Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Google’s public argument is that users increasingly want contextual answers and summaries instead of a page of “10 blue links.” But that is an executive’s characterization—not a quantified survey result—and observed clicks tell a different, narrower story: in Pew Research Center’s U.S. browsing data, people rarely clicked links cited in AI summaries. Those findings do not, by themselves, establish what users prefer, whether they are satisfied, or how much AI summaries caused any publisher’s traffic changes.
What Google says users want
At a September 2025 AI summit, Google vice president of government affairs and public policy Markham Erickson said preferences were changing toward contextual answers and summaries. 9to5Google reported the remarks during a discussion about Penske Media’s lawsuit and reproduced this statement from Erickson:
“But user preferences, and what users want, is also changing. So, instead of factual answers and 10 blue links, they’re increasingly wanting contextual answers and summaries. We want to be able to provide that, too, while at the same time, driving people back to content, valuable content, on the Internet. Where that valuable content is for users, is shifting. And so it’s a dynamic space. Ultimately, our goal is to ensure that we have an overall healthy ecosystem.”
This is Google’s account of changing preferences, as expressed by Erickson—not the result of a poll. The report provides no survey method, sample size, or quantified preference measure supporting the claim. 9to5Google’s report of Erickson’s remarks.
#1 Best Overall
Do people click links in Google AI summaries?
Pew Research Center examined tracked browsing activity from 900 U.S. adults who agreed to participate. Its analysis covered Google searches performed from March 1–31, 2025; researchers collected the search-result pages, including AI summaries, from April 7–17, 2025. Because results and summaries can change, Pew’s findings describe the versions captured at that time, not every later search page.
- Exposure: 58% of panelists performed at least one Google search in March 2025 that generated an AI summary — Pew Research Center, 2025. That measures exposure in the panel, not a preference for summaries.
- Cited-link clicks: Users clicked a link cited inside an AI summary on 1% of visits to pages that displayed a summary — Pew Research Center, 2025.
- Session endings: Users ended their browsing session after 26% of visits to pages with an AI summary, compared with 16% of visits to pages showing traditional search results alone — Pew Research Center, 2025.
- Other behavior: Around two-thirds of searches led either to another Google search or to leaving without clicking a search-result link, whether or not an AI summary appeared — Pew Research Center, 2025.
So, in this dataset, links were less likely to be clicked on pages with summaries, and sessions ended more often after those pages than after traditional-only results. The browsing records do not reveal why people stopped, whether they found a summary useful, or what format they said they wanted. Pew’s results are observational, not a test showing that summaries caused every publisher’s traffic to fall. Pew Research Center’s report.
Rank #2
What a later experiment adds—and what it does not
A preregistered field experiment submitted to arXiv on August 18, 2026, tested Google Search with 1,100 participants. Its authors report that removing AI Overviews and AI Mode raised publisher click-through. An AI Mode-only experience reduced click-through and eroded measured user experience and trust in information found on Google.
Unlike Pew’s observational browsing analysis, this experiment reports results from changes to the search experience under its test conditions. It adds study-specific causal evidence about click-through, user experience, and trust. It still does not establish that every user prefers blue links, that every query behaves the same way, or that the measured effects apply to all publishers. The paper is an arXiv preprint, rather than a result that should be treated as a universal measure of user preferences. The arXiv preprint.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Rank #3
What publishers allege in the Google lawsuit
Penske Media Corporation and affiliated publishing entities filed a complaint against Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 12, 2025. The complaint alleges that Google conditions a publisher’s inclusion in its search index on allowing uses of its content in generative AI features, including AI Overviews. The plaintiffs argue that those features can displace referrals and compete for attention, and plead antitrust and unjust-enrichment claims.
Those are allegations in the plaintiffs’ initial complaint, not findings established by the complaint itself. The filing describes Penske’s digital content as supporting advertising, affiliate commissions, and subscriptions, and argues that these revenue streams depend on people visiting its sites. That is the company’s account of its business and theory of harm—not a quantified finding about losses across the publishing industry. The complaint filed in Penske Media Corporation v. Google LLC.
At the September 2025 event, publisher executives disputed Google’s account and described traffic declines or weaker engagement, while Erickson argued that users increasingly wanted summaries and contextual answers. Their competing statements document a disagreement; they do not independently prove either side’s explanation. The available sources do not establish the case’s current procedural outcome.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to read the competing claims
| Evidence | What it measures or says | What it can establish |
|---|---|---|
| Erickson’s September 2025 remarks, reported by 9to5Google | Google’s stated view of changing user preferences | What Google’s public argument was; not a measured preference rate |
| Pew’s 2025 analysis of tracked U.S. browsing | Exposure, clicks, and session endings around pages with or without AI summaries | Observed behavior in the panel and captured search pages; not users’ stated preferences or a causal explanation for publisher-wide traffic changes |
| August 2026 arXiv preprint field experiment | Click-through, user experience, and trust under tested changes to Google Search | Study-specific causal results under those conditions; not a universal result for all users, queries, or publishers |
| Penske Media’s September 2025 complaint | Plaintiffs’ allegations about indexing, AI use, referrals, and legal claims | What the plaintiffs allege and the theories they plead; not a court finding |
For readers, publishers, and anyone whose income depends on search referrals, the practical distinction is important: a low click rate can signal fewer visits from a result page, but it cannot alone tell you whether users prefer summaries, whether they got the answer they needed, or whether AI features caused a particular site’s broader traffic decline. The evidence points to a real tension between Google’s account of changing preferences and publishers’ concern about referral-driven business, while leaving those larger questions to evidence beyond click counts alone.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
