>We paid gazzilions to write quality content for tourists about the most different places just so Google could put it on their homepage. It's just depressing
It's a legitimate complaint, and it sucks for your business. But I think this demonstrates that the sort of quality content you were producing doesn't actually have much value.
That line of thinking makes no sense. If the "content" had no value, why would google go through the effort of scraping it and presenting it to the user?
>If the "content" had no value, why would google go through the effort of scraping it and presenting it to the user?
They don't present it all, they summarize it.
And let's be serious here, I was being polite because I don't know the OPs business. But 99% of this sort of content is SEO trash and contributes to the wasteland that the internet is becoming. Feel free to point me to the good stuff.
Pedantry aside, let's restate as "present the core thoughts" to the user, which still implies value. I agree that most of google front page results are SEO garbage these days, but that's a separate issue from claiming that are summary of a piece of information removes the original of its value. I'd even argue that it transfers it from one entity to the other in this case.
I would also think that the intrinsic value is different. If there is a hotel on a mountain writing "quality content" about the place, to them it really doesn't matter who "steals" their content, the value is in people going to the hotel on the mountain not in people reading about the hotel on the mountain.
Like to society the value is in the hotel, everything else is just fluff around it that never had any real value to begin with.
> Feel free to point me to the good stuff.
Travel bloggers and vloggers, but that is an entirely different unaffected industry (entertainment/infotainment).
I've no doubt some good ones exist, but my instinct is to ignore every word this industry says because it's paid placement and our world is run by advertisers.
It's not that it has no value, it's that there is no established way (other than ad revenue) to charge users for that content. The fact that google is able to monetize ad revenue at least as well as, and probably better than, almost any other entity on the internet, means that big-G is perfectly positioned to cut out the creator -- until the content goes stale, anyway.
This will be quite interesting in the future. One can usually tell if a blog post is stale, or whether it’s still relevant to the subject it’s presenting. But with LLMs they’ll just aggregate and regurgitate as if it was a timeless fact.
This is already a problem. Content farms have realised that adding "in $current_year" to their headlines helps traffic. It's frustrating when you start reading and realise the content is two years out of date.
The Google summaries (before whatever LLM stuff they're doing now) are 2-3 sentences tops. The content on most of these websites is much, much longer than that for SEO reasons.
It sucks that Google created the problem on both ends, but the content OP is referring to costs way more to produce than it adds value to the world because it has to be padded out to show up in search. Then Google comes along and extracts the actual answer that the page is built around and the user skips both the padding and the site as a whole.
Google is terrible, the attention economy that Google created is terrible. This was all true before LLMs and tools like Perplexity are a reaction to the terrible content world that Google created.
It would be a lot better if Google just prioritised concise websites.
If Google preferred websites that cut the fluff, then website operators would have an incentive to make useful websites, and Google wouldn't have as much of an incentive to provide the answer in a snippet, and everyone wins.
I guess it's hard to rank website quality, so Google just prefers verbose websites.
> Google wouldn't have as much of an incentive to provide the answer in a snippet, and everyone wins.
Google has at least two incentives to provide that answer, both of which wouldn't change. The bad one: they want to keep you on their page too, for usual bullshit attention economy reasons. The good one: users prefer the snippets too.
The user searching for information usually isn't there to marvel at beauty of random websites hiding that information in piles of noise surrounded by ads. They don't care about websites in the first place. They want an answer to the question, so they can get on with whatever it is they're doing. When Google can give them an answer, and this stops them from going from SERP to any website, then that's just few seconds or minutes of life that user doesn't have to waste. Lifespans are finite.
The only reason that users prefer snippets is because websites hide the info you are looking for. The problem is that the top ranked search results are ad-infested SEO crap.
If the top ranked website were actually designed with the user in mind, they would not hide the important info. They would present the most important info at the top, and contain additional details below. They would offer the user exactly what they want immediately, and provide further details that the user can read if they want to.
Think of a well written wikipedia article. The summary is probably all that you need, but it's good that the rest of the article with all the detail is there as well. I'm pretty sure that most people prefer a well designed user-centric article to the stupid Google snippet that may or may not answer the question you asked.
Most people looking for info don't look for just a single answer. Often, the answer leads to the next question, or if the answer is surprising, you might want to check out if the source looks credible, etc. Even ads would be helpful, if they were actually relevant (eg. if I am looking for low profile graphic cards, I'd appreciate an ad for a local retailer that has them in stock).
But the problem is that website operators (and Google) just want to distract you, capture your attention, and get you to click on completely irrelevant bullshit, because that is more profitable than actually helping you.
I think optimising for that just leads to another kind of SEO slop. I mostly use the summaries for answers to questions like "what's the atomic number of aluminium". The sensible way of laying this out on a website is as a table or something like that, which requires another click, load, and manual lookup in the table. The summaries are useful for that, and if the websites want to answer that question directly, it means they want to make a bunch of tiny pages with a question like that and the answer, which is not something I want to browse through normally. (And indeed, I have seen SEO slop in this vein)
It's a legitimate complaint, and it sucks for your business. But I think this demonstrates that the sort of quality content you were producing doesn't actually have much value.