality click is one where users don't quickly click back — they stay and read.) How much of an increase, though, Google doesn't say. The company only points out that when people click through on an AI response to the source, they're more likely to dive deeper, so those clicks are more valuable. What's more, Google paints AI as an opportunity for web publishers to gain increased exposure, saying that '…with AI Overviews, people are seeing more links on the page than before,' as Reid writes. 'More queries and more links mean more opportunities for websites to surface and get clicked.' But AI, while a growing referral source, isn't yet making up the difference in terms of clicks, reports have shown. One recent study from Similarweb indicates that the number of news searches on the web resulting in zero clicks to news websites has grown from 56% (when Google launched AI Overviews in May 2024) to 69% as of May 2025. Image Credits:Similarweb Google appears to knows this is a trend, too, as it recently launched a product for publishers that helps them monetize their dwindling traffic in other ways that don't rely only on advertising, like micropayments or newsletter sign-ups. The fact that Google is pushing this 'AI is not the end of search traffic!' PR now only makes the situation seem more dire. It's as if Google wants publishers to believe not what their own eyes — and graphs and charts — tell them, but instead take comfort in the fact that Google still sends 'billions of clicks to websites' every day, just as the post claims.
Android Authority
16-06-2025
- Android Authority
I tried replacing Google Search with Perplexity. It didn't go well
Joe Maring / Android Authority It's no secret that Google Search is in a weird place right now. The regular search experience has seen better days, with ads and unhelpful results making the search engine feel far less helpful than it was a few years ago. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence features like AI Overviews and AI Mode aren't where they need to be. Despite its imperfections, Google Search has remained my go-to search engine. But why should it when there are so many other options out there? Thinking it might be time for a change, I recently ditched Google Search and switched to one of its biggest competitors: Perplexity. I installed the Perplexity app on my Pixel 9a, set it as the default search engine on my Mac mini, and started using Perplexity for all the things I'd normally use Google Search for. There are things about Perplexity I quite like, but after spending a week with it, I'm ready to go back to Google. Google Search vs. Perplexity: Which do you prefer? 0 votes Google Search NaN % Perplexity NaN % My two favorite things about Perplexity Joe Maring / Android Authority I'll explain my return to Google Search in a moment, but first, I want to talk about two aspects of Perplexity that really stood out to me — the first being follow-up questions. Perplexity is an AI-powered 'answer engine,' meaning it works in the same general fashion as ChatGPT or Gemini. In addition to being able to ask more complicated questions with more natural language, you can also ask follow-up questions based on previous searches. One day, for example, I searched 'iOS 26 developer beta' to find information about its availability. I then wanted to know when the public beta would be released, so I typed, 'when will the public beta be ready' as a follow-up. Perplexity understood I was referring to iOS 26 based on my first search, and just like that, I got the answer I was looking for. I search a lot of questions like this on any given day, and in these situations, Perplexity is immensely helpful. Now, could I have done two separate Google Searches for these things just as easily? Sure. But it's great to have both answers on the same page, rather than being scattered across two Google Search tabs. Plus, you know, clear, direct answers that aren't littered with sponsored links and a million news articles all telling me the same thing. My second favorite thing about Perplexity came as a bit of a surprise. Next to the main search page is a Discover tab, and just like Google Discover, it's a vertically-scrolling list of aggregated news stories. However, Perplexity's version is so much better. Google Discover has a pretty good understanding of the types of articles I'm interested in (years of data will do that), but the service itself is extremely barebones. You can save articles and like/dislike them, but that's about it. Perplexity Discover feed Perplexity Discover article Perplexity Discover audio article Perplexity Discover, meanwhile, makes Google Discover look antiquated by comparison. Rather than a single list for all of your news articles, Perplexity breaks things up into a few different tabs: For You, Top Stories, Tech & Science, Finance, Arts & Culture, Sports, and Entertainment. You can save stories for later, select favorite topics, and even listen to audio versions of articles (if you have Perplexity Pro). The articles in Perplexity Discover are AI-generated, but they're adequately filled with ample source links if you want to dig deeper into a topic. The user interface is also particularly slick, especially on the Android app (though the desktop version looks great, too). I could do with even more filters and preference options, but compared side by side to Google Discover, there's a lot more to like. Why Google Search is still better Joe Maring / Android Authority Follow-up questions and the Discover feed are nice features, but what about the meat and potatoes part of a search engine: typing in a couple of keywords and expecting a clear, glanceable result? These are the types of searches I conduct multiple times per day, and, unfortunately, it's where Perplexity stumbles. Let's use an example of searching for a movie. While picking a movie to watch one night last week, I typed in 'Before Midnight movie' on Perplexity, expecting to get a brief overview of its runtime, cast, streaming services it was available on, etc. But that's … not what I got. Perplexity Perplexity Google Search Google Search Instead, Perplexity showed me two lengthy paragraphs describing the film's plot and critical response. Is it well-written? Sure, but I don't find it particularly useful. Google Search, meanwhile, displayed a brief overview of the movie, plus its runtime, release date, budget, Rotten Tomatoes score, streaming service availability, and more. It's so much more helpful. Where Perplexity's results often feel like fluff, Google Search gives me concrete, actionable results. Another search that same day further reinforced this point. I wanted to place a to-go order at a local restaurant, so, like I would on Google, I searched 'Food Street' (my favorite local gyro joint) on Perplexity. Once again, I got a lot of fluff. Even with access to my location, Perplexity didn't quite seem to understand what Food Street I was searching for. It included a description for the one in Portage, MI (the one I was looking for), but it also included restaurants of the same name from New Jersey and Ohio. Perplexity Perplexity Google Search Google Search Further, Perplexity didn't provide me with any actual helpful info for the correct Food Street — no hours, online ordering links, or anything of the sort. Google, meanwhile, knew exactly which Food Street I was searching for, while also providing the hours, menu, reviews, and options for order pickup and delivery. There's no contest here about which result is more helpful. My other issue with Perplexity is that it's objectively bad for looking up specific websites or articles. A significant portion of my job involves searching for relevant Android Authority pages to include as backlinks in articles I write. I also often look up articles from our competitors to see what they're publishing. Perplexity Google Search For example, I needed to look up if we had published an article about T-Mobile alternatives. Perplexity aggregated a couple of Android Authority articles to give me a decent answer to my 'android authority t-mobile alternatives' search, but that wasn't what I was looking for. Google, on the other hand, showed the list of links I needed. This is obviously very specific to my job, but there are plenty of other situations where you may need a list of websites/webpages, rather than an AI-generated answer. And with those types of searches, Perplexity isn't a good choice. Perplexity is good, but it's not for me Joe Maring / Android Authority After my week with Perplexity, it's become obvious that, for the way I use search engines, Perplexity is not the right fit for me. I understand why some people prefer using Plexity over Google Search, and although I tried to see the light, Perplexity just isn't my cup of tea. While the potential for complicated searches with multiple follow-up questions is great, that's ultimately not my primary concern. All I want is to type in a handful of words to get all of the information I need, and as imperfect as it may be, Google Search is still better at that. I can see myself using Perplexity here and there for specific types of searches (especially now that I have a free year of Perplexity Pro), but when it comes to my daily go-to search engine, I'm heading back to Google Search as soon as I finish this article.
CNET
03-06-2025
- Business
- CNET
I Loathe AI Overviews So I Use This Hack to Make Google Give Me Just Blue Links
Google rocked the search engine landscape a little over a year ago when it launched an AI Overviews feature in its search results. These AI summaries synthesize real-language answers to search queries based on information from sites in Google's search results. While AI Overviews can occasionally be helpful, the software has also been known to give terribly wrong answers or make stuff up completely. The big problem for me with Google's AI Overviews is that I need to fact-check all information, so I need to read the primary sources anyway. I'd much rather have a good list of relevant website links than a summary that's not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. If, like me, you find yourself wishing for the Google searches of old where you'd encounter a list of links, I have good news. When Google launched AI Overview, it also released a search filter called "Web" that provides only links to websites in results. With a few minutes work, it's easy to make that new Web filter your default for Google search results. By making a quick change to your browser settings, you can ensure you get only links to websites in your Google search results. We'll show you how to do it on Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari or Microsoft Edge. What is the Google Search Web filter? Google's new Web filter is similar to its filters for results like News, Images, Videos or Shopping. When the Web filter is selected, your search results will return only text-based links, with no AI summaries, videos or knowledge panels like "Top Stories" or "People Always Ask." The new filter should appear below the search box on the Google Search results page, among other filters like News, Images and Videos. You'll usually have to click the three-dot "More" menu to see it as an option. The Web filter for Google Search will usually be placed in the menu for More filters underneath the search box. Google/Screenshot by CNET Clicking the Web filter link will give you Google Search results composed entirely of text-based links, with no answers, AI or anything else. "Web" will now be underlined and highlighted in blue under the search query box. Google's Web filter removes snippets and other knowledge panels from your results. Google/Screenshot by CNET In our initial tests of Google's Web filter, we did not see any sponsored search results or other advertisements but that filter will still return ad results for certain search queries, according to a Google spokesperson. After testing more search terms with the Google Web filter, we were also able to see search ads for a few specific queries. How do I get Google Web filter results for browser bar searches? Depending on your browser, it's fairly easy to customize your browser settings so that your address bar searches go straight to the Google Web filter results. You'll need to create a custom site search shortcut in your browser and then trigger that search option with a keyword or make it your default for all searches. The critical URL that you need to remember is The "%s" represents your search query, and the "udm=14" tag limits your results to the new Web filter. Here's how to add the necessary custom site search for Google's Web filter in the four most popular web desktop browsers -- Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox and Apple Safari. If you don't want to bother with browser settings, you can always just use the website &udm=14, built by Ernie Smith of Tedium. It provides a front-end to Google Search with the necessary Web filter parameter automatically included. Google Chrome Open up a Google Chrome browser window, then click on the three-dot menu in the upper-right corner, next to your Google account profile. Click Settings near the bottom of that menu. You can also get to your Chrome settings by entering chrome://settings in the browser address bar. Select Search engine from the left-hand column, then click "Manage search engines and site search" in the middle of the browser window. Next, scroll down to "Site search" and click the blue Add button. In the resultant pop-up window, create a name for the new search shortcut and a keyword for triggering it. We chose "Old Google" and "og." For the last field -- "URL with %s in place of query" -- enter that URL we mentioned above: Then click the blue Add button. Now when you search your address bar using "og" + your search term, you'll get results using Google's Web filter. If you'd like to make it your default search option, click the three-dot menu next to your new site search and select "Make default." After you make the new search shortcut your default search, all of your address-bar searches will use the Web filter -- no keyword needed. After you create the site search shortcut for Google's Web filter, you can make it your default search engine. Google Chrome/Screenshot by CNET Microsoft Edge The Windows browser is based on the Chromium codebase so the steps for adding a Google Search Web filter shortcut are similar to Google Chrome. Navigate into Settings by clicking the three-dot menu in the upper-right corner, then select Privacy, search, and services. Near the bottom of the following screen, select Address bar and search, then Manage search engines. Alternatively, you can navigate directly to that screen by entering edge://settings/searchEngines in your Edge address bar. Click the Add button to create your new site search shortcut. The Search engine is your name for the shortcut (I used "Old Google"), the Shortcut is the term that triggers that specific site search (I used "og"), and the URL template is the string that triggers the Google Search Web filter: Search engines in Microsoft Edge work very similarly to Google Chrome. Microsoft Edge/Screenshot by CNET To make that new Google URL your default search, go back to the Address bar and search settings page and click on the drop-down menu next to Search engine used in the address bar. Select your new custom site search and your address bar searches will default to the Google Search Web filter. Mozilla Firefox Firefox works a little bit differently for setting up search shortcuts. Instead of using the search settings, you'll create a bookmark with a keyword shortcut, then use that keyword in the address bar to trigger the Web filter results for Google Search. Unfortunately, Firefox doesn't let you add search engines in its desktop version. From the Bookmarks drop-down in Firefox, select Manage Bookmarks. On the following screen, right-click on the folder in your Bookmarks where you'd like to place the shortcut, then select "Add Bookmark." (Because you'll be triggering it from the address bar, it doesn't matter where the bookmark lives.) In the following pop-up window, enter a Name (for example, "Old Google"), the URL and a Keyword (such as "og") to save the search filter as a bookmark. Hit the "Save" button, and the Google Web filter results will be available by entering your keyword before any address-bar searches. To search Google's Web filter with Mozilla Firefox, you'll need to use a bookmark with a keyword shortcut. Mozilla Firefox/Screenshot by CNET Apple Safari Safari doesn't enable custom site shortcuts by default. The only way we were able to add the Google Web filter search was by installing the free Safari extension Smart Keyword Search, which enables site search shortcuts. After installing Smart Keyword Search, the first thing you'll need to do is enable it to adjust your Google search results. Go into Settings, click Extensions at the top of the window, select Smart Keyword Search, then click on the "Edit Websites" button. On the following page, click the drop-down menu next to and select "Allow." You'll need to allow the Smart Keyword Search extension the permission to adjust Google searches. Safari/Screenshot by CNET Now close the Settings window, and click the icon for Smart Keyword Search that appears next to the Safari address bar. You'll see a pop-up window with the various "rules" the extension uses to modify searches. Click the "compose" button to start a new rule, then enter a name (such as. "Old Google"), prefix (for example, "og") and a familiar URL for the Web filter search shortcut. The Smart Keyword Search extension for Safari uses slightly different syntax. Safari/Screenshot by CNET Smart Keyword Search uses the variable "{search}" instead of "%s" to indicate a search query, so you'll need to enter a slightly different URL: Hit the "submit" button. Now entering "og" (or your selected prefix) before any searches in your address bar will return results restricted by Google's Web filter. How to restrict your Google Web searches to 'verbatim' results You can further customize your searches on Google so that the search engine only returns results based on the exact terms that you use -- not synonyms or related terms. The "verbatim" option was introduced in 2011 and is usually accessed via the "Tools" link under most Google searches. To add a "verbatim" restriction to your Web filter shortcut, append the attribute "&tbs=li:1" to the end of your custom search URL: Any searches that you make using that new URL will now only return text-based web links for your exact search queries. Correction, July 2, 2024: An earlier version of this story misstated the absence of advertisements on Google Web filter results. After further testing, we were able to confirm that search ads can appear on Google Search Web filter results.
