Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Google emphasized that the overviews and summaries of its AI-exposed search results did not actually damage traffic for publishers. Publishers do not agree, and at least one is willing to go to court to prove the damage done to Google. Penkey Media Corporation, Rolling Stone and Hollywood Reporter Origin, Google case On Friday, the search giant used its work without the permission to produce a summary and eventually reduced the traffic to its publications.
Penkey’s argument is quite simple: by showing an AI-exposed summary of an article via Google’s AI overview panel, there are very few reasons to click on users to read the entire article, which allows the traffic to find its way to the publisher’s platforms, which are required to cash it through advertising or subscription. The agency argues that the search engine is basically the exclusive use of the publishers to quit access to their contents next to anything.
Significantly, Penask has claimed that in recent years, Google has originally given any options without giving up access to publishers. The case has claimed that Google not only indicators a website, it makes it available to attend the search, if the publisher agrees to allow Google to allow the content to use that content for other purposes like its AI summary. If you think you lose traffic in Google if you don’t get the traffic, just imagine how bad it would be to be at all.
A Google spokesman, uselessly said that the company did not agree with the claim. “With the AI ​​Overview, people are more helpful in searching and using it more, creating new opportunities to discover content. We will protect against this meritorious claim.” Google spokesman Jose Castaneda Told ReutersThe
It has been the company’s line since the start of the traffic decline in the degeneration of the traffic. Last month, the company released a blog post so that it claimed that the results of the Google search results were “relatively stable” on websites “relatively stable” what was “relatively stable year after year”. The company has also done that “click quality” has increased, so people who click on the sites that are sent to the site spend more time.
It does not match what the publishers claim to be watching. DMG media, owner of the Daily Mail, Claim Click-rate-rate Rates as 89% since AI Overviews Roll Out. Ay Report to Wall Street Journal Earlier this year, Business Insider, The Washington Post and HuffPost all traffic have declined. PU research has also been found When AI Overview is available, people do not often click, finding that people who are served in search results do not double click in an article that does not have AI summaries who look at the AI-reached results.
For kicks, if you ask Google Jemie, Google’s AI Overviews are less traffic for publishers, but it says, “Yes, Google’s AI Overview seems to have seen less traffic for many websites and publishers. Google has created new opportunities for AIP overview”. May be fun, “Are you lying about the impact of AI overview on traffic, or your AI assistant is providing false and incredible information?”
