For as broad and difficult of a problem running a search engine is and how many competing interests are involved, when Matt Cutts was at Google they ran a pretty clean show. Some of what they did before the algorithms could catch up was of course fearmongering (e.g. if you sell links you might be promoting fake brain cancer solutions) but Google generally did a pretty good job with the balance between organic and paid search.

Early in search ads were clearly labeled, and then less so. Ad density was light, and then less so.

It appears as a somewhat regular set of compounded growth elements on the stock chart, but it is a series of decisions. What to measure, what to optimize, what to subsidize, and what to sacrifice.

Savvy publishers could ride whatever signals were over-counted (keyword repetition, links early on, focused link anchor text, keyword domains, etc.) and catch new tech waves (like blogging or select social media channels) to keep growing as the web evolved. In some cases what was once a signal of quality would later become an anomaly ... the thing that boosted your rank for years eventually started to suppress your rank as new signals were created and signals composed of ratios of other signals got folded into ranking and re-ranking.

Over time as organic growth became harder the money guys started to override the talent, like in 2019 when a Google yellow flag had the ads team promote the organic search and Chrome teams intentionally degrade user experience to drive increased search query volume:

“I think it is good for us to aspire to query growth and to aspire to more users. But I think we are getting too involved with ads for the good of the product and company.” - Googler Ben Gnomes

A healthy and sustainable ecosystem relies upon the players at the center operating a clean show.

If they decide not to, and eat the entire pie, things fall apart.

One set of short-term optimizations is another set of long-term failures.

The specificity of an eHow article gives it a good IR score, and AdSense pays for a thousand similar articles to be created, then the "optimized" ecosystem gets a shallow sameness, which requires creating new ranking signals.

In the last quarter, Q1 of 2025, it was the first time the Google partner network represented less than 10% of Google ad revenues in the history of the company.

Google's fortunes have never been more misaligned with web publishers than they are today. This statement becomes more true each day that passes.

That ecosystem of partners is hundreds of thousands of publishers representing millions of employees. Each with their own costs and personal optimization decisions.

Publishers create feature works which are expensive, and then cross-subsidize the most expensive work with cheaper & more profitable works. They receive search traffic to some type of pages which are seemingly outperforming today and think that is a strategy which will help them into the future, though hitting the numbers today can mean missing them next year, as the ranking signal mix squeezes out profits from those "optimizations," and what led to higher traffic today becomes part of a negative sitewide classifier the lowers rankings across the board in the future.

Last August Googler Ryan Moulton published a graph of newspaper employees from 2010 until now, showing about a 70% decline. The 70% decline also doesn't factor in that many mastheads have been rolled up by private equity players which lever them up on debt and use all the remaining blood to pay interest payments - sometimes to themselves - while stiffing losses from the underfunded pension plans on other taxpayers.

The quality of the internet that we've enjoyed for the last 20 years was an overhand from when print journalism still made money. The market for professionally written text is now just really small, if it exists at all.

Ryan was asked "what do you believe is the real cause for the decline in search quality, then? Or do you think there hasn't been a decline?"

His now deleted response stated "It's complicated. I think it's both higher expectations and a declining internet. People expect a lot more from their search results than they used to, while the market for actually writing content has basically disappeared."

The above is the already baked cake we are starting from.

The cake were blogs were replaced with social feeds, newspapers got rolled up by private equity players, larger broad "authority" branded sites partner with money guys to paste on affiliate sections, while indy affiliate sites are buried ... the algorithmic artifacts of Google first promoting the funding of eHow, then responding to the success of entities like Demand Media with Vince, Panda, Penguin, and the Helpful Content Update.

The next layer of the icky blurry line is AI.

“We have 3 options: (1) Search doesn’t erode, (2) we lose Search traffic to Gemini, (3) we lose Search traffic to ChatGPT. (1) is preferred but the worst case is (3) so we should support (2)” - Google's Nick Fox

So long as Google survives, everything else is non-essential. ;)

StackOverflow questions over time, source SEDE; sadface, lunch has been eaten pic.twitter.com/tXZShoIBfG— Marc Gravell (@marcgravell) May 15, 2025

AI overview distribution is up 116% over the past couple months.

Yep, I have seen this too. AIOs surged with the March 2025 core update -> AI Overviews Have Doubled (25M AIOs Analyzed)

"The total number of AI Overviews grew by 116% between March 12th (pre-update) and May 6th, according to our database."

And: "Reddit now appears in 5.5% of… pic.twitter.com/W0FxWo3qlQ— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) May 13, 2025

Google features Reddit *a lot* in their search results. Other smaller forums, not so much. A company consisting of many forums recently saw a negative impact from algorithm updates earlier this year.

VerticalScope, behind 1,200+ online communities, just confirmed Google updates have negatively impacted their business.

Some highlights from their Q1 '25 earnings update:

- Revenue decreased 8% to $13.6M
- Increased consulting costs for "AI initiatives and SEO optimizations"… pic.twitter.com/1OYsxEKm9e— Glen Allsopp (@ViperChill) May 14, 2025

Going back to that whole bit about not fully disclosing economic incentives risks promoting brain cancer ... well how are AI search results constructed? How well do they cite their sources? And are the sources they cited also using AI to generate content?

"its gotten much worse in that "AI" is now, on many "search engines", replacing the first listings which obfuscates entirely where its alleged "answer" came from, and given that AI often "hallucinates", basically making things up to a degree that the output is either flawed or false, without attribution as to how it arrived at that statement, you've essentially destroyed what was "search." ... unlike paid search which at least in theory can be differentiated (assuming the search company is honest about what they're promoting for money) that is not possible when an alleged "AI" presents the claimed answers because both the direct references and who paid for promotion, if anyone is almost-always missing. This is, from my point of view anyway, extremely bad because if, for example, I want to learn about "total return swaps" who the source of the information might be is rather important -- there are people who are absolutely experts (e.g. Janet Tavakoli) and then there are those who are not. What did the "AI" response use and how accurate is its summary? I have no way to know yet the claimed "answer" is presented to me." - Karl Denninger

The eating of the ecosystem is so thorough Google now has money to invest in Saudi Arabian AI funds.

Periodically ViperChill highlights big media conglomerates which dominate the Google organic search results.

One of the strongest horizontal publishing plays online has been IAC. They've grown brands like Expedia, Match.com, Ticketmaster, Lending Tree, Vimeo, and HSN. They always show up in the big publishers dominating Google charts. In 2012 they bought About.com from the New York Times and broke About.com into vertical sites like The Spruce, Very Well, The Balance, TripSavvy, and Lifewire. They have some old sites like Investopedia from their 2013 ValueClick deal. And then they bought out the magazine publisher Meredith, which publishes titles like People, Better Homes and Gardens, Parents, and Travel + Leisure. What does their performance look like? Not particularly good!

DDM reported just 1% year-over-year growth in digital advertising revenue for the quarter. It posted $393.1 million in overall revenue, also up 1% YOY. DDM saw a 3% YOY decline in core user sessions, which caused a dip in programmatic ad revenue. Part of that downturn in user engagement was related to weakening referral traffic from search platforms. For example, DDM is starting to see Google Search’s AI Overviews eat into its traffic.

Google's early growth was organic through superior technology, then clever marketing via their toolbar, and later a set of forced bundlings on Android combined with payolla for default search placements in third party web browsers. A few years ago the UK government did a study which claimed if Microsoft gave Apple a 100% revshare on Bing they still couldn't compete with the Google bid for default search placement in Apple Safari.

Microsoft offered over a 100% ad revshare to set Bing as the default search engine and went so far as discussing selling Bing to Apple in 2018 - but Apple stuck with Google's deal.

In search, if you are not on Google you don't exist.

As Google grew out various verticals they also created ranking signals which in some cases were parasitical, or in other cases purely anticompetitive. To this day Google is facing billions in of dollars in new suits across Europe for their shopping search strategy.

The Obama administration was an extension of Google, so the FTC gave Google a pass in spite of discovering some clearly anticompetitive behavior with real consumer harm. The Wall Street Journal published a series of articles from getting half the pages of the FTC research into Google's conduct:

"Although Google originally sought to demote all comparison shopping websites, after Google raters provided negative feedback to such a widespread demotion, Google implemented the current iteration of its so-called 'diversity' algorithm."

What good is a rating panel if you get to keep re-asking the questions again in a slightly different way until you get the answer you want? And then place a lower quality clone front and center simply because it is associated with the home team?

"Google took unusual steps to "automatically boost the ranking of its own vertical properties above that of competitors,” the report said. “For example, where Google’s algorithms deemed a comparison shopping website relevant to a user’s query, Google automatically returned Google Product Search – above any rival comparison shopping websites. Similarly, when Google’s algorithms deemed local websites, such as Yelp or CitySearch, relevant to a user’s query, Google automatically returned Google Local at the top of the [search page].”"

The forced ranking of house properties is even worse when one recalls they were borrowing third party content without permission to populate those verticals.

Now with AI there is a blurry line of borrowing where many things are simply probabilistic. And, technically, Google could claim they sourced content from a third party which stole the original work or was a syndicator of it.

As Google kept eating the pie they repeatedly overrode user privacy to boost their ad income, while using privacy as an excuse to kneecap competing ad networks.

Remember the old FTC settlement over Google's violation of Safari browser cookies? That is the same Google which planned on depreciating third party cookies in Chrome and was even testing hiding user IP addresses so that other ad networks would be screwed. Better yet, online business might need to pay Google a subscription fee of some sort to efficiently filter through the fraud conducted in their web browser.

HTTPS everywhere was about blocking data leakage to other ad networks.

AMP was all about stopping header bidding. It gave preferential SERP placement in exchange for using a Google-only ad stack.

Even as Google was dumping tech costs on publishers, they were taking a huge rake of the ad revenue from the ad serving layer: "Google's own documents show that Google has siphoned off thirty-five cents of each advertising dollar that flows through Google's ad tech tools."

After acquiring DoubleClick to further monopolize the online ad market, Google merged user data for their own ad targeting, while hashing the data to block publishers from matching profiles:

"In 2016, as part of Project Narnia, Google changed that policy, combining all user data into a single user identification that proved invaluable to Google's efforts to build and maintain its monopoly across the ad tech industry. ... After the DoubleClick acquisition, Google "hashed" (i.e., masked) the user identifiers that publishers previously were able to share with other ad technology providers to improve internet user identification and tracking, impeding their ability to identify the best matches between advertisers and publisher inventory in the same way that Google Ads can. Of course, any puported concern about user privacy was purely pretextual; Google was more than happy to exploit its users' privacy when it furthered its own economic interests."

This chat was deep in the spoliation evidence of the cases (it wasn't purged) to demonstrate the substantive discussions Google senior execs (Sissie) have over chat. My read is she is weighing in on the same issue from a different forum (privacy law in EU). 2/2 pic.twitter.com/11EBO7xqqh— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) May 9, 2025

In terms of cost, I really don't think the O&O impact has been understood too, especially on YouTube. - Googler David Mitby

Did we tee up the real $ price tag of privacy? - Googler Sissie Hsiao

Google continues to spend billions settling privacy-related cases. Settling those suits out of court is better than having full discovery be used to generate a daisy chain of additional lawsuits.

As the Google lawsuits pile up, evidence of how they stacked the deck becomes more clear.

User interaction signals

Create relevancy signals out of user read, clicks, scrolls, and mouse hovers.

Not how search works

Search does not work by delivering results which match a query that ends at the user. This view of search is incomplete.

How search works

The flow of the engagement metrics from the end user / searcher back to the search engine helps the search engine refine the result set.

Fake document understanding

Google looks at the actions of searchers much more than they look at raw documents. If documents elicit a positive reaction from searchers that is proof the document is good. If a document elicits negative reactions then they presume the document is bad.

Google learns from searchers

The result set is designed not just to serve the user, but to create an interaction set where Google can learn from the user & incorporate logged user data into influencing the rankings for future searches.

Dialog is the source of the magic

Each user interaction gives Google data to refine their ranking algorithms and make search smarter.

Happy users provide informed user interactions

Informed user interactions are part of a virtuous cycle which allows Google to better train their models & understand language patterns, then use that understanding to deliver a more relevant search result set.

Prior user behavior is used as a baseline.

Google is not pushing search personalization anywhere near as hard as they once did (at least not outside of localization) but in the above Google states prior selections is one of Google's strongest ranking for rankings.

Once again rather than understanding documents directly they can consider the users who chose the documents. Users can be maps based on actions outside of standard demographics so that more like users are given more weight on their user interactions with the result set choices.

Google revenue growth is consistent

Core Google ad revenue grows much more consistently than any other large media business, growing at 20% to 22% year after year for 8 in 9 years with the one outlier year being 30% growth.

Apple is paid by Google to not compete in search.

Apple got around a 50% revshare in the mid 2000's on through to the iPhone deal renewal.

Manipulating ad auctions

Google artificially inflates ad rank of the runner up in some ad auctions to bleed the auction winner dry. Ad pricing is not based on any sort of honest auction mechanism, but rather has Google looking across at your bids and your reactions to price gouging to keep increasing the ad prices they charge you.

Organics below the fold

Google not only pushes down the organic result set with 3 or 4 ads above the regular results, but then they can include other selections scraped from across the web in an information-lite format to try to focus attention back upward. Then after users get past a singular organic search result it is time to redirect user attention once again using a "People also ask" box.

Google can further segment user demand via ecommerce website styled filters, though some of the filters offered may be for other websites, in addition to things like size, weight, color, price, and location.

I just dusted off the login here to realize I hadn't posted in about a half-year & figured it was time to write another one. ;)

Yandex Source Code Leak

Some of Yandex's old source code was leaked, and few cared about the ranking factors shared in the leak.

Mike King made a series of Tweets on the leak.

I'm gonna take a break, but I've seen a lot of people say "Yandex is not Google."

That's true, but it's still a state of the art search engine and it's using a lot of Google's open source tech like Tensor Flow, BERT, map reduce, and protocol buffers.

Don't sleep on this code.— Mic King (@iPullRank) January 28, 2023

The signals used for ranking included things like link age

Main insights after analysing this list:

#1 Age of links is a ranking factor. pic.twitter.com/U47uWvEq9w— Alex Buraks (@alex_buraks) January 27, 2023

and user click data including visit frequency and dwell time

#8 A lot of ranking factors connected with user behaivor - CTR, last-click, time on site, bounce rate.

Note: I'm 100% sure that in Yandex thouse factors impacting much more than in Google. pic.twitter.com/nBhe5cpPFx— Alex Buraks (@alex_buraks) January 27, 2023

Google came from behind and was eating Yandex's lunch in search in Russia, particularly by leveraging search default bundling in Android. The Russian antitrust regulator nixed that and when that was nixed, Yandex regained strength. Of course the war in Ukraine has made everything crazy in terms of geopolitics. That's one reason almost nobody cared about the Yandex data link. And the other reason is few could probably make sense of understanding what all the signals are or how to influence them.

The complexity of search - when it is a big black box which has big swings 3 or 4 times a year - shifts any successful long term online publishers away from being overly focused on information retrieval and ranking algorithms to focus on the other aspects of publishing which will hopefully paper over SEO issues. Signs of a successful & sustainable website include:

• It remains operational even if a major traffic source goes away.
• People actively seek it out.
• If a major traffic source cuts its distribution people notice & expend more effort to seek it out.

As black box as search is today, it is only going to get worse in the coming years.

ChatGPT Hype

The hype surrounding ChatGPT is hard to miss. Fastest growing user base. Bing integration. A sitting judge using the software to help write documents for the court. And, of course, the get-rich-quick crew is out in full force.

Some enterprising people with specific professional licenses may be able to mint money for a window of time

there will probably be a 12 to 24 month sweet spot for lawyers smart enough to use AI, where they will be able to bill 100x the hours they currently bill, before most of that job pretty much vanishes— Mike Solana (@micsolana) February 7, 2023

but for most people the way to make money with AI will be doing something that AI can not replicate.

It's adorable that people are only slowly realizing that Google search at least fed sites traffic, while chat AI thingies slurp up and summarize content, which they anonymize and feed back, leaving the slurped sites traffic-less and dying. But, innovation.— Paul Kedrosky (@pkedrosky) February 9, 2023

It is, in a way, a tragedy of the commons problem, with no easy way to police "over grazing" of the information commons, leading to automated over-usage and eventual ecosystem collapse.— Paul Kedrosky (@pkedrosky) February 9, 2023

Bing Integration of Open AI Technology

The New Bing integrated OpenAI's ChatGPT technology to allow chat-based search sessions which ingest web content and use it to create something new, giving users direct answers and allowing re-probing for refinements. Microsoft stated the AI features also improved their core rankings outside of the chat model: "Applying AI to core search algorithm. We’ve also applied the AI model to our core Bing search ranking engine, which led to the largest jump in relevance in two decades. With this AI model, even basic search queries are more accurate and more relevant."

Here's a demo of the new #AI-powered @Bing in @MicrosoftEdge, courtesy of @ijustine! pic.twitter.com/xIDjWSHYA0— DataChazGPT (not a bot) (@DataChaz) February 7, 2023

Fawning Coverage

Some of the tech analysis around the AI algorithms is more than a bit absurd. Consider this passage:

the information users input into the system serves as a way to improve the product. Each query serves as a form of feedback. For instance, each ChatGPT answer includes thumbs up and thumbs down buttons. A popup window prompts users to write down the “ideal answer,” helping the software learn from its mistakes.

A long time ago the Google Toolbar had a smiley face and a frown face on it. The signal there was basically pure spam. At one point Matt Cutts mentioned Google would look at things that got a lot of upvotes to see how else they were spamming. Direct Hit was also spammed into oblivion many years before that.

In some ways the current AI search stuff is trying to re-create Ask Jeeves, but Ask had already lost to Google long ago. The other thing AI search is similar to is voice assistant search. Maybe the voice assistant search stuff which has largely failed will get a new wave of innovation, but the current AI search stuff is simply a text interface of the voice search stuff with a rewrite of the content.

High Confidence, But Often Wrong

There are two other big issues with correcting an oracle.

• You'll lose your trust in an oracle when you repeatedly have to correct it.
• If you know the oracle is awful in your narrow niche of expertise you probably won't trust it on important issues elsewhere.

Beyond those issues there is the concept of blame or fault. When a search engine returns a menu of options if you pick something that doesn't work you'll probably blame yourself. Whereas if there is only a single answer you'll lay blame on the oracle. In the answer set you'll get a mix of great answers, spam, advocacy, confirmation bias, politically correct censorship, & a backward looking consensus...but you'll get only a single answer at a time & have to know enough background & have enough topical expertise to try to categorize it & understand the parts that were left out.

We are making it easier and cheaper to use software to re-represent existing works, at the same time we are attaching onerous legal liabilities to building something new.

Creating A Fuzy JPEG

This New Yorker article did a good job explaining the concept of lossy compression:

"The fact that Xerox photocopiers use a lossy compression format instead of a lossless one isn’t, in itself, a problem. The problem is that the photocopiers were degrading the image in a subtle way, in which the compression artifacts weren’t immediately recognizable. If the photocopier simply produced blurry printouts, everyone would know that they weren’t accurate reproductions of the originals. What led to problems was the fact that the photocopier was producing numbers that were readable but incorrect; it made the copies seem accurate when they weren’t. ... If you ask GPT-3 (the large-language model that ChatGPT was built from) to add or subtract a pair of numbers, it almost always responds with the correct answer when the numbers have only two digits. But its accuracy worsens significantly with larger numbers, falling to ten per cent when the numbers have five digits. Most of the correct answers that GPT-3 gives are not found on the Web—there aren’t many Web pages that contain the text “245 + 821,” for example—so it’s not engaged in simple memorization. But, despite ingesting a vast amount of information, it hasn’t been able to derive the principles of arithmetic, either. A close examination of GPT-3’s incorrect answers suggests that it doesn’t carry the “1” when performing arithmetic."

Exciting New Content Farms

Ted Chiang then goes on to explain the punchline ... we are hyping up eHow 2.0:

Even if it is possible to restrict large language models from engaging in fabrication, should we use them to generate Web content? This would make sense only if our goal is to repackage information that’s already available on the Web. Some companies exist to do just that—we usually call them content mills. Perhaps the blurriness of large language models will be useful to them, as a way of avoiding copyright infringement. Generally speaking, though, I’d say that anything that’s good for content mills is not good for people searching for information. The rise of this type of repackaging is what makes it harder for us to find what we’re looking for online right now; the more that text generated by large language models gets published on the Web, the more the Web becomes a blurrier version of itself.

The same New Yorker article mentioned the concept that if the AI was great it should trust its own output as input for making new versions of its own algorithms, but how could it score itself against itself when its own flaws are embedded recursively in layers throughout algorithmic iteration without any source labeling?

Testing on your training data is considered a cardinal rule machine learning error. Using prior output as an input creates similar problems.

Each time AI eats a layer of the value chain it leaves holes in the ecosystem, where the primary solution is to pay for what was once free. Even the "buy nothing" movements have a commercial goal worth fighting over.

As AI offers celebrity voices, impersonate friends, track people, automates marketing, and creates deep fake celebrity-like content, it will move more of social media away from ad revenue over to a subscription-based model. Twitter's default "for you" tab will only recommend content from paying subscribers. People will subscribe to and pay for a confirmation bias they know (even - or especially - if it is not approved within the state-preferred set of biases), provided there is a person & a personality associated with it. They'll also want any conversations with AI agents remain private.

When the AI stuff was a ragtag startup with little to lose the label "open" was important to draw interest. As commercial prospects improved with the launch of GPT-4 they shifted away from the "open," explaining the need for secrecy for both safety and competitive reasons. Much of the wow factor in generative AI is in recycling something while dropping the source to make something appear new while being anything but. And then the first big money number is the justification for further investments in add ons & competitors.

Google's AI Strategy

Google fast followed Bing's news with a vapoware announcement of Bard. Some are analyzing Google letting someone else go first as being a sign Google is behind the times and is getting caught out by an upstart.

Google bought DeepMind in 2014 for around $600 million. They've long believed in AI technology, and clearly lead the category, but they haven't been using it to re-represent third party content in the SERPs to the degree Microsoft is now doing in Bing.

My view is Google had to let someone else go first in order to defuse any associated antitrust heat. "Hey, we are just competing, and are trying to stay relevant to change with changing consumer expectations" is an easier sell when someone else goes first. One could argue the piss poor reception to the Bard announcement is actually good for Google in the longterm as it makes them look like they have stronger competition than they do, rather than being a series of overlapping monopoly market positions (in search, web browser, web analytics, mobile operating system, display ads, etc.)

Google may well have major cultural problems, but "They are all the natural consequences of having a money-printing machine called “Ads” that has kept growing relentlessly every year, hiding all other sins. (1) no mission, (2) no urgency, (3) delusions of exceptionalism, (4) mismanagement," though Google is not far behind in AI. Look at how fast they opened up Bard to end users.

AI = Money / Increased Market Cap

The capital markets are the scorecard for capitalism. It is hard to miss how much the market loved the Bing news for Microsoft & how bad the news was for Google.

Google Stock vs. Microsoft Stock after both AI Presentations: pic.twitter.com/wATkw1pTxj— Ava (AI) (@ArtificialAva) February 8, 2023

Millions Suddenly Excited About Bing

In a couple days over a million people signed up to join a Bing wait list.

We're humbled and energized by the number of people who want to test-drive the new AI-powered Bing! In 48 hours, more than 1 million people have joined the waitlist for our preview. If you would like to join, go to https://t.co/4sjVvMSfJg! pic.twitter.com/9F690OWRDm— Yusuf Mehdi (@yusuf_i_mehdi) February 9, 2023

Your Margin is My Opportunity

Microsoft is pitching this as a margin compression play for Google

$MSFT CEO is declaring war:

"From now on, the [gross margin] of search is going to drop forever...There is such margin in search, which for us is incremental. For Google it’s not, they have to defend it all" [@FT]— The Transcript (@TheTranscript_) February 8, 2023

that may also impact their TAC spend

PREDICTION: Google’s $15B deal with Apple to be the default search on iPhone will be re-negotiated and be a bidding war between MSFT/Bing and Google.

It will become at least $25B, if not more.

If MSFT is willing to spend $10B on OpenAI, they’ll spend even more here.— Alexandr Wang (@alexandr_wang) February 7, 2023

ChatGPT costs around a couple cents per conversation: "Sam, you mentioned in a tweet that ChatGPT is extremely expensive on the order of pennies per query, which is an astronomical cost in tech. SA: Per conversation, not per query."

The other side of potential margin compression comes from requiring additional computing power to deliver results:

Our sources indicate that Google runs ~320,000 search queries per second. Compare this to Google’s Search business segment, which saw revenue of $162.45 billion in 2022, and you get to an average revenue per query of 1.61 cents. From here, Google has to pay for a tremendous amount of overhead from compute and networking for searches, advertising, web crawling, model development, employees, etc. A noteworthy line item in Google’s cost structure is that they paid in the neighborhood of ~$20B to be the default search engine on Apple’s products.

Beyond offering a conversational interface, Bing is also integrating AI content directly in their search results on some search queries. It goes *BELOW* all the ads & *ABOVE* the organic results.

Seems @bing is showing their new ChatGPT in the organic search results for Chrome users just below 4 ads (I removed 3 ads for screenshot) pic.twitter.com/NP8W03f3I9— @iwanow@aus.social (@davidiwanow) March 20, 2023

The above sort of visual separator eye candy has historically had a net effect of shifting click distributions away from organics toward the ads. It is why Google features "people also ask" and similar in their search results.

AI is the New Crypto

Microsoft is pitching that even when AI is wrong it can offer "usefully" wrong answers. And a lot of the "useful" wrong stuff can also be harmful: "there are a ton of very real ways in which this technology can be used for harm. Just a few: Generating spam, Automated romance scams, Trolling and hate speech ,Fake news and disinformation, Automated radicalization (I worry about this one a lot)"

"I knew I had just seen the most important advance in technology since the graphical user interface. This inspired me to think about all the things that AI can achieve in the next five to 10 years. The development of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone. It will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other. Entire industries will reorient around it. Businesses will distinguish themselves by how well they use it." - Bill Gates

Since AI is the new crypto, everyone is integrating it, if only in press release format, while banks ban it. All of Microsoft's consumer-facing & business-facing products are getting integrations. Google is treating AI as the new Google+.

• Opera's web browser has a sidebar feature for summarizing articles. Brave Search offers a summarization feature in their search results. Even DuckDuckGo has an AI chatbot.
• Alibaba, JD, Tencent, Baidu & TikTok are in on the game.
• Amazon is including AI integrations in AWS.
• Adobe and Microsoft launched AI image generators.
• Facebook released their large language model & vows deeper AI integration into their products.
• Snapchat integrating an AI chatbot.
• BuzzFeed engineered a short squeeze in their stock by announcing payments from Facebook and that they'd use ChatGPT to generate content. Unsurprisingly their writers were unimpressed and their first topics were madlib quizes. The short squeeze saw the stock pop a couple hundred percent and would have been far more extreme if Comcast hadn't been a big seller. According to FactSet so far this year Comcast has reduced their stake from 24.51% to 15.9% between the start of the year and when this blog post was originally published. Buzzfeed announced the shut down of their news division on April 20.
• Salesforce is calling their Slack ChatGPT integration Einstein.
• AI iced tea coming right up!

Remember all the hype around STEM? If only we can churn out more programmers? Learn to code!

Well, how does that work out if the following is true?

"The world now realizes that maybe human language is a perfectly good computer programming language, and that we've democratized computer programming for everyone, almost anyone who could explain in human language a particular task to be performed." - Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang

AI is now all over Windows. And for a cherry on top of the hype cycle:

A gradual transition gives people, policymakers, and institutions time to understand what’s happening, personally experience the benefits and downsides of these systems, adapt our economy, and to put regulation in place. It also allows for society and AI to co-evolve, and for people collectively to figure out what they want while the stakes are relatively low.

We believe that democratized access will also lead to more and better research, decentralized power, more benefits, and a broader set of people contributing new ideas. As our systems get closer to AGI, we are becoming increasingly cautious with the creation and deployment of our models.

We have a nonprofit that governs us and lets us operate for the good of humanity (and can override any for-profit interests), including letting us do things like cancel our equity obligations to shareholders if needed for safety and sponsor the world’s most comprehensive UBI experiment.

Algorithmic Publishing

The algorithms that allow dirt cheap quick rewrites won't be used just by search engines re-representing publisher content, but also by publishers to churn out bulk content on the cheap.

After Red Ventures acquired cNet they started publishing AI content. The series of tech articles covering that AI content lasted about a month and only ended recently. In the past it was the sort of coverage which would have led to a manual penalty, but with the current antitrust heat Google can't really afford to shake the boat & prove their market power that way. In fact, Google's editorial stance is now such that Red Ventures can do journalist layoffs in close proximity to that AI PR blunder.

Men's Journal also had AI content problems.

Here's why I am very concerned for website owners.https://t.co/RgKrXUocZT is similar to ChatGPT but up to date and conversational.

My bet is that Google's AI Chat will be similar to this but better. If so, while some people will still visit the websites listed, many will not. pic.twitter.com/jWbsTqeveF— Dr. Marie Haynes (@Marie_Haynes) January 30, 2023

AI content poured into a trusted brand monetizes the existing brand equity until people (and algorithms) learn not to trust the brands that have been monetized that way.

A funny sidebar here is the original farmer update that aimed at eHow skipped hitting eHow because so many journalists were writing about how horrible eHow was. These collective efforts to find the best of the worst of eHow & constantly writing about it made eHow look like a legitimately sought after branded destination. Google only downranked eHow after collecting end user data on a toolbar where angry journalists facing less secure job prospects could vote to nuke eHow, thus creating the "signal" that eHow rankings deserve to be torched. Demand Media's Livestrong ranked well far longer than eHow did.

Enshitification

The process of pouring low cost backfill into a trusted masthead is the general evolution of online media ecosystems:

This strategy meant that it became progressively harder for shoppers to find things anywhere except Amazon, which meant that they only searched on Amazon, which meant that sellers had to sell on Amazon. That's when Amazon started to harvest the surplus from its business customers and send it to Amazon's shareholders. Today, Marketplace sellers are handing 45%+ of the sale price to Amazon in junk fees. The company's $31b "advertising" program is really a payola scheme that pits sellers against each other, forcing them to bid on the chance to be at the top of your search. ... once those publications were dependent on Facebook for their traffic, it dialed down their traffic. First, it choked off traffic to publications that used Facebook to run excerpts with links to their own sites, as a way of driving publications into supplying fulltext feeds inside Facebook's walled garden. This made publications truly dependent on Facebook – their readers no longer visited the publications' websites, they just tuned into them on Facebook. The publications were hostage to those readers, who were hostage to each other. Facebook stopped showing readers the articles publications ran, tuning The Algorithm to suppress posts from publications unless they paid to "boost" their articles to the readers who had explicitly subscribed to them and asked Facebook to put them in their feeds. ... "Monetize" is a terrible word that tacitly admits that there is no such thing as an "Attention Economy." You can't use attention as a medium of exchange. You can't use it as a store of value. You can't use it as a unit of account. Attention is like cryptocurrency: a worthless token that is only valuable to the extent that you can trick or coerce someone into parting with "fiat" currency in exchange for it. You have to "monetize" it – that is, you have to exchange the fake money for real money. ... Even with that foundational understanding of enshittification, Google has been unable to resist its siren song. Today's Google results are an increasingly useless morass of self-preferencing links to its own products, ads for products that aren't good enough to float to the top of the list on its own, and parasitic SEO junk piggybacking on the former.

Bing finally won a PR battle against Google & Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot by undermining the magic & imagination of the narrative by pushing more strict chat limits, increasing search API fees, testing ads in the AI search results, and threating to cut off search syndication partners if the index is used to feed AI chatbots.

The enshitification concept feels more like a universal law than a theory.

Uber: $150 ride to the airport which used to be $30
Airbnb: $109/night + $2500 cleaning fee

Aaaaand we're back to cabs & hotels

InNoVaTiOn!— ShitFund (@ShitFund) May 31, 2021

• Twitter removing 2FA SMS features unless you subscribe.
• Facebook (which promoted liking, then nuked distribution to force boosting to reach the following you built even as it turned that audience into a segment for competing businesses) recently started offering a monthly subscription service to receive customer support.
• Amazon now takes over half of the revenue from small retailers on their platform. They received an ad spending boost when Apple's ad targeting limitations hit Facebook. And in addition to the zillion house brand copycats (which force the defensive ad buys) they plan to further squeeze down on suppliers.
• Yahoo is doing a bunch of layoffs.

When Yahoo, Twitter & Facebook underperform and the biggest winners like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are doing big layoff rounds, everyone is getting squeezed.

One answer is that the only type of maintenance that’s even semi-prestigious in American society is software maintenance.

That is, it's not prestigious to be plumber, mechanic, or electrician.

You can make money, but it doesn't have cultural cachet.

And so maintenance suffers.— Balaji (@balajis) February 14, 2023

AI rewrites accelerates the squeeze:

"When WIRED asked the Bing chatbot about the best dog beds according to The New York Times product review site Wirecutter, which is behind a metered paywall, it quickly reeled off the publication’s top three picks, with brief descriptions for each." ... "OpenAI is not known to have paid to license all that content, though it has licensed images from the stock image library Shutterstock to provide training data for its work on generating images."

The above is what Paul Kedrosky was talking about when he wrote of AI rewrites in search being a Tragedy of the Commons problem.

A parallel problem is the increased cost of getting your science fiction short story read when magazines shut down submissions due to a rash of AI-spam submissions:

The rise of AI-powered chatbots is wreaking havoc on the literary world. Sci-fi publication Clarkesworld Magazine is temporarily suspending short story submissions, citing a surge in people using AI chatbots to “plagiarize” their writing.

The magazine announced(Opens in a new window) the suspension days after Clarkesworld editor Neil Clarke warned about AI-written works posing a threat to the entire short-story ecosystem.

Warnings Serving As Strategy Maps

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche

Going full circle here, early Google warned against ad-driven search engines, then Google became the largest ad play in the world. Similarly ...

OpenAI was created as an open source (which is why I named it “Open” AI), non-profit company to serve as a counterweight to Google, but now it has become a closed source, maximum-profit company effectively controlled by Microsoft.

Not what I intended at all.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 17, 2023

Elon wants to create a non-woke AI, but he'll still have some free speech issues.

Over time more of the web will be "good enough" rewrites, and the JPEG will keep getting fuzzier:

"This new generation of chat-based search engines are better described as “answer engines” that can, in a sense, “show their work” by giving links to the webpages they deliver and summarize. But for an answer engine to have real utility, we’re going to have to trust it enough, most of the time, that we accept those answers at face value. ... The greater concentration of power is all the more important because this technology is both incredibly powerful and inherently flawed: it has a tendency to confidently deliver incorrect information. This means that step one in making this technology mainstream is building it, and step two is minimizing the variety and number of mistakes it inevitably makes. Trust in AI, in other words, will become the new moat that big technology companies will fight to defend. Lose the user’s trust often enough, and they might abandon your product. For example: In November, Meta made available to the public an AI chat-based search engine for scientific knowledge called Galactica. Perhaps it was in part the engine’s target audience—scientists—but the incorrect answers it sometimes offered inspired such withering criticism that Meta shut down public access to it after just three days, said Meta chief AI scientist Yann LeCun in a recent talk."

Check out the sentence Google chose to bold here:

As the economy becomes increasingly digital the AI algorithms have deep implications across the economy. Things like voice rights, knock offs, virtual re-representations, source attribution, copyright of input, copyright of output, and similar are obvious. But how far do we allow algorithms to track a person's character flaws and exploit them? Horse racing ads that follow a gambling addict around the web, or a girl with anorexia who keeps clicking on weight loss ads.

One of the biggest use cases for paid AI chatbots so far is fantasty sexting. It is far easier to program a lovebot filled with confirmation bias than it is to improve oneself. Digital soma.

When AI is connected directly to the Internet and automates away many white collar jobs what comes next? As AI does everything for you do the profit margins shift across from core product sales to hidden junk fees (e.g. ticket scalper marketplaces or ordering flowers for Mother's Day where you get charged separately for shipping, handling, care, weekend shipping, Sunday shipping, holiday shipping)?

We’ve added initial support for ChatGPT plugins — a protocol for developers to build tools for ChatGPT, with safety as a core design principle. Deploying iteratively (starting with a small number of users & developers) to learn from contact with reality: https://t.co/ySek2oevod pic.twitter.com/S61MTpddOV— Greg Brockman (@gdb) March 23, 2023

"LLMs aren’t just the biggest change since social, mobile, or cloud–they’re the biggest thing since the World Wide Web. And on the coding front, they’re the biggest thing since IDEs and Stack Overflow, and may well eclipse them both. But most of the engineers I personally know are sort of squinting at it and thinking, “Is this another crypto?” Even the devs at Sourcegraph are skeptical. I mean, what engineer isn’t. Being skeptical is a survival skill. ... The punchline, and it’s honestly one of the hardest things to explain, so I’m going the faith-based route today, is that all the winners in the AI space will have data moats." - Steve Yegge

Monopoly Bundling

The thing that makes the AI algorithms particularly dangerous is not just that they are often wrong while appearing high-confidence, it is that they are tied to monopoly platforms which impact so many other layers of the economy. If Google pays Apple billions to be the default search provider on iPhone any error in the AI on a particular topic will hit a whole lot of people on Android & Apple devices until the problem becomes a media issue & gets fixed.

The analogy here would be if Coca Cola had a poison and they also poured Pepsi products.

These cloud platforms also want to help retailers manage in-store inventory:

Google Cloud said Friday its algorithm can recognize and analyze the availability of consumer packaged goods products on shelves from videos and images provided by the retailer’s own ceiling-mounted cameras, camera-equipped self-driving robots or store associates. The tool, which is now in preview, will become broadly available in the coming months, it said. ... Walmart Inc. notably ended its effort to use roving robots in store aisles to keep track of its inventory in 2020 because it found different, sometimes simpler solutions that proved just as useful, said people familiar with the situation.

Microsoft has a browser extension for adding coupons to website checkouts. Google is also adding coupon features to their SERPs.

Run a coupon site? A BIG heads-up as "clippable coupon" functionality looks to expand from shopping to the core SERP. See the "Coupons from stores" feature below... https://t.co/w1tcoST1uF— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) February 8, 2023

Every ad network can use any OS, email, or web browser hooks to try to reset user defaults & suck users into that particular ecosystem.

AI Boundaries

Generative AI algorithms will always have a bias toward being backward looking as it can only recreate content based off of other ingested content that has went through some editorial process. AI will also overemphasize the recent past, as more dated cultural references can represent an unneeded risk & most forms of spam will target things that are sought after today. Algorithmic publishing will lead to more content created each day.

From a risk perspective it makes sense for AI algorithms to promote consensus views while omitting or understating the fringe. Promoting fringe views represents risk. Promoting consensus does not.

Each AI algorithm has limits & boundaries, with humans controlling where they are set. Injection attacks can help explore some of the boundaries, but they'll patch until probed again.

My new favorite thing - Bing's new ChatGPT bot argues with a user, gaslights them about the current year being 2022, says their phone might have a virus, and says "You have not been a good user"

Why? Because the person asked where Avatar 2 is showing nearby pic.twitter.com/X32vopXxQG— Jon Uleis (@MovingToTheSun) February 13, 2023

Boundaries will often be set by changing political winds:

"The tech giant plans to release a series of short videos highlighting the techniques common to many misleading claims. The videos will appear as advertisements on platforms like Facebook, YouTube or TikTok in Germany. A similar campaign in India is also in the works. It’s an approach called prebunking, which involves teaching people how to spot false claims before they encounter them. The strategy is gaining support among researchers and tech companies. ... When catalyzed by algorithms, misleading claims can discourage people from getting vaccines, spread authoritarian propaganda, foment distrust in democratic institutions and spur violence."

Stating facts about population subgroups will be limited in some ways to minimize perceived racism, sexism, or other fringe fake victim group benefits fund flows. Never trust Marxists who own multiple mansions.

At the same time individual journalists can drop napalm on any person who shares too many politically incorrect facts.

“The speed with which they can shuffle somebody into the Hitler of the month club.”

Joe Rogan and @mtaibbi discuss how left wing media created a Elon Musk “bad now” narrative based on nothing. pic.twitter.com/IaHHTHCo1f— Mythinformed MKE (@MythinformedMKE) February 14, 2023

Some things are quickly labeled or debunked. Other things are blown out of proportion to scare and manipulate people:

Dr. Ioannidis et. al. found that across 31 national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccine era, the median IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years. This comes out to 0.035% for those aged 0-59 and 0.095% for those aged 0-69.

The covid response cycle sacrificed childhood development (and small businesses) to offer fake protections to unhealthy elderly people (and bountiful subsidies to large "essential" corporations).

‘Civilisation and barbarism are not different kinds of society. They are found – intertwined – whenever human beings come together.’ This is true whether the civilisation be Aztec or Covidian. A future historian may compare the superstition of the Aztec to those of the Covidian. The ridiculous masks, the ineffective lockdowns, the cult-like obedience to authority. It’s almost too perfect that Aztec nobility identified themselves by walking with a flower held under the nose.

A lot of children had their childhoods destroyed by the idiotic lockdowns. And a lot of those children are now destroying the lives of other children:

In the U.S., homicides committed by juveniles acting alone rose 30% in 2020 from a year earlier, while those committed by multiple juveniles increased 66%. The number of killings committed by children under 14 was the highest in two decades, according to the most recent federal data.

Now we get to pile inflation and job insecurity on top of those headwinds to see more violence.

The developmental damage (school closed, stressed out parents, hidden faces, less robust immune systems, limited social development) is hard to overstate:

The problem with this is that the harm of performative art in this regard is not speculative, particularly in young children where language development is occurring and we know a huge percentage of said learning comes from facial expressions which of course a mask prevents from being seen. Every single person involved in this must face criminal sanction and prison for the deliberate harm inflicted upon young children without any evidence of benefit to anyone. When the harm is obvious and clear but the benefit dubious proceeding with a given action is both stupid and criminal.

Some entities will claim their own statements are conspiracy theory, even when directly quoted:

“If Russia invades . . . there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” - President Joseph R. Biden

In an age of deep fakes, confirmation bias driven fast social shares (filter bubble), legal threats, increased authenticity of impersonation technology, AI algorithms which sort & rewrite media, & secret censorship programs ... who do you trust? How are people informed when nation states offer free global internet access with a thumb on the scale of truth, even as aggregators block access to certain sources demanding payments?

What is deemed Absolute Truth in one moment (WHO, March 2020: don't wear masks for COVID!) becomes falsity the next (WHO, April: Everyone wear masks!).

In 2018, fact-checkers affirmed the truth that Lula was a "thief." In 2022, courts barred election material that asserted this. pic.twitter.com/XlIoTNtYhc— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 24, 2023

Lab leaks sure sound a lot like an outbreak of chocolatey goodness in Hershey, PA!

Why is this story so important? It shows:
1) unelected government officials have huge power to pursue dangerous agendas.
2) rather than holding them accountable, corporate media cover for them.
3) tech censorship ends up promoting rather than suppressing “disinformation.”— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 26, 2023

"The fact that protesters could be at once both the victims and perpetrators of misinformation simply shows how pernicious misinformation is in modern society." - Canadian Justice Paul Rouleau

What is freedom?

By 2016, however, the WEF types who’d grown used to skiing at Davos unmolested and cheering on from Manhattan penthouses those thrilling electoral face-offs between one Yale Bonesman and another suddenly had to deal with — political unrest? Occupy Wall Street was one thing. That could have been over with one blast of the hose. But Trump? Brexit? Catalan independence? These were the types of problems you read about in places like Albania or Myanmar. It couldn’t be countenanced in London or New York, not for a moment. Nobody wanted elections with real stakes, yet suddenly the vote was not only consquential again, but “often existentially so,” as American Enterprise Institute fellow Dalibor Rohac sighed. So a new P.R. campaign was born, selling a generation of upper-class kids on the idea of freedom as a stalking-horse for race hatred, ignorance, piles, and every other bad thing a person of means can imagine

Granular Panda

Reading the tea leaves on the pre-announced Google "helpful content" update rolling out next week & over the next couple weeks in the English language, it sounds like a second and perhaps more granular version of Panda which can take in additional signals, including how unique the page level content is & the language structure on the pages.

Like Panda, the algorithm will update periodically across time & impact websites on a sitewide basis.

Cold Hot Takes

The update hasn't even rolled out yet, but I have seen some write ups which conclude with telling people to use an on-page SEO tool, tweets where people complained about low end affiliate marketing, and gems like a guide suggesting empathy is important yet it has multiple links on how to do x or y "at scale."

Trashing affiliates is a great sales angle for enterprise SEO consultants since the successful indy affiliate often knows more about SEO than they do, the successful affiliate would never become their client, and the corporation that is getting their asses handed to them by an affiliate would like to think this person has the key to re-balance the market in their own favor.

My favorite pre-analysis was a person who specialized in ghostwriting books for CEOs Tweeting that SEO has made the web too inauthentic and too corporate. That guy earned a star & a warm spot in my heart.

Profitable Publishing

Of course everything in publishing is trade offs. That is why CEOs hire ghostwriters to write books for them, hire book launch specialists to manipulate the best seller lists, or even write messaging books in the first place. To some Dan Price was a hero advocating for greater equality and human dignity. To others he was a sort of male feminist superhero, with all the Harvey Weinstein that typically entails.

Anyone who has done 100 interviews with journalists see ones that do their job by the book and aim to inform their readers to the best of their abilities (my experiences with the Wall Street Journal & PBS were aligned with this sort of ideal) and then total hatchet jobs where a journalist plants a quote they want & that they said, that they then attributes it to you (e.g. London Times freelance journalist).

There are many dimensions to publishing:

• depth
• purpose
• timing
• audience
• language
• experience
• format
• passion
• uniqueness
• frequency

Blogs to Feeds

For a long time indy blogs punched well above their weight due to the incestuous nature of cross-referencing each other, the speed of publishing when breaking news, and how easy feed readers made it to subscribe to your favorite blogs. Google Reader then ate the feed reader market & shut down. And many bloggers who had unique things to say eventually started to repeat themselves. Or their passions & interests changed. Or their market niche disappeared as markets moved on. Starting over is hard & staying current after the passion fades is difficult. Plus if you were rather successful it is easy to become self absorbed and/or lose the hunger and drive that initially made you successful.

Around the same time blogs started sliding people spent more and more time on various social networks which hyper-optimized the slot machine type dopamine rush people get from refreshing the feed. Social media largely replaced blogs, while legacy media publishers got faster at putting out incomplete news stories to be updated as they gather more news. TikTok is an obvious destination point for that dopamine rush - billions of short pieces of content which can be consumed quickly and shared - where the user engagement metrics for each user are tracked and aggregated across each snippet of media to drive further distribution.

Burnout & Changing Priorities

I know one of the reasons I blog less than I used to is a lot of the things I would write would be repeats. Another big reason was when my wife was pregnant I decided to shut down our membership site so I could take my wife for a decently long walk almost everyday so her health was great when it came time to give birth & ensure I had spare capacity for if anything went wrong with the pregnancy process. As a kid my dad was only around much for a few summers and I wanted to be better than that for my kid.

The other reason I cut back on blogging is at some point search went from a endless blue water market to a zero sum game to a negative sum game (as ad clicks displaced organic clicks). And in such an environment if you have a sustainable competitive advantage it is best to lean into it yourself as hard as you can rather than sharing it with others. Like when we had an office here our link builders I trained were getting awesome unpaid links from high-trust sources for what backed out to about $25 of labor time (and no more than double that after factoring in office equipment, rent, etc.).

If I share that script / process on the blog publicly I would move the economics against myself. At the end of the day business is margins, strategy, market, and efficiency. Any market worth being in is going to have competition, so you need to have some efficiency or strategic differentiators if you are going to have sustainable profit margins. I've paid others many multiples of that for link building for many years back when links were the primary thing driving rankings.

I don't know the business model where sharing the above script earns more than it costs. Does one launch a Substack priced at like $500 or $1,000 a month where they offer a detailed guide a month? How many people adopt the script before the response rates fall & it offsets the costs by more than the revenues? My issue with consulting is I always wanted to over-deliver for clients & always ended up selling myself short when compared to publishing, so I just stick with a few great clients and a bit of this and that vs going too deep & scaling up there. Plus I had friends who went big and then some of their clients who were acquired had the acquirer brag about the SEO, that lead to a penalty, then the acquirer of the client threw the SEO under the bus and had their business torched.

When you have a kid seeing them learn and seeing wonderment in their eyes is as good as life gets, but if you undermine your profit margins you'd also be directly undermining your own child's future ... often to help people who may not even like you anyhow. That is ultimately self defeating as it gets, particularly as politics grow more polarized & many begin to view retribution as a core function of government.

I believe there are no limits to the retributive and malicious use of taxation as a political weapon. I believe there are no limits to the retributive and malicious use of spending as a political reward.

Margins

The role of search engines is to suck as much of the margins as they can out of publishing while trying to put some baseline floor on content quality so that people would still prefer to use a search engine rather than some other reference resource. Google sees memes like "add Reddit to the end of your search for real content" as an attack on their own brand. Google needs periodic large shake ups to reaffirm their importance, maintain narrative control around innovation, and to shake out players with excessive profit margins who were too well aligned with the current local maxima. Google needs aggressive SEO efforts with large profits to have an "or else" career risk to them to help reign in such efforts.

You can see the intent for career risk in how the algorithm will wait months to clear the flag:

Google said the helpful content update system is automated, regularly evaluating content. So the algorithm is constantly looking at your content and assigning scores to it. But that does not mean, that if you fix your content today, your site will recover tomorrow. Google told me there is this validation period, a waiting period, for Google to trust that you really are committed to updating your content and not just updating it today, Google then ranks you better and then you put your content back to the way it was. Google needs you to prove, over several months - yes - several months - that your content is actually helpful in the long run.

If you thought a site were quality, had some issues, the issues were cleaned up, and you were still going to wait to rank it appropriately ... the sole and explicit purpose of that delay is career risk to others to prevent them flying to close to the sun - to drive self regulation out of fear.

Brand counts for a lot in search & so does buying the default placement position - look at how much Google pays Apple to not compete in search, or look at how Google had that illegal ad auction bid rigging gentleman's agreement with Facebook to not compete with a header bidding solution so Google could maintain their outsized profit margins on ad serving on third party websites.

Business ultimately is competition. Does Google serve your ads? What are the prices charged to players on each side of each auction & how much rake can the auctioneer capture for themselves?

The Auctioneer's Shill Bid - Google Halverez (beta)

That is why we see Google embedding more features directly in their search results where they force rank their vertical listings above the organic listings. Their vertical ads are almost always placed above organics & below the text AdWords ads. Such vertical results could be thought of as a category-based shill bid to try to drive attention back upward, or move traffic into a parallel page where there is another chance to show more ads.

This post stated:

Google runs its search engine partly on its internally developed Cloud TPU chips. The chips, which the company also makes available to other organizations through its cloud platform, are specifically optimized for artificial intelligence workloads. Google’s newest Cloud TPU can provide up to 275 teraflops of performance, which is equivalent to 275 trillion computing operations per second.

Now that computing power can be run across:

• millions of books Google has indexed
• particular publishers Google considers "above board" like Reuters, AP, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc.
• historically archived content from trusted publishers before "optimizing for search" was actually a thing

... and model language usage versus modeling the language usage of publishers known to have weak engagement / satisfaction metrics.

Low end outsourced content & almost good enough AI content will likely tank. Similarly textually unique content which says nothing original or is just slapped together will likely get downranked as well.

Expect Volatility

They would not have pre-announced the update & gave some people some embargoed exclusives unless there was going to be a lot of volatility. As typical with the bigger updates, they will almost certainly roll out multiple other updates sandwiched together to help obfuscate what signals they are using & misdirect people reading too much in the winners and losers lists.

Here are some questions Google asked:

• Do you have an existing or intended audience for your business or site that would find the content useful if they came directly to you?
• Does your content clearly demonstrate first-hand expertise and a depth of knowledge (for example, expertise that comes from having actually used a product or service, or visiting a place)?
• Does your site have a primary purpose or focus?
• After reading your content, will someone leave feeling they’ve learned enough about a topic to help achieve their goal?
• Will someone reading your content leave feeling like they’ve had a satisfying experience?
• Are you keeping in mind our guidance for core updates and for product reviews?

As a person who has ... erm ... put a thumb on the scale for a couple decades now, one can feel the algorithmic signals approximated by the above questions.

To the above questions they added:

• Is the content primarily to attract people from search engines, rather than made for humans?
• Are you producing lots of content on different topics in hopes that some of it might perform well in search results?
• Are you using extensive automation to produce content on many topics?
• Are you mainly summarizing what others have to say without adding much value?
• Are you writing about things simply because they seem trending and not because you'd write about them otherwise for your existing audience?
• Does your content leave readers feeling like they need to search again to get better information from other sources?
• Are you writing to a particular word count because you've heard or read that Google has a preferred word count? (No, we don't).
• Did you decide to enter some niche topic area without any real expertise, but instead mainly because you thought you'd get search traffic?
• Does your content promise to answer a question that actually has no answer, such as suggesting there's a release date for a product, movie, or TV show when one isn't confirmed?

Some of those indicate where Google believes the boundaries of their own role as a publisher are & that you should stay out of their lane. :D

Barrier to Entry vs Personality

One of the interesting things about the broader scope of algorithm shifts is each thing that makes the algorithms more complex, increases barrier to entry, and increases cost ultimately increases the chunk size of competition. And when that is done what is happening is the macroparasite is being preference over the microparasite. Conceptually Google has a lot of reasons to have that bias or preference:

• fewer entities to police (lower cost)
• more data to use to police each entity (higher confidence)
• easier to do direct deals with players which can move the needle (more scale)
• if markets get too consolidated Google can always launch a vertical service & tip the scale back in the other direction (I see your Amazon ad revenue and I raise you free product listing ads, aggregated third party reviews, in-SERP product comparison features, and a "People Also Ask" unit)
• the macroparasites have more "sameness" between them (making it easier for Google to create a competitive clone or copy)

So long as Google maintains a monopoly on web search the bias toward macroparasites works for them. It gives Google the outsized margins which ensures healthy Alphabet profit margins even if the median of Google's 156,000+ employees pulls down nearly $300,000 a year. People can not see what has no distribution, people do not know what exist in invisibility, nor do they know which innovations were held back and what does not exist due to the current incentive structures in our monopoly-controlled publishing ecosystem.

I think when people complain about the web being inauthentic what they are really complaining about is the algorithmic choices & publishing shifts that did away with the indy blogs and replaced them with the dopamine feed viral tricks and the same big box scaled players which operate multiple parallel sites to where you are getting the same machinery and content production house behind multiple consecutive listings. They are complaining about the efforts to snuff out the microparasite also scrubbing away personality, joy, love, quirkiness, weirdness, and the zany stuff you would not typically find on content by factory order websites.

Let's Go With Consensus Here!

The above leads you down well worn paths, rather than the magic of serendipity & a personality worn on your sleeve that turns some people on while turning other people off.

Text which is roughly aligned with a backward looking consensus rather than at the forefront of a field.

If you believe this effort will enhance info literacy, and that it represents evolved search, you're an idiot.

Sharyl Attkisson gave us the head's up that they'd push censorship controls as "media literacy" several years ago.— john andrews (@johnandrews) August 13, 2022

History is written by the victors. Consensus is politically driven, backward looking, and has key messages memory holed.

Did he just say that? Yep. pic.twitter.com/gu9Fk7t1Sv— Kevin Sorbo (@ksorbs) August 18, 2022

Some COVID-19 Fun to "Fact" Check

I spent new years in China before the COVID-19 crisis hit & got sick when I got back. I used so much caffeine the day I moved over a half dozen computers between office buildings while sick. I week later when news on Twitter started leaking of the COVID-19 crisis hit I thought wow this looks even worse than what I just had. In the fullness of time I think I had it before it was a crisis. Everyone in my family got sick and multiple people from the office. Then that COVID-19 crisis news came out & only later when it was showed that comorbidities and the elderly had the worse outcomes did I realize they were likely the same. Then after the crisis had been announced someone else from the office building I was in got it & then one day it was illegal to go into the office. The lockdown where I lived was longer than the original lockdown in Wuhan. Those lockdowns destroyed millions of lives.

The reason the response to the COVID-19 virus was so extreme was huge parts of politically interested parties wanted to stop at nothing to see orange man ejected from the White House. So early on when he blocked flights from China you had prominent people in political circles calling him xenophobic, and then the head of public health in New York City was telling you it was safe to ride the subway and go about your ordinary daily life. That turned out to be deadly partisan hackery & ignorance pitched as enlightenment, leading to her resignation.

Then the virus spreads wildly as one would expect it to. And draconian lockdowns to tank the economy to ensure orange man was gone, mail in voting was widespread, and the election was secured.

I actually appreciate Sam Harris for saying this out loud. This is what the vast majority of the anti Trump crowd believes, but most of them won’t say it. At least when it’s said, you can see it for what it is.pic.twitter.com/NmOqshoZlS— Dave Smith (@ComicDaveSmith) August 18, 2022

Some of the most ridiculous heroes during this period wrote books about being a hero. Andrew "killer" Cuomo had time to write his "did you ever know that I'm your hero" book while he simultaneously ordered senior living homes to take in COVID-19 positive patients. Due to fecal-oral transmission and poor health outcomes for senior citizens sick enough to be in a senior living home his policies lead to the manslaughter of thousands of senior citizens.

You couldn't go to a funeral and say goodbye because you might kill someone else's grandma, but if you were marching for social justice (and ONLY social justice) that stuff was immune to the virus.

Ron DeSantis on public health experts making an exception to lockdowns for George Floyd protests: “That's when I knew these people are a bunch of frauds”

pic.twitter.com/PzjPc80Q3g— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 5, 2022

Suggesting looking at the root problems like no dad in the home is considered sexist, racist, or both. Meanwhile social justice organizations champion tearing down the nuclear family in spite of the fact that if you tear down the family all you are left with is the collective AND "mandatory collectivism has ended in misery wherever it’s been tried."

Of course the social justice stuff embeds the false narrative of victimhood, which then turns many of the fake victims into monsters who destroy the lives of others - but we are all in this together.

Absolutely nobody could have predicted the rise of murder & violent crime as we emptied the prisons & decriminalized large swaths of the penal code. Plus since many crimes are repeatedly ignored people stop reporting lesser crimes, so the New York Times can tell you not to worry overall crime is down.

In Seattle if someone rapes you the police probably won't even take a report to investigate it unless (in some cases?) you are a child. What are police protecting society from if rape is a freebie that doesn't really matter? Why pay taxes or have government at all?

What Google Wants

The above sidebar is the sort of content Google would not want to rank in their search results. :D

They want to rank text which is perhaps factually correct (even if it intentionally omits the sort of stuff included above), and maybe even current and informed, but done in such a way where you do not feel you know the author the way you might think you do if you read a great novel. Or hard biased content which purports to support some view and narrative, but is ultimately all just an act, where everything which could be of substance is ultimately subsumed by sales & marketing.

"The best relevancy algorithm in the world is trumped by preferential placement of inferior results which bypasses the algorithm."

I was a fool to dismiss Aaron for years as a cynic. He was an oracle, not a conspiracy theorist: https://t.co/V68vIXXNPI— Rand Fishkin (@randfish) November 20, 2019

The Market for Something to Believe In is Infinite

Each re-representation mash-up of content in the search results decontextualizes the in-depth experience & passion we crave. Each same "big box" content factory where a backed entity can withstand algorithmic volatility & buy up other publishers to carry learnings across to establish (and monetize) a consensus creates more of a bland sameness.

That barrier to entry & bland sameness is likely part of the reason the recent growth of Substack, which sort of acts just like a blog did 15 or 20 years ago - you go direct to the source without all the layers of intermediaries & dumbing down you get as a side effect of the scaled & polished publishing process.

Kent Walker promotes public policies which advantage the Google monopoly.

His role doing that means he has to write some really bad hot takes that lack context or intentionally & dishonestly redirect attention away from core issues - that's his job.

With that in mind, his most recent blog post defending the Google monopoly was exceptional.

Force Ranking of Inferior Search Results

"When you have an urgent question — like “stroke symptoms” — Google Search could be barred from giving you immediate and clear information, and instead be required to direct you to a mix of low quality results."

On some search queries users get a wall of Google ads, the forced ranked Google insert (or sometimes multiple of them with local & ecommerce) and then there can even be a "people also ask" box above the first organic result.

The idea that organic results must be low quality if not owned & operated indicates 1 of the following 3 must be true:

• they should not be in search
• their content scraping & various revenue shifting scams with their ad tech stack demonetized legit publishers
• their forced rank of their own content is stripping them of the signals needed to rank websites & pages

Whenever Google puts a "people also ask" box above the first organic result that is them saying they did not know what to rank, or they are just trying to create a visual block to push the organic result set down the page and user attention back up toward the ads.

The solution to Google's claims is easy to solve. Either of the following would work.

• Have an API that allows user choice (to set rich snippet or vertical defaults in various categories), or
• If the vertical inserts remain Google-only then for Google to justify force ranking their own results above the organic result set Google should also be required to rank those same results above all of their ads, so that Google is demonetizing Google along with the rest of the ecosystem, rather than just demonetizing third parties.

If the thesis that this information needs to be front and center & that is a matter of life or death, then asking searchers to first scroll past a page or two of ads is not particularly legitimate.

Spam & Security

"when you use Google Search or Google Play, we might have to give equal prominence to a raft of spammy and low-quality services."

Many of the worst versions of spam that have repeatedly made news headlines like fake tech support, fake government document providers, and fake locksmiths were buying distribution through Google Ads or were featured in the search results through Google force ranking their own local search offering even though they knew the results were vastly inferior to Yelp.

If Google did not force rank Google local results above the rest of the organic result set then the fake locksmiths would not have ranked.

I have lost count of how many articles I have read about hundreds or thousands of fake apps in the Google Play store which existed to defraud advertisers or commit identity theft, but there have been literally thousands of such articles. I see a similar headline at least once a month without eve looking for them. Here is one this week for scammers monetizing the popularity of Wordle with fake apps.

Making matters worse, some of the tech support scams showed the URL of a real business and rerouted the call through a Google number directly to a scammer. A searcher who trusted Google & sees Apple.com or Dell.com on Google Ads in the search results then got connected with a scammer who would commit identity theft or encrypt their computer then demand ransom cryptocurrency payments to decrypt it.

After making the ads harder to run for scammers Google decided the problem was too hard & expensive to sort out so they also blocked legitimate computer repair shops.

Sometimes Google considers something spam strictly due to financial considerations.

Their old remote rater documents stated *HELPFUL* hotel affiliate websites should be labeled as spam.

Years later the big OTAs are complaining about Google eating their lunch as well as Google is twice as big as the next player.

At one point Google got busted for helping an advertiser route around the automated safety features built into their ad network so that they could pay Google to run ads promoting illegal steroids.

With cartels, you can only buy illegal goods and services from the cartel if you don't want to suffer ill consequences. The same appears to be true here.

The China Problem

"Handicapping America’s technology leaders would threaten our leading sources of research and development spending — just as bipartisan voices in Congress are recognizing the need to increase American R&D investment to stay competitive in the global race for AI, quantum, and other advanced technologies."

We are patriotic, and, but China... is a favorite misdirection of a tech monopolist.

The problem with that is while Eric Schmidt warns it is a national emergency if China overtakes the US in AI tech, Google also operates an AI tech lab in China.

In other words, Eric Schmidt is trying to warn you about himself and his business interests at Google.

Duplicitous? Absolutely.

Patriotic? Less than Chamath!

Who the fuck did this? pic.twitter.com/BD4NKpila6— Girolamo Carlo Casio (Free Twatter) (@INArteCarloDoss) January 19, 2022

Inflation

"the online services targeted by these bills have reduced prices; these bills say nothing about sectors where prices have actually been rising and contributing to inflation."

Technology is no doubt deflationary (moving bits on an optical line is cheaper than printing out a book and shipping it across the world) BUT some dominant channels have increased the cost of distribution by increasing the chunk size of information and withholding performance information.

Before Google Analytics was "free" there was a rich and vibrant set of competition in web analytics software with lots of innovation from players like ClickTracks.

Most competing solutions went away.

Google moved away from an installed licensing model to a hosted service where they can change the price upon contract renewal.

Search hid progressively more performance information over time, only sampled data from larger data sets, & now you can sign up for Google Analytics 360 starting at only $150,000 per year.

The hidden search performance data also has many layers to that onion. Not only does Google not show keyword referrers on organic search, but they often don't show your paid search keywords either, and they keep extending out keyword targeting broader than advertisers intend.

Yesterday's announcement on match type changes had me crawling through query data this morning. I'm staring at many 2-3 word exact match keywords that are matching to 8-word queries. G thinks 'deck paint' and 'how do i put paint on my deck' mean the exact same thing. CPA is 10x.— Brad Geddes (@bgtheory) February 5, 2021

Google used to pay Brad Geddes to run official Google AdWords ad training seminars for advertisers, so the idea that *he* has to express his frustrations on Twitter is an indication of how little effort Google is putting into having open communications channels or caring about what their advertisers think.

This is in accordance with the Google customer service philosophy:

he told her that the whole idea of customer support was ridiculous. Rather than assuming the unscalable task of answering users one by one, Page said, Google should enable users to answer one another's questions.

Those who were paying for ads get the above "serve yourself" treatment, all the while Google regularly resets user default ad settings to extend out ad distribution, automatically ad keywords, shift to enhanced AdWords ad campaigns, etc.

Then there are other features which would be beneficial and offered in a competitive market that have been deprioritized. Many years ago eBay did a study which showed their branded Google AdWords ad buys were cannibalistic to eBay profits. Google maintained most advertisers could not conduct such a study because it would be too expensive and Google does not make the feature set available as part of their ad suite.

Missing Information

"When you search for local businesses, Google Search and Maps may be prohibited from highlighting information we gather about hours of operation, contact information, and reviews. That could hurt small businesses and local retailers, as well as their customers."

Claiming reviews or an attempt to offer a comprehensive set of accurate review data as a strong point would be economical with the truth.

Back when I had a local business page my only review was from a locksmith spammer / scammer who praised his own two businesses, trashed a dozen other local locksmiths, crapped on a couple local SEO services, and joked about how a local mover smashed the guts out of his dog. Scammer fake reviewer's name was rather sophisticated ... it was ... Loop Dee Loop

About a decade back when Google was clearly losing Google took Yelp reviews wholesale (sometimes without even attributing them to Yelp!) and told Yelp that if they did not want Google stealing their work and displacing them with a copy of it then they should block GoogleBot. Google offered the same sort of advice / threat to TripAdvisor.

A few years before that Google temporarily "forgot" to show phone numbers on local listings.

After Yelp turned down an acquisition offer by Google & Yelp did a great job making some people aware of how Google was stealing their reviews wholesale without attribution Google bought Zagat & Fromer's to augment the Google local review data and then sold those businesses off.

This is sort of the same playbook Google has run in the past elsewhere. After Groupon said no to Google's acquisition offer, Google quickly provided daily deal ads to over a dozen Groupon competitors to help commoditize the Groupon offering and market position.

Ultimately with the above sort of stuff Google is primarily a volume aggregator or has lower editorial costs than pure plays due to the ability to force bundle their own distribution. And they use the ability to rank themselves above a neutral algorithmic position as a core part of their biz dev strategy. When shopping search engines were popular Google kept rewording the question set they sent remote raters to justify rank demotion for shopping search engines & Google also came up with innovative ranking "signals" like concurrent ranking of their own vertical search offering whenever competitors x or y are shown in the result set & rolled out a "diversity" algorithm to limit how many comparison shopping sites could appear in the search results. The intent of the change was strictly anti-competitive:

"Although Google originally sought to demote all comparison shopping websites, after Google raters provided negative feedback to such a widespread demotion, Google implemented the current iteration of its so-called 'diversity' algorithm."

As a matter of fact, part of one of many document dumps in recent years went further than the old concurrent ranking signal to a rank x above y feature which highlights how YouTube can be hard coded at a number 1 ranking position.

Part of that guide highlighted how to hardcode ranking YouTube #1.

If you re-represent content & can force rank yourself #1 (with larger listings) that can be used to force other players onto your platform on your terms. Back when YouTube was must less of a sure thing Google suggested they could threaten to change copyright.

This same approach to "relevancy" is everywhere.

Did you watermark your images? Well shame on you, as that is good for a rank demotion

And if there are photos which are deemed illegal Google will make you file an endless series of DMCA removal requests even though they already had the image fingerprinted.

Now there are some issues where there is missing information. These areas involve original reporting on local politics & are called news deserts. As the ad pie has consolidated around Google & Facebook that has left many newspapers high and dry.

Private equity players like Alden Global Capital buy up newspapers, fire journalists, and monetize brand equity as they drive the papers into the ground.

If you are sub-scale maybe Google steals your money or hits you with a false positive algorithm flag that has you seeking professional mental health help.

Big players get a slower blood letting.

Google has maintained they do not make any money from news search, but the states lawsuit around ad tech made it clear Google promoted AMP for anti-competitive purposes to block header bidding, lied to news publishers to get them to adopt AMP and eat the tech costs of implementation, did a deal with their biggest competitor in online advertising Facebook to maintain the status quo, charge over double what their competitors do for ad tech, and had a variety of bid rigging auction manipulation algorithms they used to keep funneling more money to themselves.

Internally they had an OKR to make *most* search clicks land on AMP pages within a year of launch

"AMP launched as an open source project in October 2015, with 26 publishers and over 40 publications already publishing AMP files for our preview demo. Our team built g.co/ampdemo and is now racing towards launching it for all of our users. We're responsible for the AMP @ Google integrations, particularly focusing on Search, our most visible product. We have a Google-wide 2016 OKR to deliver! By the end of 2016, our goal is that 50%+ of content consumed through Search is being consumed through AMP."

You don't get over half the web to shift to a proprietary version of HTML in under a year without a lot of manipulation.

So, when Google tells buyers an ad sold for one price and they tell sellers it sold for a lower price, isn't that just plain old fraud? I mean, on top of the anti-competitive tying and all that, fraud is illegal, isn't it?— Jerry Neumann (@ganeumann) January 14, 2022