4 ms·

Example query - “Leonardo DiCaprio‘s net worth”. While previously this would have resulted in a click to the top website that put in the effort to compile this

Example query - “Leonardo DiCaprio‘s net worth”. While previously this would have resulted in a click to the top website that put in the effort to compile this information, now google would highlight that exact sentence with the answer right there. The site loses a click through and any potential revenue.

avocado4 7y ago
Consumers win in this scenario.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Do they really though? See my comments on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20688022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20688022 Essentially, if Google's data source isn't getting paid, the data source is not going to remain accurate, and hence, neither will Google.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    I don't see the relationship either way between payment and accuracy. Paying people is no guarantee of accuracy in either direction. Heck paying people for it encourages putting any ole bullshit there to farm it.
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      Websites which have gone out of business cannot provide Google updated data.
- blacksmith_tb 7y ago
  We do, though the counterargument is that sites that currently publish content like that will have no incentive to keep doing it. If that proves true, presumably in long run you won't be able to get good answers to similar questions, which I suppose could force Google to create their own content, a sort of search-engine version of Netflix and Amazon's move into film-making.
inetknght 7y ago
> The site loses a click through and any potential revenue. I'm having trouble understanding how the site would have lost potential revenue. All the query wanted to know was the net worth of someone. I don't imagine anyone casual enough to use Google to answer that who would be willing to spend a lot of time trying to figure that out using an advertisement-laden "free" website. I don't imagine anyone professionally interested in that answer who'd use Google as their primary resource nor would they click on ads on the target site. On the other hand, Google gets to know who's talking about whom. That in and of itself is/can be valuable. I can see an argument be made for abuse of monopoly here. On the other hand, I think what Google does indeed benefit the consumer in this case. The casual user's experience is likely improved and the professional user's experience still wouldn't use Google as a primary resource.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  I'm having trouble understanding how the site would have lost potential revenue. They lost ad impressions. I don't imagine anyone casual enough to use Google to answer that who would be willing to spend a lot of time trying to figure that out using an advertisement-laden "free" website. Why not? It's not like that they had any other options than trying to extract that information from ad-laden websites. Most people read rather slowly, and by the time they either find out what they need or decide that they give up, lots of ad impressions have already had happened.
  - inetknght 7y ago
    > They lost ad impressions. Sure, that counts as revenue. It's not something I'm going to lose sleep over. I don't exactly think that advertisements should be a profitable "feature" of the internet in its current form. > Why not? It's not like that they had any other options than trying to extract that information from ad-laden websites. You completely missed my point. Now that Google "owns" the data and provides the answer, the user won't need to click on a scummy site. Moreover, casual questions not answered directly by Google are answered by casual browsing. Casual browsing happens with ad blockers. If a site breaks when an ad blocker is in use, users exit the site.

avocado4 7y ago

Consumers win in this scenario.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Do they really though? See my comments on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20688022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20688022 Essentially, if Google's data source isn't getting paid, the data source is not going to remain accurate, and hence, neither will Google.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I don't see the relationship either way between payment and accuracy. Paying people is no guarantee of accuracy in either direction. Heck paying people for it encourages putting any ole bullshit there to farm it.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Websites which have gone out of business cannot provide Google updated data.
blacksmith_tb 7y ago
We do, though the counterargument is that sites that currently publish content like that will have no incentive to keep doing it. If that proves true, presumably in long run you won't be able to get good answers to similar questions, which I suppose could force Google to create their own content, a sort of search-engine version of Netflix and Amazon's move into film-making.

inetknght 7y ago

> The site loses a click through and any potential revenue. I'm having trouble understanding how the site would have lost potential revenue. All the query wanted to know was the net worth of someone. I don't imagine anyone casual enough to use Google to answer that who would be willing to spend a lot of time trying to figure that out using an advertisement-laden "free" website. I don't imagine anyone professionally interested in that answer who'd use Google as their primary resource nor would they click on ads on the target site. On the other hand, Google gets to know who's talking about whom. That in and of itself is/can be valuable. I can see an argument be made for abuse of monopoly here. On the other hand, I think what Google does indeed benefit the consumer in this case. The casual user's experience is likely improved and the professional user's experience still wouldn't use Google as a primary resource.

xyzzyz 7y ago
I'm having trouble understanding how the site would have lost potential revenue. They lost ad impressions. I don't imagine anyone casual enough to use Google to answer that who would be willing to spend a lot of time trying to figure that out using an advertisement-laden "free" website. Why not? It's not like that they had any other options than trying to extract that information from ad-laden websites. Most people read rather slowly, and by the time they either find out what they need or decide that they give up, lots of ad impressions have already had happened.
- inetknght 7y ago
  > They lost ad impressions. Sure, that counts as revenue. It's not something I'm going to lose sleep over. I don't exactly think that advertisements should be a profitable "feature" of the internet in its current form. > Why not? It's not like that they had any other options than trying to extract that information from ad-laden websites. You completely missed my point. Now that Google "owns" the data and provides the answer, the user won't need to click on a scummy site. Moreover, casual questions not answered directly by Google are answered by casual browsing. Casual browsing happens with ad blockers. If a site breaks when an ad blocker is in use, users exit the site.