Traffic to my blog plummeted this year and you can never be entirely sure how it happened. But here are two culprits i identified.
1. Ai overview: my page impressions were high, my ranking was high, but click through took a dive. People read the generated text and move along without ever clicking.
2. You are now a spammer. Around August, traffic took a second plunge. In my logs, I noticed these weird queries in my search page. Basically people were searching for crypto and scammy websites on my blog. Odd, but not like they were finding anything. Turns out, their search query was displayed as an h1 on the page and crawled by google. I was basically displaying spam.
I don't have much control over ai overview because disabling it means I don't appear in search at all. But for the spam, I could do something. I added a robot noindex on the search page. A week later, both impressions and clicks recovered.
I think the question is “how are the behavior of random spammers on your search page getting picked up by the crawler”? The assumption with cache is that searches of one user were being cached so that the crawler saw them. Other alternatives I can imagine are that your search page is powered by google, so it gets the search terms and indexes the results, or that you show popular queries somewhere. But you have to admit that the crawler seeing user generated search terms points to some deeper issue.
If I'm reading correctly, it's not that your search results would be crawled, it's that if you created a link to www.theirwebsite.com/search/?q=yourspamlinkhere.com or otherwise submitted that link to google for crawling, then the google crawler makes the same search and sees the spam link prominently displayed.
Not enough. According to this article (https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/pludselig-dukkede-nyhed-op-d... you probably need to translate) its enough to link to an authorative site that accepts a query parameter. Googles AI picks up the query parameter as a fact. The artile is about a danish compay probably circumventing sanctions and how russian actors manipulate that fact and turn it around via Google AI
I posted some details in the main thread but I think you might need to check the change in methodology of counting impressions and clicks Google did around September this year.
They say the data before and after is not comparable anymore as they are not counting certain events below a threshold anymore.
You might need to have your own analytics to understand your traffic from now own.
This affected only reporting of placement and impressions; basically you don’t get counts for placements below the first 10 or 20 results (can’t remember which). It did not affect clicks which are measured directly regardless of how deep in the SERP they happen.
They are spamming other websites with links to my website like in your example. Google crawl those other websites, follow the spammy link to mine, and I get penalized for having a page with spam content.
The solution is to tell the crawler that my search page shouldn't be indexed. This can be done with the robots meta tags.
AI overviews likely aren't going anywhere. Techies complain about it, but from seeing average people use google - everyone just reads the overview. Hell I even saw a screenshot of an AI overview in a powerpoint this week...
Anyway, I'd really like to at least see google make the overview text itself clickable, and link to the source of the given sentence or paragraph. I think that a lot of people would instinctively click-through just to quickly spot check if it was made as easy as possible.
Citations got worse with AI overviews or AI mode, right, over the past couple months?
IIRC-
Used to take you to cited links, now launches a sidebar of supposed sources but which are un-numbered / disconnected from any specific claims from the bot.
So the spammer would link to my search page with their query param:
example.com/search?q=text+scam.com+text
On my website, I'll display "text scam.com text - search result" now google will see that link in my h1 tag and page title and say i am probably promoting scams.
Also, the reason this appeared suddenly is because I added support for unicode in search. Before that, the page would fail if you added unicode. So the moment i fixed it, I allowed spammers to have their links displayed on my page.
Interesting - surely you'd have to trick Google into visiting the /search? url in order to get it indexed? I wonder if them listing all these URLs somewhere are requesting that page be crawled is enough.
Since these are very low quality results surely one of Google's 10000 engineers can tweak this away.
> surely you'd have to trick Google into visiting the /search? url in order to get it indexed
That's trivially easy. Imagine a spammer creating some random page which links to your website with that made up query parameter. Once Google indexes their page and sees the link to your page, Google's search console complains to you as the victim that this page doesn't exist. You as in the victim have no insight into where Google even found that non-existent path.
> Since these are very low quality results surely one of Google's 10000 engineers can tweak this away.
You're assuming there's still people at Google who are tasked with improving actual search results and not just the AI overview at the top. I have my doubts Google still has such people.
I messed around with our website trying url encoded hyperlinks etc but it was all escaped pretty well. I bet there's a lot of tricks out there for those with time on their hands.
Why anyone would bother creating content when Google AI summary is effectively going to steal it to intercept your click is beyond me. So the whole issue will solve it's self when google has nothing to index except endless regurgitated slop and everyone finally logs off and goes outside.
i imagine the search page echoed the search query. Then, a SEO bot automated search(s) on the site with crypto and spam keywords, which is echo'ed in the search results - said bot may have a site/page full of links to these search results to create fake pages for those keywords for SEO purposes (essentially, an exploit).
Google got smart and found out such exploits, and penalized sites that do this.
> my page impressions were high, my ranking was high, but click through took a dive. People read the generated text and move along without ever clicking.
This been our experience with out content-driven marketing pages in 2025. SERP results constant, but clicks down 90%.
This not good for our marketing efforts, and terrible for ad-supported public websites, but I also don't understand how Google is not terribly impacted by the zero-click Internet. If content clicks are down 90%, aren't ad clicks down by a similar number?
Yes, to me it looks like they are now primarily selling placement in search results (or just space on their various properties).
I never really understood the rationale behind click-based prices; someone following a link doesn't necessarily make them buy, and the ad got displayed regardless. But it's probably because Google was a bit coy about ads in the start to protect its reputation, so they didn't look too much like ads. Now they have so much traffic on relevant terms that they can sell the top spots at an expensive price.
I know this will sound a bit cynical, but I've stopped putting too much care into my employer's product. I'll deliver work and perform my best, but I'm not killing myself over it.
I've built viable products where I poured my soul into it just for it to be tossed aside [0]. I've optimized processes that went from 12 hours job to 17 minutes, I was fired shortly after [1]. I even wrote on HN to get advice when I felt I cared more about my work and colleagues [2]. Instead, my boss was promoted and I was scrutinized.
So when I work with a boss that doesn't care and is mostly performative, unless we are building a product that makes the world a better place, I don't put too much heart into it. I make sure they pay me for my time, and I look for a better job.
>I even wrote on HN to get advice when I felt I cared more about my work and colleagues [2]. Instead, my boss was promoted and I was scrutinized.
In a lot of cases, "caring too much" is itself seen as a problem because the boss explicitly just wants you to implement the thing that benefits him. He doesn't really want to hear that its not going to work well and there are better alternatives.
If you really don't care you might voice a quiet objection and then just implement the garbage your boss asked for. If you do care "too much," then you might just be a thorn in your boss' side. Remember, he ultimately doesn't care if the product works. He cares if he can claim success. You're not helping him claim success, so you're a problem.
> If you really don't care you might voice a quiet objection and then just implement the garbage your boss asked for.
This works in theory, but the problem is that some jobs are complex and require thinking. These jobs will attract people who do not like to be a slaves. They want to enjoy their work, do something good and feel good while doing it. The slave like job mentality you mention has severe limitations on what it can achieve.
> In a lot of cases, "caring too much" is itself seen as a problem because the boss explicitly just wants you to implement the thing that benefits him. He doesn't really want to hear that its not going to work well and there are better alternatives.
I've been the manager on the other side of a lot of situations that could be described like this. In many cases, it was hard to explain to the person that there were dozens and dozens of inputs that go into my decision making, including a lot of invisible factors and relationships that I was juggling.
It's hard to communicate to someone who sees a very thin slice of the company and wants to disagree and do something different to appeal to their perspective. A lot of the time I knew very clearly that we weren't picking the "best" alternative, but after hearing everyone out and weighing the tradeoffs a decision was made.
> Remember, he ultimately doesn't care if the product works. He cares if he can claim success. You're not helping him claim success, so you're a problem.
HN comments are wildly cynical. People who consume a lot of this cynicism think they're getting a leg up on the workplace by seeing the world for how it really is, but in my experience becoming the uber-cynic who believes all bosses are intentionally destroying the product with bad decisions to claim success (how does that even work?) is the kind of thinking that leads people into self-sabotaging hatred of all bosses. You need to watch out for yourself, but adopting this level of cynicism doesn't lead to good outcomes. Treat it case by case and be open to the idea that you might not have all the information.
>I've been the manager on the other side of a lot of situations that could be described like this. In many cases, it was hard to explain to the person that there were dozens and dozens of inputs that go into my decision making, including a lot of invisible factors and relationships that I was juggling.
I think this is also a really important counterpoint -- sometimes the person who "cares too much" is simply wrong, and is causing problems that should be avoidable. In other words, without more details it's hard to know if it's the manager or the direct report who is really the problem here.
> It's hard to communicate to someone who sees a very thin slice of the company and wants to disagree and do something different to appeal to their perspective. A lot of the time I knew very clearly that we weren't picking the "best" alternative, but after hearing everyone out and weighing the tradeoffs a decision was made.
You're saying it's hard to communicate that, but you've just done it really well. If you were to tell me a bit about those trade offs so I can also consider them the next time, I'd be a perfectly happy camper even if my idea isn't being picked up.
I'll answer for him -- even if he does a great job communicating it, not everyone does a great job receiving it. It's just like honesty: it really takes two and if someone is intransigent enough even the best of us cannot penetrate.
I agree with you, but lately, given the state of my industry and my personal situation I've started to fear that my company is just going to burn if we don't succeed and I need to do as much as possible to prevent that as finding a similar role is going to be pretty damn hard, I also don't have the leverage I used to have a few years ago to just change jobs. All of that has lead me to break my back and confront my boss which is extremely uncomfortable and pushing me closer to burnout. Unsure what my point is other than I wish I had the space to not care
> but I've stopped putting too much care into my employer's product. I'll deliver work and perform my best
How did we get to the point where "deliver work and perform my best" is equivalent to not caring?
Delivering work with reasonably good effort and quality is the baseline expectation. If your version of not caring too much is "perform my best" then I think this is a problem of miscalibrated expectations of the workplace.
The majority of people in the world go into their jobs, try to get their work done with reasonable quality, and go home.
Let's face it. Working for other people sucks. They set the agenda. They make the decisions. Often those decisions and agendas will not be what you think is best. It maybe the case that you are correct. Go start your own thing and run it how you see fit.
Now if you want to see what a really "caring boss" is like watch this video of former employees of Musk. The real interesting thing is some of them seem to like the humiliation, lack of boundaries and over work. Similar to what groups of soldiers feel after serving in a war together and returning with PTSD. Hope the money was worth it. Personally I would avoid it but to each his own.
I worked and even had a business with and/or worked for three people that I've known for a long time. And had loud substantial disagreements with - before going into business. Worked like a charm every single time. The personal side I mean, business was neutral once, a complete failure but I only wanted the paycheck anyway once, and a resounding success in a traditional business where I handle only IT right now.
In the first venture I found out I hated selling and business. Sure, I can do it, but I really really don't want to. I am a minimalist, and I might have become a poor monk in a monastery a thousand years ago. I don't want to sell anyone anything. So in the next two businesses I left all the business stuff to others, and it is sooo much better.
And now that I'm in a non-IT traditional business I'm a servant 100%. And it is nice. My main focus is non IT stuff, and I use computers to achieve that. Finding differences in thousands of EDI messages for invoices, order confirmations and deliveries, for example. HOW - who cares? I am not developing a product. If it's a one-off I may just run some command line tools. Or, shocking!, I actually use Excel. Or I ask ChatGPT for a little helper Python script to run over the raw data files.
Doing servant work without business responsibilities is really nice :) My boss may have the bigger house and car, so what? He also has exponentially more stress (I have pretty much zero). In my youth I may have had a different opinion, but now I don't want his stress level for any amount of compensation. And no, future early retirement by making lots of money now does not change the equation. I don't want to retire at all anyway, keep doing business stuff on the side at least. Without the stress it's no problem! One of my direct colleagues is way past retirement age...
It's true there is no silver bullet. I did contract work after 2000 dot bomb. I enjoyed working for myself.
The thing I liked most is that when my clients would ask me to do things - I would often propose things more reliable and less time to implement solutions. They would then opt for the less optimal thing sometimes for good reasons. If I was an exempt employee that would have meant me spending my personal time on the extra work to meet deadlines. The contractor me would bill them for the hours:)
> I know this will sound a bit cynical, but I've stopped putting too much care into my employer's product. I'll deliver work and perform my best, but I'm not killing myself over it.
To say (yes, with some moderation because it’s hyperbole) that you won’t kill yourself of your boss making a buck needs to be preempted with a “watch out, cynical-sounding opinion” incoming.
Oh wait. I forgot what this website is behind all the quirky/nerdy/hacker submissions.
I'm all for keeping kids away from social media. My main concern is how we verify that they are under 16 [0].
> showing my ID [in person] was a simple, controlled transaction: one person looked at it for three seconds, handed it back, and forgot about it. The information never left that moment. But online, that same verification process transforms into something far more risky. A digital journey through countless servers, databases, and third-party services, each one a potential point of failure.
> What appears to be the same simple request "please verify your identity", becomes fundamentally different when mediated by technology. The question isn't whether these digital systems will be compromised, but when. And unlike that movie theater clerk who can't perfectly recall my birthdate minutes after seeing it, computers have perfect memory. They store, copy, backup, and transmit our most sensitive information through networks we don't control, to companies we've never heard of, under policies we'll never read.
AI reminds me of the time Google+ was being shoved down our throats. If you randomly clicked on more that 7 hyperlinks on the internet, you'd magically sign up for google plus.
Around that time, one of my employer's website had added google plus share buttons to all the links on the homepage. It wasn't a blog, but imagine a blog homepage with previews of the last 30 articles. Now each article had a google plus tag on it. I was called to help because the load time for the page had grown from seconds to a few minutes. For each article, they were adding a new script tag and a google plus dynamic tag.
It was fixed, but so much resources were wasted for something that eventually disappeared. Ai will probably not disappear, but I'm tired of the busy work around it.
All that time and effort that went into forcing Google+ everywhere and its legacy is just lots of people accidentally ending up with 2 YouTube accounts from when they were messing with that
The difference was that Google Plus was actually kind of cool. I'm not excusing them shoving it down your throat, but at least it was well designed.
Most of the AI efforts currently represent misadventures in software design at a time when my Fitbit charge can't even play nice with my pixel 7 phone. How does that even happen?
I remember believing Google+ will win because it was quite nicely done. But I guess it never caught on with the masses to be successful in Google's definition of success (Adsense?).
PS: I was thinking that I didn't notice it being shoved down because I was high on the Koolaid. But I do remember when they shoved it in YouTube comments.
Google+ lost because when they launched, they didn't let everyone join. That means that people joined and couldn't bring their friends over, so they bounced off of it. By the time they opened it up to everyone it had a bad reputation of being "dead". And then of being obnoxious when Google refused to allow it natural growth.
I think they intended to be like Facebook and have a selective group of people join, but they just allowed any random set of people to join and then said tou can bring 5 or some low number with you. That was never going to work for the rapid growth they wanted.
I liked Google+, but it Google really mismanaged it.
The other issue is that the dumbass at Google behind it isolated the Google+ team in their own building with their own cafeteria expecting it to be a really big deal, forgetting and abandoning the rest of the company he needed for that to happen. I figured it was dead at the Friday TGIF where they announced the annual bonus for most googlers wouldn't be relative to the success of google+ in any way.
I remember many years ago thinking, "if they can have a add a SIM card on a phone, why not add one in your car? Imagine an Internet connected car?"
What I didn't think about was this would be an opportunity for ads and subscriptions. And everyday you'll own less and less of your car. I'm shopping for a car right now, I may have to just put a fresh coat of paint on my old one.
Not just the ads. They are likely tracking your location, and drive events. These can be sold to your insurance company who may adjust your rates, or even drop you if they consider your driving patterns to be risky. When we got our Ford Maverick, first thing I did was disable this. Kudos to Ford for making this easy.
Downside is that we got a recall notice about the software for the backup camera needing an update. I scheduled an appointment, and it took over 3 hours. Asked the service guy why it was taking so long to flash to software, and he said our system needed an update because we had not enabled over-the-air connection with Ford which allows this to be done in the background. Evidently the download speed for this was incredibly slow according to the SG, so it took over two hours before our Mav was current, and they could apply the backup camera fix. Note: I was very suspicious about this claim. I thought it was more likely we were being purposely held captive in the service waiting area -- which has a big screen constantly running Ford ads. I guess that is OK. I had my Kindle, and was into a great book at the time, so I actually was not too put out.
I highly doubt the overworked service center employees were wasting your time, they probably were just as annoyed as you were that your car was sitting in a service bay longer than expected.
Do you really think that a dealership would tie up a service bay to keep you captive?
Service is where dealers make their money. You’re convinced that manufacturers will sell data to insurance companies yet believe that dealers will sacrifice hours of profit. That doesn’t work out.
We were not in the service bay. Our Maverick was outside. The Service Guy said they had to download the update to their servers. From there it was a quick trip to the service bay for the updates. That is the reason I had asked in the first place. I could see the Mav outside. Not blaming the SG. I am sure it as not the Dealership, but someone at Ford Corporate??? Not so sure.
Also: I made sure we were the first appointment, arriving at 7:45am for my 8am reservation. Soon another guy was behind me. One thing I have learned it to always schedule "the first time in the AM" if you do not need immediate service.
Edit: In retrospect, they had turned on the OTA system in the Mav. So maybe when the SG said it was downloading, I thought "to a server" but maybe it was directly to the Mav. As I noted, was not a big issue. Still not using the OTA features.
The dealer is paid per job for warrentee work so they still want you out quick.
even for non warrantee service they are generally paid based on how long the job is expected to take not how long it takes them. The only reason to not hurryitoo much is they warrantee their own work and so if you bring it back that costs them.
Of course I do? Across all my utilitarian devices, e.g. phone, desktop, laptop, I already find updates to be a large net negative except for the vague and nebulus 'security'. If a car 'needs' updates then it isn't doing its job.
I can't imagine the expletives that'll come out of my mouth the day I'm running late for a meeting and my car won't start because its in the middle of an update.
I consider OTA updates to be of negative value, actually. If my car needs fixing, I'll bring it in for servicing. If it's not broken, I don't want my car tampered with.
Come back to me when there's a punitive liability model for OTA updates. If the garage manages to break something during, that's on the garage, not me. It should be the same for OTA updates: the company pushing the update should be liable for any failure and for providing replacement transportation if they manage to break my car with an update.
Hence why folks should be pushing right to repair and similar legislation through to prevent this before it happens. Technical hacks are tactical solutions, good policy implementation is the strategic, long term solution.
Now the question is, what time is it in voyager 1? With time dilation, the "now" on Voyager is out of sync with our now. I was watching star wars recently and when Han Solo casually say "we should be in Alderaan at 0200 hours", I paused for a second. What does that even mean [0]? Traveling through space is challenging today, but after we figure that out, we will have to face the problem of time keeping across the galaxy.
> With time dilation, the "now" on Voyager is out of sync with our now
A couple minutes [1].
> we will have to face the problem of time keeping across the galaxy
Not really. Barring relativistic travel, it’s not dissimilar from the problem seagoing voyagers faced on long trade routes. Ship time is set based on the convenience of the passengers and the route.
…because that’s what the math says? Based on Voyager’s relative velocity it’s expected to be about 2 seconds younger than it would have been had it stayed on Earth.
I have been using zipbombs and they were effective to some extent. Then I had the smart idea to write about it on HN [0]. The result was a flood of new types of bots that overwhelmed my $6 server. For ~100k daily request, it wasn't sustainable to serve 1 to 10MB payloads.
I've updated my heuristic to only serve the worst offenders, and created honeypots to collect ips and repond with 403s. After a few months, and some other spam tricks I'll keep to myself this time, my traffic is back to something reasonable again.
1. Ai overview: my page impressions were high, my ranking was high, but click through took a dive. People read the generated text and move along without ever clicking.
2. You are now a spammer. Around August, traffic took a second plunge. In my logs, I noticed these weird queries in my search page. Basically people were searching for crypto and scammy websites on my blog. Odd, but not like they were finding anything. Turns out, their search query was displayed as an h1 on the page and crawled by google. I was basically displaying spam.
I don't have much control over ai overview because disabling it means I don't appear in search at all. But for the spam, I could do something. I added a robot noindex on the search page. A week later, both impressions and clicks recovered.
Edit: Adding write up I did a couple weeks ago https://idiallo.com/blog/how-i-became-a-spammer
reply