• Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Wouldn’t they be? They could measure how likely it is that someone clicks on the generated link/text

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Just because you click on it that doesn’t make it accurate. More importantly, that text isn’t “clickable”, so they can’t be measuring raw engagement either.

        • IllNess@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          6 months ago

          What this would measure is how long you would stay on the page without scrolling. Less scrolling means more time looking at ads.

          This is the influence of Prabhakar Raghavan.

        • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Just because you click on it that doesn’t make it accurate.

          Given the choice between clicks/engagement and accuracy, is pretty clear Google’s for the former is what got us into this hell hole.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yup, if you have to repeat your search 3 times, you’re seeing 3x the ads. If you control most of the market, where are your customers going to go? Most will just deal with it and search more.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 months ago

      Google runs passive A/B testing all the time.

      If you’re using a Google service there’s a 99% chance you’re part of some sort of internal test of changes.