No, this is not going to be another ‘SEO is dead’ type post. I have made my feelings about that clear in the past.
I have been somewhat struck by how much negative sentiment that there has been towards Google on my digital travels this week.
A good example was shared by none other than Elon Musk who commented that it is a ‘real problem’:
Being honest, I have tried this myself and am not entirely convinced that it really cuts through the noise, nor are the results any better in my humble opinion, but I was drawn to the “so much AI-generated SEO crap” comment.
Again, I don’t want to get into another AI debate, but I find it interesting to see more and more criticism about the poor quality content that AI is generating on a MASSIVE scale and how the search engines are clearly struggling to deal with it.
To cut a long story short, I think that AI is just a tool. It can be used in an intelligent way and there is no doubt that it can save significant amounts of time, but I fear the vast majority of users are drawn towards this time saving promise at the expense of quality. The net result is the depressing truth that the internet is awash with lazy / poor quality content.
The AI craze is not going away. Just this week, Brave announced its new ‘Answer with AI’ feature and I have to admit that my limited testing suggests that it is doing a pretty good job. I need to spend more time looking at it, but I would argue that their ‘answer’ at the top of https://search.brave.com/search?q=is+ai+content+any+good%3F&source=web is actually fairly decent. Yes, the SEO community will be up in arms about how it will reduce web traffic, as you no longer need to leave the SERPs to find the information that you are looking for, but that is another discussion for a different post.
AI can be impressive. But it often isn’t and I believe that one of the most significant challenges facing the search engines right now is how to improve their ability to identify low quality / AI driven drivel and to reward genuine content. Many people have had enough and are actively calling out the dross that is being promoted to them on the SERPs. I sense that this negative sentiment is growing.
Another target for the criticism in recent weeks has been the obvious political bias that is often shown by Google. I would suggest that an anti Republican bias is going to be inevitable when you consider the makeup of the vast majority of its staff (hint – they are liberal). That shouldn’t really be very surprising and isn’t really a problem in itself but I have to admit that some of the wokery that has crept into Google’s world is starting to damage the trust that people have in the search behemoth.
It is highlighting the fact that Google is not actually as impartial as most believe. A growing number of people are starting to question just how trustworthy Google is as their arbiter of factual accuracy. This is potentially very damaging.
Without wishing to trigger a sex v gender spat, as I recognise the difference and respect individual choices, this is an example that I have seen shared in numerous online threads this week to show how facts are perhaps being greyed by Google:
I am sorry, but menstruation requires a uterus. Biological men do not have a uterus, so suggesting that they can menstruate feels like a deliberate stance born of an extreme liberalism. I am all for personal choice but to rewrite biology is, in my humble opinion, a step too far and the cause of the growing frustration / ridicule that I have seen. Do we not want search engines to be boring and devoid of opinion, which is formed by the individual having gathered as much factual evidence as possible?
I believe that the snippet would have been more credible if it had started with a statement that a biological male is not capable of menstruating as they do not have a uterus but that there are individuals who identify as men, but who were born as a biological female, who do menstruate. Is that not factually accurate?
I appreciate that cancel culture has created a real fear of speaking out against the narrative, but I simply do not think it is wise for Google to display such obvious political bias. Its results should be factually robust and it has to remain neutral to maintain its credibility. The sense that the results are ultimately directed by human / emotional decisions must surely undermine trust?
It would be foolish to suggest that Google is at risk of suddenly losing its market share, but I have been struck by a tangible growth in criticism and this week has felt worse than normal. It is something that I do believe needs addressing to maintain its dominance in the longer term.
