![\"Google](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Screenshot2025-08-07145830-e1754575208840.webp.webp\")
\n Google AI Overview about Google AI Overviews, screenshotted on 7 August 2025<\/p>\n
\n Google AI Overview about Google AI Overviews, screenshotted on 7 August 2025<\/p>\n
Google\u2019s head of search has claimed that the platform is seeing \u201cslightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago\u201d following the launch of AI Overviews.<\/p>\n
In response multiple SEO experts have pointed out that many websites are seeing declines in traffic as documented by the Google<\/a> Search Console measurement tool, and that there are various surveys showing a drop in clickthroughs.<\/p>\n They also contended that any overall stability or growth in search traffic is largely benefitting the major players such as Reddit or Google\u2019s own Youtube, not the wider web ecosystem of smaller publishers and other websites.<\/p>\n Google\u2019s VP, head of search Liz Reid published a blog post<\/a> in response to recent criticism of the impact on AI Overviews and, more recently, AI Mode (now launched in the UK as well as the US<\/a>) on traffic from the platform.<\/p>\n She wrote: \u201cOverall, total organic click volume from Google Search to websites has been relatively stable year-over-year. <\/p>\n \u201cAdditionally, average click quality has increased and we\u2019re actually sending slightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago (by quality clicks, we mean those where users don\u2019t quickly click back \u2014 typically a signal that a user is interested in the website).<\/p>\n \u201cThis data is in contrast to third-party reports that inaccurately suggest dramatic declines in aggregate traffic \u2014 often based on flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the roll out of AI features in Search.\u201d<\/p>\n SEO expert Lily Ray, vice president of SEO strategy and research at Amsive, questioned on Linkedin<\/a>: \u201cDo the hundreds of thousands of Google Search Console [GSC] screenshots showing impressions remaining flat (or increasing) this year, while clicks dramatically decline \u2013 since AI Overviews were rolled out more broadly \u2013 count as \u2018flawed methodologies\u2019 or \u2018isolated examples\u2019?<\/p>\n \u201cThousands of us are seeing it\u2026 but it must just be some big coincidence?\u201d<\/p>\n Radu Tyrsina, the chief executive of Reflector Media which publishes websites like Windows Report and Mac Observer, commented on Ray\u2019s post that \u201cOf course, reddit.com is a website.\u201d<\/p>\n Press Gazette reported earlier this week that Reddit is the most-cited source on both Google AI Overviews and rival model Perplexity.<\/a><\/p>\n Reddit struck a $60 million-per-year deal with Google to licence content from its users for AI training in 2024. Since then it has received a massive boost to its visibility on Google platforms<\/p>\n Press Gazette has published the findings of numerous studies appearing to show AI Overviews are having an impact on clickthroughs from Google with an increase in \u201czero-click searches\u201d.<\/p>\n Research by AI search and SEO platform Authoritas, submitted as part of a legal complaint to the UK\u2019s Competition and Markets Authority<\/a>, found that when an AI Overview is present, publishers are seeing a drop of 47.5% in per-query clickthrough rate on desktop, and 37.7% on mobile.<\/a><\/p>\n Similarweb data found that among the top 100 news and media websites globally, the average rate of zero-click searches has gone from 50.5% to 52.7% in the past year.<\/a> Among a wider dataset, zero-click news searches were said to have increased from 56% when AI Overviews were first launched in the US in May 2024 to almost 69% in May this year.<\/p>\n And publishers are seeing a huge drop in how visible they are in search results due to AI Overviews: a report by Enders Analysis looking at Sistrix data for the Financial Times, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Sun, Mirror and The Guardian found \u201csome correlation\u201d between the decline in visibility and the rollout of AI Overviews.<\/a><\/p>\n Leaders at multiple major publishers have specifically said they are seeing less traffic coming from Google, from The Wall Street Journal<\/a> to Radio Times publisher Immediate<\/a> and Australian lifestyle brand Man of Many<\/a>. The Daily Mail\u2019s global head of SEO Carly Steven has said AI Overviews has led to a dramatic reduction in clickthroughs from Google.<\/a><\/p>\n Google: \u2018Click quality\u2019 is increasing<\/p>\n But Reid defended Google by saying the clicks that publishers are receiving are actually better for them: \u201cWith AI Overviews, people are searching more and asking new questions that are often longer and more complex. In addition, with AI Overviews people are seeing more links on the page than before. More queries and more links mean more opportunities for websites to surface and get clicked. <\/p>\n \u201cFor some questions where people are looking for a quick answer, like \u2018when is the next full moon,\u2019 people may be satisfied with the initial response and not click further. This has also been true for other answer features we\u2019ve added, like the Knowledge Graph or sports scores. <\/p>\n \u201cBut for many other types of questions, people continue to click through, as they want to dig deeper into a topic, explore further or make a purchase. <\/p>\n \u201cThis is why we see click quality increasing \u2014 an AI response might provide the lay of the land, but people click to dive deeper and learn more, and when they do, these clicks are more valuable.\u201d<\/p>\n Reid added: \u201cWhile overall traffic to sites is relatively stable, the web is vast, and user trends are shifting traffic to different sites, resulting in decreased traffic to some sites and increased traffic to others.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople are increasingly seeking out and clicking on sites with forums, videos, podcasts, and posts where they can hear authentic voices and first-hand perspectives. People are also more likely to click into web content that helps them learn more \u2014 such as an in-depth review, an original post, a unique perspective or a thoughtful first-person analysis. <\/p>\n \u201cSites that meet these evolving user needs are benefiting from this shift and are generally seeing an increase in traffic.\u201d<\/p>\n Experts criticise \u2018quality click\u2019 metric<\/p>\n Laurence O\u2019Toole, the chief executive of Authoritas which carried out the clickthrough rate study, said it was \u201cabout time\u201d Google shared some data.<\/p>\n Reid had said she \u201cwanted to share some insights on the data we\u2019re seeing\u201d but did not share actual figures.<\/p>\n O\u2019Toole told Press Gazette: \u201cIf they were genuinely sending more traffic to websites then surely Google would show data and charts showing the change pre- and post- generative AI implementation.<\/p>\n \u201cInstead, she has come up with a \u2018new\u2019 metric of \u2018quality clicks\u2019 to divert attention away from the fact that a much lower percentage of users are clicking through to websites than before due to generative responses.\u201d<\/p>\n O\u2019Toole also pointed out that Google has said the overall volume of search queries<\/a> is growing but that Reid claimed traffic to websites is \u201crelatively stable\u201d. He asked: \u201cSo doesn\u2019t this also infer that clickthrough rate is down?\u201d<\/p>\n David Buttle<\/a>, founder of media and tech consultancy DJB strategies and former director of platform strategy and public affairs for the Financial Times, told Press Gazette: \u201cI\u2019m not sure what Google is hoping to achieve by publishing this blog post. <\/p>\n \u201cIt claims it is to \u2018share some insights\u2019 but it contains no data whatsoever. It tells us \u2018quality clicks\u2019 are increasing but I\u2019ve never heard of a \u2018quality click\u2019 before and Google doesn\u2019t deign to define it for us here. This is a continuation of Google\u2019s desperate conjecture and spin.<\/p>\n \u201cA few months ago we asked Google 12 straightforward questions<\/a> about the integration of AI features into search. Its response was derisory. The facts are simple, Google continues to take publisher content using the monopoly it has for search and is using that to create substitutional products, effectively demonetising segments of the media.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere was a time when Google was the responsible face of Big Tech. That time has long-since passed.\u201d<\/p>\n Barry Adams, a specialised SEO consultant for news publishers at Polemic Digital, told Press Gazette the Google blog reminded him of a quote from George Orwell\u2019s dystopian book 1984: \u201cThe Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.\u201d<\/p>\n Adams added: \u201cHow many reports and studies do we need before Google acknowledges what we can all see with our own eyes and ears? Every single study done on the impact of AI Overviews, from every single source, shows the exact same thing: A significant drop in clicks from the search result to the listed pages.<\/p>\n \u201cIt appears Google lives in an entirely separate reality, one where they haven\u2019t been the web\u2019s largest parasite extracting value from almost every revenue stream while giving precious little in return.<\/p>\n \u201cThe integration of AI in its search results is Google\u2019s latest move to extract value from the web (in the form of information produced by websites) while giving very little back (in the form of clicks and visits).\u201d<\/p>\n Google told to \u2018stop the BS\u2019<\/p>\n Google\u2019s Reid also said: \u201cAs a search company, we care passionately \u2013 perhaps more than any other company \u2013 about the health of the web ecosystem. We continue to send billions of clicks to websites every day and believe that Search\u2019s value exchange with the web remains strong.\u201d<\/p>\n SEO consultant Aleyda Solis<\/a> wrote in response: \u201cSorry, but if most of the sites that have ultimately increased in clicks\/traffic despite AI Overviews are mainly the biggest platforms on the web owned by big corps (that Google has partnerships with as well, like Reddit) and Google\u2019s own ones (like Youtube), rather than independent sites offering information, products and services, owned by small or medium sized businesses it *does* hurt the health of the web ecosystem.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s sad how they try to manipulate our perception of what\u2019s happening using half-baked half-truths.\u201d<\/p>\n Solis also objected to the idea that industry studies have been based on \u201cflawed methodologies\u201d: \u201cThis is simply wrong. There are plenty of first-party GSC and Analytics data showing the decrease in organic search traffic directly correlated with the inclusion of AI Overviews.\u201d<\/p>\n