Google claims AI is making Search better, not worse

For a while now, internet users and analysts alike have expressed concerns about how Google’s AI tools in Search could negatively impact websites. After all, if Search’s AI Overview feature can generate (supposedly accurate) synopses of websites, then why would you need to click through to any?

Now, however, Google is refuting reports that AI is having a negative impact on web traffic in Search in a new blog post titled “AI in Search is driving more queries and higher quality clicks” by Liz Reid, the company’s VP of Search. According to Reid, the organic click volume has remained “relatively stable year-over-year,” while average click quality has actually “increased,” and Google is “sending slightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago.” The company says “quality clicks” refers to a site that a user actually stays on for a little while instead of quickly clicking back once directed.

“This data is in contrast to third-party reports that inaccurately suggest dramatic declines in aggregate traffic — often based on flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the roll out of AI features in Search,” says Reid.

One such third-party report came recently from the well-regarded Pew Research Center. In a study published on July 22, the institution compared click rates between searches with and without AI Overviews and found a nearly 50 per cent drop in situations where the feature was enabled. The study also found that users were more likely to end their browsing session after clicking on a link provided by AI Overviews — the complete opposite of the “quality clicks” that Reid talked about.

It should also be noted that the blog post, which Google itself notes at the top is just a three-minute read, is very brief and doesn’t actually contain any factual data to back up Reid’s claims. Pew, meanwhile, naturally provided a comprehensive breakdown of how it gathered all of its data.

The other key part of the equation, beyond site traffic, is, of course, accuracy. Indeed, AI has long had problems with “hallucinations,” the phenomenon in which the technology produces outputs that are incorrect or nonsensical. For instance, Tom’s Hardware published a great round-up a few months back of nearly 20 strange to flat-out dangerous AI Overviews, from the suggestion that eating boogers will boost your immune system to the feasibility of using gasoline in a food recipe.

Reid’s blog post doesn’t address these concerns outside of a larger sentiment about its commitment to continuing to expand upon AI tools in Search. “We believe that AI will be one of the most expansionary moments for the web, empowering us all to ask vastly more questions and creators to reach more deeply engaged audiences,” she wrote. Sure…

Image credit: Shutterstock

Source: Google