5 ms·

Exactly, with the current system Google is incentivised to prioritise the best content for users. If they now negotiate individual licensing agreements with eac

Exactly, with the current system Google is incentivised to prioritise the best content for users. If they now negotiate individual licensing agreements with each publisher this adds another factor (cost) to the ranking incentive. Also, where do you draw the line on what content Google should have to pay to index? What about independent bloggers for example? This policy could potentially open a whole new can of worms.

mrtksn 6y ago
How Google is incentivised to prioritise the best content for users? Google doesn't make anything if you quickly find what you are making for and consume it. Google's optimal position would be if you keep searching for the stuff you are looking for and get distracted by ads and buy something in the process. The second best thing would be if you find the stuff you are looking for directly on Google(Google no longer shows only search results but the content of the results as if it comes from them) and then you proceed to buy something through an ad click. For example, Google wins if you search for "When did Trump leave the White House" and you see a snipped containing "Trump left the WH in the early morning of January 20, 2021 using a helicopter". Now that you have your answer through the content that Google mined for free, they can monetize you but what about the people who put together that information? Why they would be left out of your business? What's fair about that? There was a recent HN discussion about Google mining the database of a small business that specialises on compiling information on the wealth of celebrities. They lost most of their traffic when Google began showing the answer from their database directly instead of showing the link that contains this information. Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24105465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24105465
- new_here 6y ago
  If users feel they get the best results from Google then they continue to use Google which drives search and ad impressions. Ads are also clearly labelled so users can decide if they want to ignore sponsored results. I typically click the first result below ads or use an adblocker but that's just me. So this seems like a clear distinction between paid and organic results. I completely agree on the second point. Google's 'Featured Snippets' are a clear overreach where Google uses people's content at no cost and gives nothing in return. This needs to be regulated because nobody is going to opt-out. For example, I've had some featured snippets and they bring a lot of traffic. Much less than a normal first place listing but more than a second place listing. If I opt-out of Featured Snippets in protest then someone else will just happily take that spot. Perhaps the balance lies in just indexing headlines of sites. Then publishers could decide if they want to give up that information in their headlines. It's a tough to know where to draw the line but that seems like it's been the fairest balance so far.
- academia_hack 6y ago
  The alternative to search snippets is a world where I have to be bombarded with cookie consent popups and advertisement and then scroll through paragraphs of nonsense to get the two word answer to a trivial question. Google adds enormous value in synthesizing this information and presenting it only when it is relevant. I don't know why people think they have an inmate right to make profits off of basic facts and trivial public data.
Aerroon 6y ago
>Also, where do you draw the line on what content Google should have to pay to index? What about independent bloggers for example? This policy could potentially open a whole new can of worms. I'm actually curious now about the principle here. Can the same idea be applied to the news websites themselves? If a news organization links to a Twitter thread then can Twitter or the users of Twitter demand payment from the news organization? If not, why not? What if it's a blog instead?
- 8note 6y ago
  For twitter, you've given twitter a free license to reshare your content. If it's a blog on a site you control, you can control that license
- alfiedotwtf 6y ago
  A time of news articles these days is just filler around some tweets. Damn, your comment is a good take, and Twitter should do exactly this
- PoignardAzur 6y ago
  I know you're just poking at the absurdity of this, but the actual answer is "lobbying power".

mrtksn 6y ago

How Google is incentivised to prioritise the best content for users? Google doesn't make anything if you quickly find what you are making for and consume it. Google's optimal position would be if you keep searching for the stuff you are looking for and get distracted by ads and buy something in the process. The second best thing would be if you find the stuff you are looking for directly on Google(Google no longer shows only search results but the content of the results as if it comes from them) and then you proceed to buy something through an ad click. For example, Google wins if you search for "When did Trump leave the White House" and you see a snipped containing "Trump left the WH in the early morning of January 20, 2021 using a helicopter". Now that you have your answer through the content that Google mined for free, they can monetize you but what about the people who put together that information? Why they would be left out of your business? What's fair about that? There was a recent HN discussion about Google mining the database of a small business that specialises on compiling information on the wealth of celebrities. They lost most of their traffic when Google began showing the answer from their database directly instead of showing the link that contains this information. Here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24105465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24105465

new_here 6y ago
If users feel they get the best results from Google then they continue to use Google which drives search and ad impressions. Ads are also clearly labelled so users can decide if they want to ignore sponsored results. I typically click the first result below ads or use an adblocker but that's just me. So this seems like a clear distinction between paid and organic results. I completely agree on the second point. Google's 'Featured Snippets' are a clear overreach where Google uses people's content at no cost and gives nothing in return. This needs to be regulated because nobody is going to opt-out. For example, I've had some featured snippets and they bring a lot of traffic. Much less than a normal first place listing but more than a second place listing. If I opt-out of Featured Snippets in protest then someone else will just happily take that spot. Perhaps the balance lies in just indexing headlines of sites. Then publishers could decide if they want to give up that information in their headlines. It's a tough to know where to draw the line but that seems like it's been the fairest balance so far.
academia_hack 6y ago
The alternative to search snippets is a world where I have to be bombarded with cookie consent popups and advertisement and then scroll through paragraphs of nonsense to get the two word answer to a trivial question. Google adds enormous value in synthesizing this information and presenting it only when it is relevant. I don't know why people think they have an inmate right to make profits off of basic facts and trivial public data.

Aerroon 6y ago

>Also, where do you draw the line on what content Google should have to pay to index? What about independent bloggers for example? This policy could potentially open a whole new can of worms. I'm actually curious now about the principle here. Can the same idea be applied to the news websites themselves? If a news organization links to a Twitter thread then can Twitter or the users of Twitter demand payment from the news organization? If not, why not? What if it's a blog instead?

8note 6y ago
For twitter, you've given twitter a free license to reshare your content. If it's a blog on a site you control, you can control that license
alfiedotwtf 6y ago
A time of news articles these days is just filler around some tweets. Damn, your comment is a good take, and Twitter should do exactly this
PoignardAzur 6y ago
I know you're just poking at the absurdity of this, but the actual answer is "lobbying power".