 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
| Google’s Quiet Change to Search Warnings Could Be Messing with Publisher Referrals |
 |
| Google’s been busy tinkering under the hood again, and this time, it quietly yanked a key search feature just weeks before the 2024 U.S. election. According to Platformer, Big G stopped showing warning banners that alerted users when their search results might be sketchy. Conspiracy theories, fringe sites, or low-effort content started filling the gaps where solid reporting should be. Google says its ranking “improvements” made the feature unnecessary, but Stanford and Carnegie Mellon researchers found no actual improvement in search quality. This raises a bigger question for publishers: If Google isn’t flagging questionable search results, does that mean half-baked sites could be outranking legit publishers? We’re not talking about conspiracy theorists gaming the system; we’re talking about platform changes jeopardizing organic traffic and search credibility. Those warning banners used to act as a signal, nudging users to think twice before clicking on low-quality sources. Without them, misleading content might look just as valid as deeply reported journalism—and that’s a problem if you rely on Google referrals. We’ve already seen how SEO is morphing into GEO, with AI search engines reshaping what ranks and why. And with Google constantly reshuffling the deck on what visibility means, publishers must keep playing catch-up. Now, if search rankings favor fast, cheap, and misleading over accurate reporting—or just fail to warn users about the difference—does that mean even more volatility for referral traffic? Because let’s be honest, Google’s not exactly throwing out a roadmap here. That means it’s time for publishers to rethink how traffic flows. If search keeps shifting and AI-driven results take over, relying too heavily on Google could be a losing bet. Diversifying referral sources—whether through newsletters, direct traffic, social, or partnerships—is becoming less of a nice-to-have and more of a survival strategy. Because if Google isn’t going to help users separate high-quality reporting from the noise, publishers can’t afford to sit back and wait to see where they land. — LdJ |
|
 |
|
| Where Media Pulls Back, Journalists Push Forward |
| Freedom of the press is under attack. In his second term, Trump has defied norms, such as banning news organizations from White House events, asserting sole control over the White House press pool, and filing a $20 billion lawsuit against CBS News. Some media organizations are willing to go along with these changes. Last week, Jeff Bezos announced a major shift at the Washington Post, saying that from now on, its opinion section will defend personal liberties and free markets only. Other outlets can take up dissenting viewpoints if they choose, but at WaPo, such opinions are unwelcome. This comes on the heels of several major news organizations choosing not to endorse any presidential candidate in 2024. (Trump celebrated these decisions, claiming they implicitly supported him by staying neutral). But many journalists disagree with their publications' retreat from taking clear positions and are now taking independent action to fill this void. Readers are also making their displeasure of these trends known. When the Washington Post opted not to endorse a candidate, 300,000 readers canceled their subscriptions, according to reporters inside the company. At a time when subscriptions are an important source of revenue, reader protests can affect the bottom line. To wit: In New York City, a collective of veteran reporters—including Semafor's Ben Smith, The City's Alyssa Katz, and others— have launched an independent editorial board. They aim to bring back in-depth candidate interviews, publishing full transcripts and audio online so readers can make informed decisions at the ballot box. They will publish everything on Substack. We will likely see more of this trend over the next four years. As news organizations bend the knee, journalists seek other avenues to inform the public. Journalists, especially those of color, are attracted to the freedom of press that Substack offers. — SS |
|
|
| DoubleVerify Attempts to Remedy CSAM Scandal with URL-level Reporting |
| There comes a time when we all fall short of our best intentions and have to look in the mirror to face our mistakes. Still, the true test is how we decide to respond to those mistakes and make them right. Last week, we covered the Adalytics report, which revealed they found ads for major brands on sites connected to child sexual abuse. This is a serious infraction that needs an immediate fix, and unfortunately, DoubleVerify got caught in the crossfire of culpability. In response, DoubleVerify is expanding its transparency efforts by introducing URL-level reporting for ad placements, a move driven by industry pressure following the CSAM report. Previously available only upon request, this reporting will now be accessible to all advertisers using DoubleVerify’s Brand Safety and Suitability measurement. The rollout will happen in three phases: immediate access to URL-level insights, integration into the company’s Pinnacle analytics platform, and eventual expansion to third-party platforms. The findings have ignited scrutiny from lawmakers, with Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Richard Blumenthal launching an investigation into ad verification firms, including DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science. One major criticism is that platforms like Google and Amazon often provide only domain-level reporting, making it difficult for advertisers to see exactly where their ads appear. Amazon has since introduced page-level reporting, and DoubleVerify’s move suggests more ad tech firms may follow suit. Alongside URL-level reporting, DoubleVerify is also rolling out new brand safety measures, including stricter content categories and partnerships with law enforcement and child safety organizations. — AB |
|
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
||
 |
||
|
|
|
