Below are the most recent 30 comments. I try to keep it clean of comment spam, but some times things
get through and it takes me several hours to get to it. So please excuse any of that comment spam.
If you hire people with AI expertise/and or the people that work there already are too scared to say it's not working (sunk cost fallacy), their natural self interest is for AI to expand within the company, this has led Google to double down again and again, via changing the design of sponsored links to temporarily increase revenue through christmas, then increasing AI overviews to 50% and introducing AI to youtube. It's all leading to AI Suc@ide. No-one is looking at AI Cancer throughout Google -, due to the hiring process over the last 2 years....they are in complete chaos and have a decentralised based system which is why they have multiple AI products with no wider product strategy.
Please see this article: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-proposes-package-of-measures-to-improve-google-search-services-in-uk">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-proposes-package-of-measures-to-improve-google-search-services-in-uk</a> Here is the consultation link for UK publishers: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/googles-general-search-and-search-advertising-services">https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/googles-general-search-and-search-advertising-services</a>
Conduct requirement roundtables
In February 2026, the CMA will host online roundtables for affected stakeholders,.
We will outline our proposal and offer an opportunity for questions and comments in the sessions for:
User Choice CR: 9 February, 2:30pm to 4pm
Fair Ranking CR: 11 February, 9:45am to 11:15am
Publisher CR: 11 February, 3pm to 4:30pm
Data Portability CR: 12 February, 1pm to 2.30pm
To register your interest in these events, email [email protected].
I just don't get it. I have 0 ads on all my informational keywords, I honestly can't get my head around why they would stop revenue to themselves, if this is to compete with ChatGTP and Plepexity they are just 2% of the market, they are not even a threat. It does not make sense to me... at all. Seems like complete organizational chaos - different teams optimizing for different stuff with no one thinking about the eco system here. There is something we can't see right now that caused them to do this.
Interesting! <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II2QF9JwtLc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II2QF9JwtLc</a> GOOGLE decides what you write, not YOU. Write like yourself and you're gone (…and your staff goes with you).
SEMrush sensor agrees with you on more AI Slop Overviews. SEMrush shows highest levels of AISO ever. Data there lags a day or two, so probably much worse then what it reports now.
It looks like they majorly pushed out more ai overview even more, more videos more images, and more ads on the bottom. At least that’s what I’m seeing all over.
Which in turn is just tuning the 1st page into just garbage that you don’t even see the organic results any longer. Seriously trying to do like that scene from ready player one when where he’s like we can push out ads to 85% before people start having seizures.
understand the hope part - some people here are desperate and this makes them think the un-thinkable (I seen others still hoping some day Google will roll back before the HCU carnage and all sorts, again fantasy), but to expect Google will get back to the 10 blue links is close to fantasy.
I bet if it was by Google best outcome would have been to not have AI chatbots in the likes of ChatGPT which disrupted their business as usual. I bet on that.
Once ChatGPT kicked in they knew they need to press the AI button too, no chance they can survive without going AI.
I hate the AI crap but the reality is Google is desperate to get into it and secure their position & revenues in the new AI led world, at the expense of everything else.
lol, how on Earth can you say I'm stuck reading investor presentations? What made you say so?
You have no clue about myself. I'm not in any investment BS industry or similar and I am not fussed with any Wall Street BS propaganda -- again haven't read the room.
I do ecomm and have done so for a life now!
You recognize in your above they did more money but you fail to see how they did that, how was that possible given top of search results page is stuffed with anything but blue links. Which in turn resulted in 99.99% of sites loosing traffic, you can say that I buy into investors BS, I might say you seem living in a parallel reality.
You fail to account that whilst they did more money, AIO and AI mode are already on top of their search results, pushing the 10 blue links to abyss.
It is a fact that sites receive less and less traffic, so can you explain despite that Google made money?
Come on, use half a brain not your entire brain!
<blockquote>Where's Google's market research evidence that people want AI answers and not search?
</blockquote>Just because they aren't sharing their data doesn't mean they're wrong. For the average user who isn't searching for a Web site (i.e., who's just searching for an answer), AI answers may be just fine. Or, more accurately, the average user may <i>think</i> an AI answer is fine, since most people likely don't know about "hallucinations" and the like.
The problem (IMO) is that not everybody is looking for an AI answer. Some people actually like Web sites. I can't help thinking that somebody somewhere is or should be working on a Web search engine, since the open Web is a vast resource for users.
You're stuck reading investor presentations instead of looking at what's actually happening in the market. Yes, they had increased ad revenue Q3/Q4 - from redesigning sponsored links to look the same as organic results. Accidental clicks. Advertisers who spent $100k are getting tons of clicks and zero conversions. No sales. That doesn't last, the advertisors will work this out and already have.
you are not understanding: If AI was making money, they'd have removed the blue links already. They haven't because AI Overviews costs MORE money per query (they won't tell us how much more) than normal search while generating 0 ad revenue. I've seen reports of 1 ad per 25,000 impressions in AIO reported here. It is a money pit. Advertisers are already pulling budgets. Amazon Shopping left. Most brands are following. The ONLY viable conversion model right now is publishers sending traffic that actually buys.
AI = no money made. Get it now?
Publishers = only ROI that works
what you said before - they will have 3 years to figure this out. They don't have that long as They're spending $98 billion annually on AI infrastructure that generates NO revenue while advertisers are pulling budgets. This is not we will work it out in x years - it only has a few quarters. Look, if nothing has changed in 3 years I will see you back here, and I will admit I got it wrong but I know I haven't. AI is a big stock market scam. 1 trillion and 0 profit. Most Americans are brainwashed it is going to take over the world. It's not. It's just a pozy scheme.
I think the inconsistency and gibberish you speak of is common with those who are still trying to grab a straw of hope when none exists. Though I'm not agreement with Sam, I recognize these symptoms and compassionately take it for what it is - desperation. Most of us have been in that desperation phase at some point, myself included, before moving onto the next phase where reality bakes in. I just worry that others will bank on these false hopes and waste their money/lives chasing a pot of gold that Google turned into coal. These are the people who Google hopes will become their digital slaves to continue to feeding their AI for free. For this reason I challenge some promoting hope with facts, like the one you stated about us getting much less traffic/revenue as Google's revenues soar.
<blockquote>Sites already receive no traffic, yet Google makes more and more money. This alone defies her logic, so how can one expect Google to revert to what search used to be?</blockquote>We are in complete/total agreement. Google took over 90% of our traffic, and I'm sure the 10% that remains will be taken soon to feed their deplorable greedy appetite.
He's not smiles all the time. With his subordinates he rolls back his sleeves to get more serious.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/937bc382d87c2b65d296117cb9baff4c1a073eefbf1167700ed49fb31b2c25ec.jpg
Is not about not respecting her opinion. I respect that, but is more that if she got an opinion at least prove some consistency in her arguments, not just throw gibberish from comment to comment as that risks to contradict her own arguments.
I will be here waiting Sam announce the day when Google said" we failed with AI and we need to roll back to our old 10 blue links".
I can't wait for that day to come, but will it come? No, not in a million years, there is no turning back. Sites already receive no traffic, yet Google makes more and more money. This alone defies her logic, so how can one expect Google to revert to what search used to be?
Lol, you make me laugh. What economics do you talk about "my friend"? That whilst releasing AI Mode and AI Overviews Google still makes money (as in as we speak here)? That whilst AI Overviews is present onto the page, the users are not clicking through to the websites (this is already happening as we speak)?
CTR is at a historical low for a while now (is not the first few days of such low CTR and yet we still speak about Google).
I'm giving you some bad news, Google has already pushed so much AI and fluff into the search results so much so that 99.99% of sites lost traffic, (how come?!) so what economics do you exactly speak about here, that will make them fail (I would love to have that confirmed by numbers not personal views)?
Given sites do not receive that much organic traffic anyway, the "hard to imagine step" to get rid of the 10 blue links entirely will soon be seen as a rational next stage. Why bother have that since users are not clicking that much outside of Google? It's simple, not "rocket science economics"!
With this in mind and against our bets here that they will fail (btw I would simply love to see them fail!), to date they still grown their revenues whilst AIO and crap fluff took over the 10 blue links for years now. Is that the economics you speak about?
hi sir dimitris. have you seen my previous comment regarding your site techmaniacs. This is just my opinion I hope you will understand. I am from Philippines and when I search for your site, the dot com is on the top, not the dot gr. Could this be one of the reasons why your site is experiencing less serp visibility.
Shitdar will not stop until the entire world is in poverty and starving.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d9e58adc8b83d727d837b9b21df642a120badbcee70b10852f8d6d6913feb91.jpg