this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
373 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

83094 readers
2920 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Data gathered by Chartbeat and shared by Axios reveals that, over the past year, Google Search traffic to publishers across the broader web have fallen drastically, and proportionally more so for smaller websites. Referral traffic from Google apparently fell by 60% for “small publishers,” while “medium publishers” (those with between 10,000-100,000 daily pageviews) saw a drop of 47%. “Large publishers,” meanwhile, saw a 22% drop. That last category would be any site getting over 100,000 daily pageviews.

It’s not just Google Search either. While Search traffic dropped by 34%, traffic from Google Discover has also fallen by 15% over the past year, the report found.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] org@lemmy.org 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)
[–] GutterRat42@lemmy.world 71 points 1 week ago (6 children)

No, fewer people getting past the AI summary

[–] Addv4@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago

Given the state of a lot of the summaries I've seen lately, that is scary.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Is that what this is saying? I wasn't sure. The article should state that explicitly, and not assume that the reader concludes that.

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago

I think the issue there is the data doesn't tell anyone "why", it only tells "what".

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Hard to imagine usage of Google suddenly falling by 22%, much less 60%.

Good news, though, is if Google stops bringing in traffic to sites, they'll block its bots, so both search and Gemini will become even worse, possibly turning people away.

[–] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Holdup, are people not skipping the AI summaries entirely because the info is fucking shit?

[–] a1studmuffin@aussie.zone 6 points 1 week ago

You forget we are in an echo chamber here. Most people not only read the AI summaries, they believe them. Just the other day I saw a normie ask ChatGPT to add up some numbers for them, instead of using a calculator. That's how entrenched AI has become in their day-to-day. They don't have to think any more. Thinking is hard. And that's how Google is able to dominate the web. Steal the data and serve it up as slop that's good enough for the everyday Joe.

[–] mr_anny@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is actually a good thing. Google get paid for referrals and niw their "AI" shit turns against it.

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

This just forces people to turn to Google Ads. They will actually make more money from people because it kills off little businesses that can’t pay and jacks up competition/pricing for ad bids.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Google get paid for referrals

What are you talking about?

[–] mr_anny@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Companies pay for google to show up high in search results. Some of them pay from clicks.

Now people stop at the slop which is the first thing thry see in the results.

This makes traffic to company sites go down which also affects google revenue.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Companies pay for google to show up high in search results.

Do you mean the ads? Or, if you mean the search results themselves, where do I pay Google to get my site higher in the results?

[–] mr_anny@sopuli.xyz 0 points 6 days ago
[–] winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Companies pay Google to be at the top of the list and get clicks

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Could you please point me as to where I pay Google for my site to be higher in the search results? Unless, of course, you mean the ads.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The only use I have found for the AI summary is quickly getting NAIC numbers for insurance companies at work. Otherwise I use an extension that removes the AI summary.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Are those results correct, though?

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

They actually are surprisingly.

[–] org@lemmy.org -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Which is probably enough to find the info 90% of the time

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I have classic apple computers.

I also maintain a small list of sites I visit to get abandonware programs for them. Of the times I've used the AI results, I found what I was looking for fewer than 15%. At one point, I had the AI telling me there was no such thing as Winamp for Mac, while I was running it in MacOS 8.6 under the virtualization program, Sheepshaver.

Seriously?

AI's got so little ability to sort through archived knowledge and pull up old links and sources, it's as if anything before 2006 never existed.

Nuts to that.

I hit up ten blue links and have never looked back.

[–] org@lemmy.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But did a regular search provide the correct info? I find niche searches aren’t always good using either method. Old software info can be hard to find.

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes! I wasn't looking for whether it existed, I knew it did, but it was in a .sit file with an abbreviated name. Also apparently was an aplha build, so maybe that's why the AI insisted it did not exist. Was looking for the last version available for the classic OS as I had one of the earliest.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

this is problematic on multiple levels.

[–] org@lemmy.org -3 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)
  • It helps spread false information widely

  • It puts a lot of control of information in a single companies hands

  • It hurts the underlying sources

When google provides the info directly, and the first hand sources has become completely obsolete and shut down, what would new information stem from? It's an inherently unstable and short sighted solution.

[–] org@lemmy.org -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Google controls search results and has been caught meddling. Which negates the first two.

The last one of hurts the sources… sure they get less traffic which is less ad revenue. Cry me a river.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Google controls search results and has been caught meddling. Which negates the first two.

No it doesn't negate the forst two. It only addresses the second, and bypassing the results completely, exascerbates the problem quite a bit.

Cry me a river.

great argument.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Level one, level two, level three. WHAT NOW, BITCHES?