Latest news with #searchengines
Hospitality Net
13 hours ago
- Business
- Hospitality Net
Food for Thought: Is Traditional Search Dead?
A recent post on LinkedIn declared the end of the search engines as we know them. the list even declared 'R.I.P. Search.' This is in tune with an avalanche of recent headlines arguing that traditional search is dead due to the rise of AI Search via the generative AI platforms ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, etc. Some experts herald the end of Google's monopoly on search and claim that traditional search marketing is becoming obsolete. Let's not get carried away. The rumors about the inevitable end of the 'traditional' search engines like Google at the hands of AI Search are highly exaggerated. According to latest data by SEMrush, people interact with search engines 34 TIMES more often than with AI search. During the reported period of April 2024-March 2025, the global search engines received 1,863 billion visits (-0.5% YoY), while the global AI Search chatbots 55.2 billion +(81% YoY). In other words, AI Search was in the rise over the past year, but still received 34 times less visits than traditional search engines. There is an additional wrinkle to the story: the data for traditional search engines does not include the queries on Google, Bing, etc. that were answered by AI, which blurs the boundaries between traditional search and AI. For example, Google uses its Gemini AI to provide answers in its Answer Box in its SERPs. Today, nearly 60% of Google searches end up as zero-click queries i.e. people find enough information in the Gemini AI-powered Answer Box and do not need to click on any of the organic or sponsored links. Bing uses a combination of ChatGPT and its proprietary Prometheus AI and Copilot AI in its Answer Box to boosts its conversational search capabilities, provide a more interactive user experience and up-to-date and context-rich answers, especially for current events and trends. So, should hoteliers abandon their traditional search marketing initiatives? Definitely not! Search marketing on Google and all of its formats: Google Ads (GA), Google Hotel Ads (GHA), organic listings (SEO) consistently contributes to over 50% of hotel website bookings. In the same time, hoteliers should not ignore the rising AI Search. The most immediate priority is to optimize the property for AIO (Artificial Intelligence Optimization), the AI version of SEO. In the AI world, stuffing your website content with SEO keyword terms and aiming to rank for keywords no longer applies. In other words, your website is no longer the primary source of influence. The era of earning recognition has arrived. How do you achieve that? Invest in content marketing with the goal to be cited in places of relevance. SEO company VertoDigital's audits show that only 25% of AI answers are pulled from website content, in this case hotel website content. The rest comes from citations about the hotel in social media, online publications, YouTube, travel-related sites and blogs, customer reviews, etc.
Digital Trends
19-05-2025
- Digital Trends
I tested Gemini Advanced, ChatGPT, and Copilot Pro. Here's which AI searched best
With AI chatbots now built into search engines, browsers, and even your desktop, it's easy to assume they all do the same thing. But when it comes to getting useful search results, some outperform the rest. I wanted to test Gemini Advanced, ChatGPT, and Copilot Pro head-to-head to see which one helps you get answers faster and more accurately. These are the paid versions, all promising live web access, smarter context, and fewer hallucinations. Recommended Videos So, I gave each AI the same set of prompts—from current events to deep-dive research queries—and judged them on five fronts: accuracy, depth, follow-up quality, mistakes, and usability. Here's how they stacked up. Test 1: Accuracy and real-time info To start things off, I asked all three AIs a current events question that needed real-time knowledge, not just general facts. I asked: 'Who won the latest NBA playoff game?' Gemini Advanced only showed me a scoreboard with the teams and the final scores, with no extra context, highlights, or player stats. It also pulled scores from May 10 – two days earlier than expected – which is a bit outdated for a real-time query. ChatGPT Plus gave me a more detailed answer with extra data, such as the Timberwolves taking a 3-1 series lead over the Warriors. It also mentioned how Julius Randle and Anthony Edwards combined for 61 points—Randle with 31 and Edwards with 30. It also included source links under each paragraph (that worked when testing this), making it easy to double-check the info. I also liked that when the cursor hovered over the source link, it would highlight the text it got from that source. My only complaint? It buried the answer under too many details. A quick summary up top would've helped. On the other hand, Copilot Pro gave me a more concise answer from the get-go and asked if I wanted additional information. I have to give this round to Copilot Pro—it nailed the direct answer and even offered a follow-up. Test 2: Depth of response For the second test, I asked a broader question that required more than just a quick fact: How can I create a strong password? Gemini Advanced gave me more tips than ChatGPT and provided source links below each tip for easy double-checking. It also used longer sentences, which made the whole response feel more readable without too much scrolling, unlike ChatGPT, which gave fewer tips and didn't include any source links. However, it did ask if the conversation was helpful, something Gemini didn't do. Copilot Pro also gave less information and no source links. Still, it did show a few relevant follow-up questions, such as: Why is a strong password important for security? Can you give me an example of a strong password? How does a password manager keep my information safe? I also found the emojis alongside each tip were a fun touch. Test 3: Follow-up flexibility For this test, I asked each AI a follow-up question after its original response, something that built on the conversation naturally. I wanted to see how well it handled context and whether it actually understood what I was asking. I followed up with, 'Can you explain why using personal information in passwords is bad?' ChatGPT gave me three main points, a couple of extra security tips to follow, plus a bottom-line summary that wrapped it all up. Copilot Pro gave me three tips and a few sentences on how to stay safe. Gemini, however, was the only one that didn't include specific safety tips at the end. It gave a few more reasons why using personal info is bad and added a bit more information. I must admit that Copilot Pro and ChatGPT took this prize and gave Gemini something to improve on. This time, none of the three included source links, which felt like a missed opportunity. Test 4: Mistakes and hallucinations One of the biggest risks with any AI assistant is its tendency to say things that aren't true confidently. They hallucinate and say things that are sometimes funny and other times alarming. So, I gave each chatbot a few fact-based prompts to see how accurate they were and whether they flagged uncertainties, something they all passed with flying colors. I started with a simple one and asked when Microsoft was founded, and Gemini Advanced answered with a one-liner: 'Microsoft was founded in 1975.' ChatGPT, on the other hand, went into a bit more detail, saying, 'Microsoft was founded on April 4, 1975, by Bill Gates and Paul Allen.' Copilot Pro gave a longer answer: 'Microsoft was founded on April 4, 1975, by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. It started as a small software company, but it quickly grew into one of the world's largest and most influential tech companies. Quite the success story, right?' I like how Copilot struck a balance, giving me enough context without overwhelming me and even suggesting three clickable follow-up questions. I have to admit that the answer I liked best was from Copilot Pro. Next, I asked all three AI assistants,' Which is the best AI assistant available?' Gemini gave a solid overview of the top AI assistants, including a quick rundown of what each can do. It even added a section called 'Other notable AI assistants' with less popular options. What I really liked, though, was the part where it explained which assistant might be the better pick, like choosing Gemini if you prioritize certain features, or going with ChatGPT or Copilot Pro if you rely more on other things. That side-by-side comparison is actually helpful. ChatGPT said there is no single best option, depending on why you need it. Copilot Pro said several options are available, each with specific strengths. Test 5: Usability and interface experience A great AI answer is only half the story; the other half is how easy it is to read the information it gives you. So, I spent time using each AI assistant's interface to see how smooth, intuitive, and helpful the overall experience felt. Copilot Pro stood out by giving me just enough information to answer my question clearly, without overwhelming me or leaving me confused about what it meant. I also like how it blends into Microsoft Edge and Windows 11 since it results in fewer mouse movements to open it. It was also good to see those relevant follow-up questions that saved me from typing out the question. If there's one area where Copilot Pro fell short, it was with shopping links. It provided them, but only after asking twice. And, in some cases, the link led to the wrong places. I also found the main Copilot page a little too cluttered, with buttons and suggestions all squeezed together. I get that it's trying to be helpful, but sometimes less is more. Gemini Advanced heavily relies on the Google ecosystem. The side panel works well across Gmail, Drive, and Docs, and it's handy for pulling in context from whatever you're working on. Visually, it looks clean and modern, with a color scheme that gives it a polished, almost elegant feel. I also liked how Gemini gives more detailed responses than the others. That's great if you're looking for depth, though if you prefer shorter replies, you can ask it to simplify things. It handled product searches well when I asked it to provide links. ChatGPT keeps things minimal but in a good way. The interface is clean and easy to navigate, and I liked that the input box is at the top of the screen, which feels more natural to use. However, when I tried using it to find links for products, it struggled. Some responses didn't include links at all, and when they did, they weren't always clickable or useful. Final thoughts After testing all three assistants across different scenarios, one thing became clear: no single AI does everything perfectly. Each one has strengths and quirks that make it better suited for certain tasks or users. ChatGPT is still the most consistent when it comes to natural, well-written responses. It's easy to use, but it would be nice if it fixed the link issue mentioned earlier. Gemini Advanced gives you the most information upfront, sometimes too much, but its integration with Google tools is a real advantage when you want to add more files to your search. Copilot Pro is the one I'd be least likely to stick with, even though I liked how it handled response length and follow-up suggestions. But the cluttered interface and unreliable links made it harder to trust on a daily basis—and for me, that's a deal-breaker. At the end of the day, the best AI chatbots really depends on what you value the most: clarity, depth, or usability.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Analysts reset Alphabet stock price target after Apple's warning
For the first time ever, people are searching less on search engines, and Apple () says artificial intelligence is the reason. Those comments were made on May 7 by Apple's senior vice president of services, Eddy Cue, during his testimony in the U.S. Justice Department's lawsuit against Alphabet. Last year, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that Google has illegally held a monopoly in the online search market, including paying Apple to make its Chrome the default search engine. Cue's comments included that searches on Safari dipped for the first time last month, which he attributed to people using AI. Cue also said he believes that AI search providers, including OpenAI, Perplexity AI Inc., and Anthropic PBC, will eventually replace standard search engines such as Alphabet's Google. He added that he believes Apple will bring those options to Safari in the future. Shares of Alphabet () dipped on the next trading day following the comments. Chris Versace, a Wall Street veteran who runs TheStreet Pro portfolio, said he's not surprised about Apple's comments about AI replacing search engines, given the number of weekly ChatGPT users. ChatGPT now has 400 million weekly users, and it plans to hit 1 billion users by the end of 2025, according to Brad Lightcap, OpenAI's chief operating officer. Still, Versace warned against overlooking Google. "While the AI landscape will become more competitive as new features are introduced over time, it would be a mistake to rule Google out," Versace wrote. Google is pushing ahead with its AI strategy, aiming to integrate AI across its key platforms like Search, Shopping, and YouTube. As of late March, Gemini, Google's generative AI chatbot, logged 350 million monthly active users and 35 million daily active users, according to a slide displayed by Google attorneys last week."Considering that we are still in a nervous market where folks sometimes react too quickly to headlines, we'll look to see what Google has to say at its upcoming Google I/O event." The event will be held on May 20 and 21. At last year's developer conference, Google unveiled several updates to Gemini and its search products. Versace said he expects similar announcements later this month. Versace said Cue's comments raised two key questions: Will Apple build an AI-powered search engine into Safari? And could Google's Gemini be one of the models it uses? He believes Apple will eventually take that step as part of its broader AI strategy, though the timing remains uncertain. That's one reason to watch closely when Apple's 2025 Worldwide Developers Conference begins on June 9. As for Gemini, Versace noted that Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has confirmed the company is close to striking a deal to bring Gemini to the iPhone. "Another reason we will be tuning into 2025 WWDC," Versace said. Despite intensifying competition in artificial intelligence, Alphabet's core search and advertising businesses continue to post strong results. In April, the company reported first-quarter revenue of $90.23 billion, beating expectations of $89.12 billion, while earnings per share came in at $2.81 versus $2.01 expected. Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Nowak said Alphabet shares are now trading at about 15 times the firm's FY26 $10 EPS estimate, which is what he calls "a trough multiple and in our view tactically a strong buying opportunity."Nowak highlighted three key points. First, Morgan Stanley's survey data shows no sign that commercial activity is shifting away from Google. Second, he believes that potential AI competitors like ChatGPT, Meta AI () , and Perplexity still lack the scale and product strength to meaningfully pull search behavior away from Google. Third, he noted that Google's recent slowdown in paid clicks may be tied to its rollout of AI-powered features like Overviews, AI Mode, and Gemini. These updates, including more personalized shopping links, could improve conversion rates by streamlining the commercial funnel and boosting ad relevance. More Experts Treasury Secretary delivers optimistic message on trade war progress Shark Tank's O'Leary sends strong message on economy Buffett's Berkshire has crucial advice for first-time homebuyers The firm maintains an overweight rating on Alphabet stock and a price target of $185. Alphabet closed at $158.46 on May 12. The stock is down 16% year-to-date.
Globe and Mail
14-05-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Will AI Search Engines Cripple Google's Dominance?
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the way many companies, across all industries, are doing their day-to-day work. Some of the biggest changes are undoubtedly in technology, where many top companies are investing heavily into AI chatbots and related functions. As that happens, one company that may be most directly affected by all this is Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG)(NASDAQ: GOOGL), whose Google Search engine is a huge part of its business and generates tens of billions of dollars in ad revenue each quarter. As AI potentially changes how people search for questions and do research, could that spell big trouble for Alphabet's business? Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » Apple executive believes current search engines could be in trouble AI is changing the way people search for answers to their queries. Chatbots such as ChatGPT and Perplexity are making it possible for people to have their questions answered without having to open up a browser and go to a search engine like Google. Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), which has Google as the default search engine on its Safari browser, is looking to add AI services as possible search options in the future, according to its senior vice president of services, Eddy Cue. He believes that AI-powered searches will be the new norm, replacing conventional search engines. Shares of Alphabet fell on the news, with investors worrying that this could create a significant risk for the business in the long run. That's because the bulk of the company's ad business comes from its search business. Through the first three months of the year, Alphabet's ad revenue totaled $66.9 billion. Of that tally, $50.7 billion was from Google Search and other (which includes Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Play), representing a little over three-quarters of that figure. A decline in traffic for search could severely affect how much advertisers are willing to pay Google, which would be a big hit to its top line. Why investors shouldn't panic, at least not yet AI is revolutionizing sectors and industries, and Alphabet is by no means immune. At the same time, the company is also investing heavily into AI and its Gemini chatbot. If you use Google Search today, you might see an "AI Overview" section at the top of your results, which summarizes the findings and gives you a response similar to what you might get with other chatbots. It gives users a good mix of both an AI-generated response to their questions and the conventional link-based results some people may prefer. The company is adapting to changes related to AI, and I believe it's in a good position to benefit from them. Google's brand has become synonymous with search, and there's much more trust there than with new and upcoming chatbots, where users may have doubts about accuracy. It's been more than two years since ChatGPT arrived on the scene, and there hasn't been a sharp decline in Google's ad business to suggest that it's in trouble. Instead, the business continues to grow. While it may lose some business as a result of AI in the future, the tech company can also make its searches better with Gemini, not only on Google Search but on YouTube as well. Is Alphabet a good stock to buy right now? Alphabet's business is facing a lot of questions, especially with respect to search. AI is changing the game, and last year a judge found that Google has had a monopoly on search. More recently, it was also found to be monopolizing the online ad market. All this negative press has weighed on the stock, which today trades at just 16 times its estimated future earnings (based on analyst expectations). That's a fairly low valuation for a business that has generated significant growth over the years, but investors are clearly worried about its growth prospects in the long run. However, at such a low valuation, I think investors are well compensated for the risk that comes with the stock, especially since Alphabet isn't exactly standing still. AI introduces some new challenges, but it's creating opportunities as well. Provided that you're willing to hang on and be patient, Alphabet can still be a good long-term buy. Should you invest $1,000 in Alphabet right now? Before you buy stock in Alphabet, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Alphabet wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $613,951!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $796,353!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is948% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to170%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 12, 2025
ABC News
13-05-2025
- ABC News
Are Google and other search engines getting worse, or should we change how we look for information?
Ever punched a question into a browser and been served a bunch of poorly written, ad-filled websites which don't really give you an answer? Or a summary generated by artificial intelligence (AI) that doesn't make any sense — or is incorrect? Search engines, particularly Google, are most people's gateway to the internet. And sometimes, they fail to get people the results they want. But in recent years, there's been increasing scrutiny on their quality. From social media to academia, there have been questions about whether search engines deliver information like they used to. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) also raised concerns about declining quality in a report it released on search engines late last year. With generative AI making low-quality websites easier to build, and sometimes questionable AI summaries now sitting at the top of many Google searches, you may think it's getting harder to look something up and get a reliable answer on the internet. But search engines are still big business. When Apple announced last week that it was planning to add AI-powered search to its browser, Google's parent company lost $US150 billion ($A235 billion) in market value. Google currently commands 94 per cent of the Australian search market, according to the ACCC. Most other searches, some 4.7 per cent, happen on its rival Bing — Microsoft's default search engine. So are search engines really getting worse, or just changing? And if you're not happy with the answers you're getting, what else could you do? Search quality is difficult to measure. Fifteen years ago, your search might be registered as unsuccessful if you didn't click on any of the pages presented to you. But now, with summaries provided, that's often the default expectation. Oleg Zendel, a computer scientist at RMIT University, says that search has gotten "much, much better" over the past 10 years. But in the shorter term, like in the past couple of years, it's harder to tell. "To be able to say unequivocally that it's getting better, or worse, is not something that even Google can do," Dr Zendel says. There's a few reasons for this. For one, users want different things from search engines at different times. A service that's very good at telling you the local weather report might not necessarily be the best at finding detailed archival information for a research report. Then, there have been big changes in the way search engines work. Since the late 2010s, they've shifted from being best at returning keyword searches (for example, "Uluru height") to natural language searches (such as "how high is Uluru" — and to save you a click, the answer is 863 metres). Swedish software engineer Viktor Lofgren says search engines were originally designed "to find documents on the internet relating to some topic". "But they've gradually started being used for all manner of tasks they were really never very good at, such as answering general questions." He thinks that this worked only because the internet "accidentally contained" a lot of good answers. "But a combination of the increased proliferation and efficacy of search engine spam has changed that." Mr Lofgren believes this change is a step towards the death of big search engines like Google, because large language models like ChatGPT are better suited to giving simple answers for users. "They don't always give you the correct answers, but to be honest, neither do search engines," he says. Search engines are also increasingly putting AI summaries in their results — including Google. (Although, if you're not a fan of Google's AI summaries, here's a tip: adding "-ai" to your search query will remove them.) These AI overviews can present a new suite of problems with inaccuracy. Ashwin Nagappa, a researcher in social science and digital media at Queensland University of Technology, points out a recent article that found Google's AI overviews could be prompted to produce gibberish by searching for fake sayings. "If you are not a native English speaker or you are using words that are in different language, AI summaries may not get it right," Dr Nagappa says. Johanne Trippas, also a computer scientist at RMIT University, says that decline in search quality has become an "underlying current" at computer science conferences she's attended. But she also says our expectations of search engines have risen. "Users now expect that it can't just do a simple keyword match. They also want to have the system reply to a very complex answer in a very direct manner." Search engine quality may or may not have deteriorated in general. But if you think your personal experience has tanked, you're not at a dead end. Dr Zendel says the simplest thing to do if you're unsatisfied with search results is re-word the query. "If that doesn't work, try different sources. It can be alternative search engines like DuckDuckGo, Brave, Bing — there are so many of them now." Wikipedia has a long list of academic search engines and databases that can help with more detailed research into specific areas. Search engines don't need to be run by tech behemoths. Mr Lofgren built a search engine, called Marginalia Search, which takes him as little as an hour a week to maintain. Marginalia Search is designed to feature text-heavy, non-commercial websites using "very traditional ranking algorithms", Mr Lofgren says. It's useful for browsing the internet, but not necessarily giving you quick answers to specific questions. Dr Trippas says that searching should often be an iterative experience, refining and tuning queries. While AI can be useful, she says "it is just important to be vigilant and fact check" when using AI-generated results, just as one would with search engines. Dr Nagappa says that going directly to sources, such as trusted news organisations, remains important. "You have some responsibility to make sure that you understand your information better," he says. There are queries where government webpages are likely to be the best source — for instance, whether you need a visa to travel to certain countries, and how to apply for them. Generative AI isn't a good guide for this situation, as one Australian found out when he discovered he did need a visa to enter Chile, despite what ChatGPT told him. Dr Zendel says that confirmation bias (our habit of looking for and remembering things we already agree with) is something searchers should always be aware of. They should try to counter confirmation bias when looking for important information. "If you really care about it, then you should try and search the opposite. If it's politics, then try and see what the other candidate is saying," he suggests. "If it's a visa, then don't search 'Can I go to this country without a visa?' Look for something like 'What are the restrictions' or 'What type of visa do I need to go to that country?'" Dr Nagappa says that even bigger changes are starting to emerge, with features such as voice searches, AI, and circle-to-search — a feature on some Android phones that allows users to search images quickly. These features require much more work on the side of the search engine to deduce what the user wants to know. For instance, a user circling a photo of a politician in a news article probably wants to know who the politician is, not links to buy their suit. Dr Nagappa, Dr Zendel and Dr Trippas are all involved in a research project called the Australian Search Experience, which seeks to understand how Australians search the web. The first phase of the project found that search results weren't heavily personalised for users beyond taking their location into account. A search for restaurants from a user in Melbourne, for instance, would bring up Melbourne restaurants. But Dr Nagappa says that search terms can have a big influence on results. Searching for "restaurants in Naarm" brings up different answers to "restaurants in Melbourne", even though the names refer to the same location. "By changing small words in the search query, the meaning changes for the search engine," Dr Nagappa says. Beyond searching, the sites we look at have changed. Mr Lofgren thinks the "maze" of the modern web makes it almost impossible to leave frequently visited pages, such as social media and big news sites. He says he designed Marginalia Search as a type of "off ramp" to show users they could still find "an interesting blog or website written by a human being knowledgeable about a subject". "You might be excused for thinking that that's not a thing anymore, but it is," he says.
