Last month, a report from the Pew Research Center highlighted the effect of Google’s IA previews on web publication. In short, the analysis painted an abyssal perspective for anyone relying on web traffic. But Wednesday, Google Search Head Liz Reid wrote a blog article that puts a fairly different turn on things. The Google VP claims that websites at websites is “relatively stable” and this quality of click has increased.
Reid framing comes down to Everything is fishing, and AI improves things – even for websites! She wrote that the total volume of organic clicks from Google Search to websites was “relatively” stable from year to year. Reid also said that Google sends more “quality clicks” (visitors who do not bounce back quickly) on websites than a year ago. The company claims that people are also happier from the research experience.
The company has not shared any figure – the position has no data – to support its complaints.
Google’s explanation on pink perspectives? “With AI glimps, people are looking for more and ask new questions that are often longer and more complex,” wrote Reid. “In addition, with AI’s overviews, people see more links on the page than before. More requests and more links mean more opportunities to make websites and clicks.”
Reid highlights a changing landscape. She says that user trends lead to a drop in traffic for certain sites and an increase in traffic for others. Of course, Google’s research manager did not call any specific website. But she says that forums, videos, podcasts and publications with “authentic voices and first -hand prospects” are booming. Reid added that the content as “an in -depth review, an original article, a unique perspective or a thoughtful analysis to the first person” does well.
A preview of Google AI for the request
(Google / Engadget)
VP Google said people looking for simple types of research questions are based more on AI. “For some questions where people are looking for a quick answer, as” when is the next full moon “, people can be satisfied with the initial response of AI and not click further,” wrote Reid. “This has also been true for other response features that we have added, such as the knowledge graph or sports scores. But for many other types of questions, people continue to click, because they want to deepen a subject, explore more or make a purchase. This is why we see the quality of Clic Increase – an AI response could provide the configuration of the Earth, but people click to dive more deeply, and when they do it, clicks are more precious. “
It is completely the contrast of the PEW report. He found that visitors who saw a summary of the AI clicked on a traditional research result in eight percent of all visits. Those without summary of the AI? They clicked on a traditional result in 15% of their visits. As for these source links in AI’s summaries? Pew noted that only one percent of the people had clicked on them. Users were also more likely to end their navigation after visiting a page with a summary of the AI.
This corresponded to the comments of the CEO of Cloudflare, Matthew Prince, did in June. He said that research traffic references continue to fall. “The future of the web will be more and more like an AI, and that means that people will read the summaries of your content, not the original content,” he said. Prince said that ten years ago, Google had sent a visitor to a two -page publisher he had crawled. At the start of this year, he fell to a visitor for six pages. He said that in June, it was one for 18.
I can’t tell you who believe. But here is what the ultimate source had to say:
Directly from the source!
(Google / Engadget)
