According to a Pew Research report on Tuesday, Google’s AI review, which appears in the upper part of the search results for some types of questions, is less likely to cause clicks for sites.
The study is based on data from 900 US adults who shared their browsing data with Pew. Based on the results of the study, when AI review – AIO – appeared in search, users were less likely to click on links than questions that did not produce AI’s abstract.
Pew took the data from the month of March and monitored the URLS users coming on the tracked device. He used a third -party web scraping service to run the same search and submit all the text published on the Google Search page, which includes links and AI generate summary. Of the 68,879 unique searches, 12,593 developed an AIO, which is about 18 %. Then Pew saw what URL visited after the user made an inquiry where people were eventually clicking: Google leaving a different site to browse a different site or completely eliminate its browsing session.
Pew found that when an AIO appeared in search, users clicked 8 % time in the traditional link (not in the AI review) in Google Search, but when no AIO appeared, the click rate reached 15 %. Interestingly, Pew found that only 1 % of the search resulters click on the links found in the AIO summary.
“The goal of our study was to have a better understanding of people to face and communicate with AK -breeding search summons.” “This analysis is a snapshot what Google’s real users are doing in their daily browsing.”
When an AIO appears, almost two-thirds of two-thirds of users either jump on a different site or completely close their Google search page, and suggest that AI-infiltrated results meet users’ search requirements. Interestingly, Google’s AIOS often refers to Wikipedia, Reddate and YouTube, in which Pew saw that 15 % of the collective calculations found in the AI’s abstract. Official sources are also high in the AIO, which accounts for 6 % of the sources associated with Pew Reviewer AI. The reason for this may be that Wikipedia and government sources are non -profit, there are no similar publishers’ demands and are considered reliable. Google also owns YouTube, which eliminates traffic on one of its primary online products. And Google reported this year with Reddate to use a multi -million dollar AI with Reddate this year to use its data for AI training. In the past few years, Reddut has also gained growing importance in Google Search.
Thanks to AI, people’s search habits are also changing. Instead of looking for keywords, more and more people are looking for intentions and whole sentences. In examples of long search questions, it often mobilized AIO.
“People are attracted to AI -driven experiences, and the features of AI in search enable people to ask more questions, which creates new opportunities for people to connect with websites,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement. “This study uses a poor procedure and scade data set that is not a search traffic representative. We permanently direct billions of clicks on the websites daily and, as it is suggested, has not received significant drops in overall web traffic.”
The publishing industry is facing major heads with reduction of traffic on the Internet. 2025 is already becoming a brutal year for journalism, which has holidays in CNN, Vox Media, Huff Post, LA Times and NBC. According to Nyman’s reports, about 10,000 10,000 journalists have been discharged in the last three years. According to Global Status, online publishers also rely heavily on Google Search for traffic, which controls about 90 % of the global online search market. A judge announced that Google was running illegal monopoly in an online search last year, and a federal court announced earlier this year that Google’s online advertising business is also an illegal monopoly.
AI-Infiltration Summary has been partially blamed in the upper part of Google for the recent traffic turmoil of online publishers, though traffic comes through traffic in Google Search Console, Google does not provide clear data for sites to see the search matrix. In the past, Google has argued that, despite the lack of search traffic, AI’s reviews bring “high quality clicks”, which means that people with high search intentions who have been on sites for longer. However, Google has not provided any data to back it.
