What Frustrates Users The Most During Online Search? This Study Says It All

Turning to search engines to find the answer to something is not a new practice. But we’re sure there’s been plenty of occasions where things don’t go as planned, leading to frustration on the part of the searcher.

To better understand what it is that frustrates users during online search experiences, ScorpionCO rolled out a new study to gauge just this. And the results are out!

Today, most Americans spend more time exploring products, jobs, services, and whatnot. The trend is bigger now than it was five years back. As per this new study, people aren’t happy with frustrations at their peak.

Remember, this is important because search engines are designed to assist users in finding more data on what they need. Now the question is what really irritates the user and why aren’t they able to find what they are in search of.

The top three reasons for frustration on the users' part included looking through search results, looking for the correct search term, and even turning to several websites to get what they’re looking for.

Experts feel the issues can easily be solved soon thanks to ChatGPT, AI Overviews, and more search engines. But right now, the real potential that AI in search is yet to be utilized.

A lot of respondents spoke about how they need more search results to get what they need and it’s getting annoying, not to mention time-consuming. Time is of the essence here and you can’t spend hours in search of something.

Others have spoken about how the search quality at Google is really going down the drain. People adore AI Overviews, not really, but Google believes so. Moreover, the Android maker even mentioned how research is done deeply now more than before. What it may have forgotten is how things might be more difficult to find replies for and that’s why people need to spend more time.

Meanwhile, the stats also shed light on how people aren’t happy with the ads thrown in their direction with just 12% claiming they were relevant.

Interestingly, when asked to go into the depths of this, it was amazing how people found more relevant forms of ads on TV, YouTube, and even Meta’s Facebook and Instagram than others.

Other interesting findings are how 35% claimed to be skipping out on ads seen on website results and 33% were going to turn to those that were famous or renowned while 33% would search for those results featuring bigger star ratings.

30% of those taking part in the study added that services that pop up higher in search are those said to be more relevant. On the contrary, 46% feel getting greater credibility in results makes the entire search journey so much more pleasurable.

A whopping 86% of the majority felt they could not differentiate between results that were organic and those that were paid. Meanwhile, 47% felt it’s simpler to tell the differences between those that are real and others that are fake.

With that being said, we must consider how not everyone in this world is tech-savvy so that also goes a long way. Such surveys are curated to make sure there’s a national representation of all demographics so as you can imagine, it’s not the actual representation of everyone great with technology.

Read next: Internet Use Boosts Life Satisfaction Worldwide
by Dr. Hura Anwar via Digital Information World

Meta Accused Of More Unfair EU Data Practices As Users Complain Of Data Breaches For Training AI

Tech giant Meta is in the hot seat again as a fresh wave of complaints from users based in the EU took center stage recently.

Facebook’s parent firm is accused of breaching users’ data again for the sake of training its AI models. The news comes after a leading privacy group by the name of NOYB mentioned through a series of complaints being filed how the latest privacy policy changes of the company can no longer be accepted.

This complaint is related to a privacy policy that is scheduled to come into play by the end of this month. As per the updates, Facebook’s parent firm says it hopes to use this content to train different AI models.

Such material might entail personal details linked to users via public data. Moreover, the latest policy change would also go about breaking the regulations enlisted in the GDPR and that is why the privacy advocacy wants authorities in this part of the world to step in and carry out an investigation so such changes are barred from taking place.

Instead of forcing such users to ask for respective content, Meta says it would argue how it's doing whatever it can for users’ best interest. The whole endeavor related to collecting and processing data would ensure personalized ad policies, it added but not everyone seems to be on the same page here.

Noyb added how this time around, Meta hopes to be more aggressive and utilize people’s data for AI training on a larger scale and that without any legal limits, it has no bounds.

For now, Meta is yet to unveil what purposes such data is going to be used for. It could be linked to chatbots aggressive advertising or killer drones. In the same way, the firm raised eyebrows by adding how data might be available to third parties which means anyone located anywhere in the world would get access.

Meta has made a lot of references to different third parties that it shares information with like advertisers, service providers, and whatnot. Others would use this for the sake of carrying out research as they could generate requests to the firm for data sharing.

Meanwhile, the company has opted to reject all claims made by the privacy advocacy group, adding how it only makes use of user data available publicly on different products and services.

But what it failed to mention is how the privacy notes that data could be processed on different people even if they’re not using the company’s goods was not mentioned by the tech giant.

The complaints against Meta do not end there. There is much talk about how Meta’s subscription model is based on unfair grounds that force people to pay or have their personal data tracked for ad purposes. Therefore, opponents of Meta see this as a means to justify data collection.

Image: DIW-Aigen

Read next: Adobe Faces Serious Backlash After New Policy Accused Of Stealing Users’ Unfinished Content For AI Training Purposes
by Dr. Hura Anwar via Digital Information World

Adobe Faces Serious Backlash After New Policy Accused Of Stealing Users’ Unfinished Content For AI Training Purposes

The new Adobe policy has a few terms of service changed but that minor edit is unleashing serious backlash for the company.

Users are accusing the tech giant of stealing their data, even those that are yet to be published, solely for the sake of training AI models.

The company which houses plenty of popular design apps including the likes of Photoshop received immense criticism recently when the notice arose on Wednesday, speaking about how content could be accessed via various means.

Here it is. If you are a professional, if you are under NDA with your clients, if you are a creative, a lawyer, a doctor or anyone who works with proprietary files - it is time to cancel Adobe, delete all the apps and programs. Adobe can not be trusted. pic.twitter.com/LFnBbDKWLC

— Wetterschneider (@Stretchedwiener) June 5, 2024

The updated portion of the policy was said to have been in effect since February of this year but not a lot of people were aware of what’s taking place.

The automated systems could be used for content analysis via a variety of techniques like machine learning which better enhances users' experience of the software, the email further went on to read. But users were clearly not happy with the new policy.

The language is not only vague but there are specific mentions of various systems working on an automated basis. So the fact that users’ creativity was at stake really made users furious as AI tool training without attaining consent has been a subject of great debate for a while now.

Photoshop’s new terms of service require users to grant Adobe access to their active projects for “content moderation” and other purposes pic.twitter.com/weRjMfWvxx

— Dexerto (@Dexerto) June 5, 2024

Other than the implications of data theft and zero credit being given, people are having serious issues linked to privacy too because some data is said to be extremely confidential like NDA-based work.

Amid all the backlash, Adobe has stepped in to try and calm down the matter. They justified the act by adding how the software does not attain access to private devices but makes use of anything and everything stored inside its Creative Cloud.

Other than this, any other content that users themselves make public on the company’s apps would be used by algorithms and hence help to better its own products like the AI-based Firefly venture. While the company may call that out as safe, it’s said to be 100% based on publicly attained user data.

For a while now, artists have been accusing the firm of stealing data without any form of compensation but this new change in terms of service is another big eye-opener for various reasons. Remember, once users’ trust is put into jeopardy, there is no turning back.

What do experts have to say on this matter? Well, the new policy change isn’t said to be designed to expose people’s privacy. It just adds to users’ concerns about how private material is at stake and that’s not okay.

In general, it’s a sensitive debate and one that not is going to die down fast without a better explanation from the company and reassurance that private and creative material is a sensitive topic that needs to be addressed, and until that clarification comes out, it’s going to be a huge reminder of how this act is not okay.

Read next: Internet Use Boosts Life Satisfaction Worldwide
by Dr. Hura Anwar via Digital Information World

Internet Use Boosts Life Satisfaction Worldwide

A massive global study reveals a clear link between internet access and higher levels of happiness and social wellbeing across the globe.

Researchers examined data from over 2.4 million people in 168 countries, looking at responses to questions about internet use, daily experiences, life satisfaction, relationships, and other aspects of psychological wellbeing. The results were strikingly consistent - those with internet access reported greater life satisfaction, more positive daily experiences, stronger social support, and better overall wellbeing compared to those without internet.

This finding held true regardless of country, age, gender, or other demographics. The only exception was young women aged 15-24, who reported somewhat lower "community wellbeing" scores with higher internet use, possibly relating to social media's documented negative impacts for that group.

While the large sample size and standardized wellbeing measures give confidence in the core finding, the study has some important limitations. It captures a snapshot, not changes over time, and relies on self-reported data which can be biased. More research using objective data tracking and longitudinal designs is still needed.

Importantly, the study does not prove internet use directly causes improved wellbeing - it simply shows the two are correlated. There could be complex factors behind this link that have yet to be untangled. But globally, at this point in history at least, human beings with internet access simply seem happier.

Image: DIW-Aigen

Read next: Online Scams Are Getting Worse Thanks To AI, New Study Reveals
by Asim BN via Digital Information World

Cracking the Link Building Code: Lessons from Google's Leaked Documentation

The leaked Google documents, comprising Google’s Content API Warehouse documentation, offer invaluable insights into the world of links and their impact on SEO success. With a vast repository of 2,500 modules and 14,000 attributes, these documents illuminate crucial strategies that link builders and PR professionals should prioritize. The documents yield key takeaways, including:

Google gives value to relevant sources

Google just ignores links that are not from relevant sources or, in other words, from within content (Source page) that has no relevance to the target page. It is clear from the use of anchorMismatchDemotion in the CompressedqualitySingnals module and a webfEntities attribute in the PerDocdata module. So being relevant must be the top priority of link builders.

Local links are more valuable than foreign

The attribute, localCountryCodes, in the document stores the countries to which the link is local. So when earning links, one must choose locally relevant sites. This would also be beneficial as far as promotion of sites and sales are concerned.

Google does employ sitewide authority score

Despite denying it many times, Google employs site authority score, similar to Moz’s Domain Authority (DA). Unlike Moz’s DA, it is not link-based, but rather it is more likely based on page-level scores.

Links on newer pages have more value

Links on fresh pages are more valuable than the older ones. In the documents, a fresh content (freshdocs) is equal to high-quality links. The revelation reinstates the fact that link-builders must keep earning links and keep them updated and fresh.

Google gives more importance to homepage

In the AnchorsAnchorSource module, there is a reference to an attribute, homePageInfo. As the name vividly indicates, Google is using homepages of sites to gauge whether they fall in the category of trustworthiness or untrustworthiness. So links from trusted sites would be more valuable and vice versa.

Google pays special attentions to news sites

The documents state if a link is from a news site, Google stores a bit more information about it, and it is classified as high-quality. It does make sense when one keeps in mind that news sites fall in the category of trusted and reliable.

• Also read: Report Shows New Trends in Fonts, Colors and Other Elements on Websites in 2024

Links from seed sites are in the top tier

Google trusts seed sites the most, for they are spam-free and highly reliable. News sites, like The New York Times, are its example. Earning links from seed sites would be the best option for anyone, considering the fact that PageRank-Nearest Seeds has taken the place of simple and old PageRank.

Google utilizes trusted sources to judge links

The IndexingDocjoinerAnchorSpamInfo module, with a reference to trusted sources, indicates that Google judges the spammy nature of links on the basis of their linking to the number of trusted sources.

Google identifies and rejects SEO attacks by measuring link velocity

SEO attacks on sites have been the problem of the internet. The reference to The Anchor Spam Spike in the documents shows Google’s way of protecting against these attacks by identifying high volumes. Google’s plan is to identify the timeframe during which spammy links were marked, the average rate of spams identified and when the spike began.

Linked-based punishments if found guilty

Google can take strict measures against spam links by rejecting either all links coming from the same page or some of them. This could be costly if other links are not spam, but rather high-quality.

Toxic links are a reality

Again, despite the denial by Google about toxic links, a reference to BadBacklinks exists in the documentation. Google–similar to its stance regarding spam links–has decided to punish bad links.

Content of links explains context

Anchor text gives information about the context of links. But according to the leaked documents, not only anchor text, but also content surrounding a link sheds light on the context. The references, context2, fullLeftContext and fullRightContext, point to this fact. This content could merely be a way to remove any obscurity which usually surrounds links.

The documents revealed a lot about Google’s strategy regarding links. It rejects links coming from untrustworthy sources and values news-site links high. Consequently, you must be aiming to earn links from trustworthy sources, but that does not mean you should neglect quality content. Last but not the least, relevancy is the key.

Image: DIW-AigenRead next: Top SEO Investment Trends for 2024: Where Companies Are Focusing Their Budgets
by Ehtasham Ahmad via Digital Information World

FTC Takes Aim at Meta: Alleges Concealment in Instagram, WhatsApp Acquisitions

Social media giant Meta is facing a barrage of legal and regulatory woes that threaten to shake its foundation. At the center of the storm is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which accuses Meta of concealing vital information during the scrutiny of its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014.

Despite initial clearance, the FTC now seeks to unravel these deals, alleging Meta's anti-competitive maneuvers. Meta vehemently contests these claims, citing its substantial investments in the acquired platforms and challenging the FTC's authority.

Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic rue their past decisions, lamenting how Meta's acquisitions stifled competition, resulting in its social media dominance. This retrospective regret fuels growing skepticism towards Big Tech mergers, reflecting broader concerns about market concentration and consumer choice.

Across the pond, the Italian antitrust authority levies a €35 million fine on Meta for deceptive commercial practices related to data usage on Instagram. While seemingly insignificant in the grand scheme, this penalty underscores the increasingly blurred lines between antitrust and privacy regulations, signaling heightened scrutiny of tech giants' data practices.

Meanwhile, Meta faces internal strife as a former engineer files a lawsuit alleging discrimination and wrongful termination. The plaintiff accuses Meta of suppressing Palestinian content and conducting biased internal investigations. These allegations cast a shadow over Meta's corporate culture and add to mounting criticism of its content moderation policies.

Meta's response to these multifaceted challenges remains pivotal as it navigates choppy legal waters and public scrutiny. The company's fate hangs in the balance as it grapples with regulatory pressure, internal discord, and reputational damage.

In the court of public opinion, Meta's once-golden image tarnishes under the weight of mounting allegations and regulatory scrutiny. Whether it can weather this storm and emerge unscathed remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: Meta's future hangs in the balance as it confronts its most formidable challenges yet.

Image: DIW-Aigen

Read next: Behind the Glam: The Business of Being an Instagram Celebrity And Influencer
by Web Desk via Digital Information World

Meta Faces Lawsuit from Palestinian-American Engineer Over Alleged Discrimination and Censorship

A Palestinian-American software engineer, Ferras Hamad, has sued Meta, accusing the company of discrimination and wrongful termination. Hamad claims he was fired in retaliation for investigating allegations that Meta censored Palestinian/Gaza creators and activists.

Hamad's lawsuit asserts he was targeted due to his Palestinian national origin and Muslim faith. He contends that his investigation into censorship was part of his job duties. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, counters that Hamad was dismissed for violating data access policies.

These policies set strict limits on employee access to certain data, with breaches leading to immediate termination. Hamad's lawyers argue he did not violate any policies. They assert he was fulfilling his role when he investigated the alleged censorship of Palestinian content.

Hamad joined Meta in March 2022, working on machine learning and location-based recommendations. He regularly addressed user issues on Facebook and Instagram. In December, he flagged problems in an internal chat about Gaza-related user concerns. This included the misclassification of a video by Palestinian photojournalist Motaz Azaiza (known for covering the Hamas-Israel war) as "pornographic," which led to Azaiza's Instagram account being restricted.

The lawsuit states Hamad received conflicting instructions from Meta employees about his investigations. Some told him to stop, citing resolution or other teams handling the matter. After returning from vacation, Hamad was fired in February, just weeks before he was due to receive stock and his annual bonus. His attorneys claim this caused significant financial and professional harm.

Hamad's case reflects broader concerns from human rights advocates about Meta's treatment of content related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Human Rights Watch reported in December 2023 that Meta systematically suppressed pro-Palestinian voices globally. Meta's Oversight Board also noted overbroad takedowns of content using Arabic terms related to the conflict.

Meta defends its content moderation practices, citing the challenges of managing vast amounts of content during polarized conflicts. However, Hamad's lawsuit suggests potential bias in how Meta handles Palestinian-related posts compared to other conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war.

Filed in Santa Clara County, California, this lawsuit highlights ongoing debates about social media platforms' roles in moderating political content and the biases that may influence their policies and actions.

Image: DIW-Aigen

Read next: Airborne Killer: Pollution Tops War and Disease in Global Mortality
by Asim BN via Digital Information World