News: 1705515309

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Researchers confirm what we already knew: Google results really are getting worse

(2024/01/17)


Updated No, it's not just you - search engine results really are getting worse as the internet is flooded with low-effort garbage from SEO farms and affiliate link sites, a group of German researchers has concluded.

Der boffinß made their [1]determination after spending a year reviewing results for 7,392 product review queries on Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo, which they said is the first systematic review into the question of worsening search engine result quality.

After pouring over countless links for the past year, the team has concluded everyone complaining about Google's declining quality seems to be correct, and things are probably only going to get worse with the advent of generative AI - [2]just like we predicted .

[3]

"We can conclude that higher-ranked pages are on average more optimized, more monetized with affiliate marketing, and they show signs of lower text quality," the researchers wrote. They also found that while a small portion of product reviews use affiliate marketing, the majority of search engine results do use the tactic, which is only adding to the problem of SERP quality.

[4]

[5]

"All search engines have significant problems with highly optimized (affiliate) content … we further observe an inverse relationship between affiliate marketing use and content complexity," the quartet of academics from Leipzig and Bauhaus universities and the Center for Scalable Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence concluded.

In other words, the more loaded with affiliate links and SEO strategies a page is, the worse it gets. Those pages are everywhere, and so results are generally getting worse.

[6]Google now won't black-hole all AI-made pages as spam

[7]Everyone wants better web search – is Perplexity's AI the answer?

[8]OpenAI reinstates ChatGPT's internet browsing privileges

[9]US Department of Justice claims Google bought its way to web search dominance

Along with that, the researchers determined that all three search engines are prone to being gamed by large-scale affiliate link spam campaigns, and their efforts to subvert such manipulation through algorithm updates have, at best, "a temporary positive effect." Google's targeting of SEO and affiliate spam appears to be the most effective, the team found.

Regardless, "search engines seem to lose the cat-and-mouse game that is SEO spam," the researchers conclude.

Bad results getting worse thanks to generative AI

If you're surprised by these results, you're probably not using the internet much.

Lots of digital ink has been spilled in recent months over Google falling prey to mass spam [10]campaigns , while [11]reports from other outlets have detailed how Google's dominance has shaped the modern internet and left it full of low-quality, spammy content optimized to get it to the top of a SERP - not make it useful for humans.

[12]

Google even [13]claimed in 2022 that it was updating its algorithm to prioritize "people-first content," but as the researchers found, those efforts have been in vain as SEO experts and spam factories have simply figured out how to game the newest tweaks to the system.

Now, with the advent of generative AI able to pump out low-quality copy in an instant, the internet is only on pace to become further flooded by garbage.

The researchers found that spam domains are still rampant on SERPs, and that there's "an overall downwards trend in text quality in all three search engines" while at the same time "the line between benign content and spam [is becoming] increasingly blurry - a situation that will surely worsen in the wake of generative AI."

[14]

"Dynamic adversarial spam in the form of low-quality, mass produced commercial content deserves more attention," the researchers argue. How to combat it isn't necessarily clear, though.

The paper doesn't make any recommendations because static evaluation of the kind done for the paper simply isn't sufficient to develop a counter strategy, the team said.

The paper notes that future efforts will be toward that end, though whether the window is still open to save online search from becoming a total nightmare remains to be seen.

Janek Bevendorff, research assistant at Leipzig University and an author on the paper, told The Register that it's hard to say whether there's an easy way out of the current online search predicament in which we find ourselves.

Bevendorff said that search engines should be more careful in selecting what pages to promote if they come from sites that produce high volumes of content, and that "thin affiliates" filled with repetitive, low-quality content are already [15]flagged as spam by Google.

"Affiliate marketing itself is in part responsible for what online content looks like now," Bevendorff said, but noted that "banning it entirely is probably not a solution," as many authentic sites use the tactic, and SEO optimization, as an important revenue stream.

"In the end, it may remain a cat-and-mouse game," Bevendorff opined.

Google hasn't respond to our questions for this story. ®

Updated to add

"This particular study looked narrowly at product review content, and it doesn’t reflect the overall quality and helpfulness of Search for the billions of queries we see every day," a Google spokesperson told The Register post-publication.

"We’ve launched specific improvements to address these issues – and the study itself points out that Google has improved over the past year and is performing better than other search engines. More broadly, numerous third parties have measured search engine results for other types of queries and found Google to be of significantly higher quality than the rest."

Get our [16]Tech Resources



[1] https://webis.de/publications#bevendorff_2024a

[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/06/internet_ai_gpt_ios/

[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZahcFGW47fMNOW@9pnQihgAAABI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZahcFGW47fMNOW@9pnQihgAAABI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZahcFGW47fMNOW@9pnQihgAAABI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[6] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/09/google_reverses_ai_page_spam/

[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/05/perprexity_ai_search_engine/

[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/28/openai_reinstates_chatgpts_internet_privileges/

[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/13/google_search_antitrust_trial/

[10] https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-search-overwhelmed-by-massive-spam-attack/504527/

[11] https://www.theverge.com/c/23998379/google-search-seo-algorithm-webpage-optimization

[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZahcFGW47fMNOW@9pnQihgAAABI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/19/google_search_algorithm/

[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZahcFGW47fMNOW@9pnQihgAAABI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[15] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#thin-affiliate-pages

[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/



Wot, no comparison between search engines?

Dinanziame

If they study the quality of results of all three engines over a year, I'd have thought they'd at least in passing compare their relative quality

Re: Wot, no comparison between search engines?

Anonymous Coward

They did. It's in the paper linked to in the article.

Re: Wot, no comparison between search engines?

Tom Chiverton 1

I think OP meant this should be in the article

Qwant search engine

Anonymous Coward

I wish they had included [1]Qwant in their study. I've started to use them more over the last year or when DuckDuckGo or Google return poor results and I have been pleasantly surprised. I would have loved to see a more scientific comparison than my occasional use.

[1] https://www.qwant.com/

Re: Qwant search engine

Snake

Thank you for that tip, I'll try to keep them in mind. As I read the article and they mostly stated Google's decaying search results quality, the only thing that came to my mind was DuckDuckGo saying, "Hold my beer". I'm an almost exclusive DDG user and, for many results, the relevance simply sucks and I've been growing tired of it for quite a while now. Glad that I'm not dreaming - I'll try Qwant.

Re: Qwant search engine

Anonymous Coward

You're welcome. I've used [1]this Add On to include Qwant as a Search option into Firefox.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/qwant-the-search-engine/

Re: Qwant search engine

Jou (Mxyzptlk)

Thank you A(without C)!

Re: Qwant search engine

Terry 6

Thanks. Done that.

Binraider

Oh look, Sir Tim Berners-Lee was right.

So who is building the successor to http and www?

RE: who's building the replacement?

Snake

Please make sure that the successor is equivalent to HTTP 'S' by default, thanks much.

So who is building the successor to http and www?

ldo

“We put the WOW in WWW!”

If you’re going to have the same letter three times, at least don’t choose it to be the one with the longest name.

Back in the early days of the mainstream media becoming aware of the Web, I recall the BBC held a survey to choose a pronounceable name for “http”. The two candidates (finalists?) I remember were “hitweb” and “happytap”.

Of course, web browsers soon solved the problem by dropping the need to specify the protocol prefix if it was the common one.

The only real test for AI

Anonymous Coward

is can it filter the crap our of search results.

If the answer is no, then it's most certainly isn't AI.

I suggest all regtards use that as the criteria when their bosses are drooling about "AI"

Re: The only real test for AI

Len

I think the problem is that a lot of the crap in search results is produced by AI (or actually not AI but LLMs).

The Singer not the Song

Lon24

What's more annoying is actually using Google (via Startpage).

Put in search terms. Then scroll past the ads. Which leaves fast decreasing space for actual results. Not interested in the order - but the link domain. If it's an IT problem then we all have a number of sites we trust. OK I'm probably going to page 3 before I have sufficient choice.

Really annoying for us who remember early Google where the top result was nearly always the best answer.

Re: The Singer not the Song

Jou (Mxyzptlk)

Even if you put "wikipedia" in the search term you often have to scroll to get what you expect.

Re: The Singer not the Song

doublelayer

If you want Wikipedia search results, use site:wikipedia.org That will actually limit it to Wikipedia, not just pages that mention Wikipedia.

Re: The Singer not the Song

Jou (Mxyzptlk)

Yep, just like site:microsoft.com for other stuff.

But I shouldn't need to.

Inventor of the Marmite Laser

Don't forget Google's systematic, deliberate, poisoning of search results with ads and "sponsored results" - which are uniformly useless.

The SEO crap is usually easy to see

DS999

So you don't click on it. What I care about is getting some links on the first page or two that are useful for what I'm looking for, and a search engine that obeys restrictions for search terms or date - Google is terrible and getting worse all the time at that latter.

I've used DDG for years, only going to Google in the 5-10% of cases where I couldn't find what I was looking for with DDG. Most of the time I can't find it on Google either. So in my mind they are basically the same as far as search success (but in favor of DDG if I want to quote or exclude a particular term which Google sometimes refuses to do) but Google's revenue motives cause me to stick with DDG. It is painfully obvious which certain terms where Google is trying to steer you, and that's always where it would make the most sense they are getting paid a lot to do so.

Not just lower quality..

Andy 73

.. search results also appear to be from a smaller, more predictable pool of sites.

Google has stopped being a discovery mechanism, a way to find new information related to your query. Instead, it serves up sites that are likely well known. The cause is the same, but the end result is there are fewer reasons to go to Google, and more to ask questions or seek answers on forums and social media.

Re: Not just lower quality..

Jou (Mxyzptlk)

Like Quora appearing way too often, even though they only aggregate...

Doctor Syntax

"This particular study looked narrowly at product review content, and it doesn’t reflect the overall quality and helpfulness of Search for the billions of queries we see every day," a Google spokesperson told The Register post-publication.

Did he really believe that?

Did he even think his collection of words meant anything at all? The only explanation for so many PR utterances is that they don't think that. It makes them easy meat for replacement by LLMs.

Probably teh opposie is true- Googles' comment

Terry 6

Google's response

This particular study looked narrowly at product review content, and it doesn’t reflect the overall quality and helpfulness of Search for the billions of queries we see every day," a Google spokesperson told The Register post-publication.

Probably means the opposite of what they imply.

Simply because review sites are already trying to flog something, or at least helping us to buy stuff ( theoretically).

But searches for stuff we want to find out about, rather than buy, are probably even less likely to appear.

And indeed my impression of Google now is that it's pretty crap when you want to find out about something, rather than just buy one.

I don’t buy this

Rich 2

Well not all of it anyway.

When I tap a search term into Google and it returns complete crap, it’s usually got NOTHING to do with SEO or spam. Firstly, Google seems to completely ignore what I have actually type. If I type in “-amazon” (ie, I don’t want any results that include “Amazon”) then guess what results I get. That’s not SEO manipulation, that’s Google completely ignoring what In type. I searched the other day for some git man page or something - I can’t remember now - and the first result was “Buy git man page at wherever”. That’s not because of some spam, that’s because Google are generating some useless advertising with my term echoed back at me.

And I second a comment made above with bells on regarding Google just returning the same half dozen or so usual suspects. Why does EVERY search have to return results from Amazon, eBay, Wikipedia, Every, Github, Quora, and Reddit? Are these the only web sites out there??

I’m sure SEO and spam are an issue but I’m more sure that most of the problem is that Google (and all the others) is just plain crap.

Rule of Defactualization:
Information deteriorates upward through bureaucracies.