This is interesting data but is not really a useful estimate of search engine market share in 2025.
<meta name="referrer" content="origin">
But, to answer your question, presumably a search engine that wanted to stay really under the radar could use that same mechanism to choose "no-referrer" and the traffic would seem organic(I also had a good chuckle at them choosing to break the typo chain with this directive)
Do we know if they're sending the referer header? Maybe there is no way to know. It would just be interesting to see that trend over time.
Does this mean other countries are better at using computers/more conscious users, and changing the default search engine/browser? It might be related to Edge being the default for Windows computers, but this is overridden by the users in other countries. Or is it because Microsoft is pushing more ads and is trusted more in the USA?
The second question is how much OpenAI disrupted the overall Google traffic. That's probably the most important metric anyone wants to see.
I see how (in Italy/Poland) me, my friends and relatives have turned towards Gemini for the lots of queries.
People walking around the streets and asking Gemini for restaurants, directions or any general questions is starting to be extremely common, but I doubt that Cloudflare can measure those (afterall it never goes through a browser since Gemini app is embedded in the home button of Android phones).
I also doubt that Cloudflare measures the gargantuan amount of queries people do through, e.g., their AI desktop apps or stuff like Claude Code, that effectively replaces google searches.
At the least it can be inferred that Google has fundamentally changed their main product to mimic a competitor, which is something you just don’t do if everything’s OK.
I mean, the big thing that has changed is that investors are all in on AI, and Google looked like they were behind in this area, so they put it front and center so that they can talk nonsense about it on investor calls.
This terrifies me. The number of ostensibly smart, curious people who now fill their knowledge gaps with pseudorandom information from LLMs that's accurate just often enough to lower mental guards. I'm not an idiot; I know most people never did the whole "check and corroborate multiple sources" thing. What actually happened in the average case was that a person delegated trust to a few parties who, in their view, aligned with their perspective. Still, that sounds infinitely preferable to "whatever OpenAI/Google/whoever's computer says is probably right". When people steelman using LLMs for knowledge gathering, they like to position it as a first step to break in on a topic, learn what there is to learn, which can then be followed by more specific research that uses actual sources. I posit that the portion of AI users actually following up that way is vanishingly small, smaller even than the portion of people who read multiple news sources and research the credibility of the publications.
I value easy access to information very highly, but it seems like when people vote with their feet, eyes, and wallets that's not what you get. You get fast and easy, but totally unreliable information. The information landscape has never been great, but it seems to only get worse with each paradigm shift. I struggle to even imagine a hypothetical world where reliable information is easy to access. How do you scale that? How do you make it robust to attack or decay? Maybe the closest thing we have now is Wikipedia, is there something there that could be applied more broadly?
It's roughly as bad, if you assume the same degree of trust in both scenarios. I don't make that assumption. I get the sense that people are more likely to trust the AI answer at the top of the search results page or handed back to them in a ChatGPT conversation than they are to totally buy a random blogger. If I'm wrong, then great.
I’d be very interested to see the trendline of user-initiated search over time.
Do you see a similar transition in your network?
If a technical problem, before my questions were leading either to official doc or stackoverflow, now I get possible solutions to try
Other types of questions like reviews, product comparisons GPT shows couple of relevant links to reddit and I go check them to see if summary was right and then surf relevant subreddit.
If I assign a number, I would say 80% of my requests lead to answers inside the GPT, other 20% lead to links
~56,000 users spread across the entire world isn't going to move the needle when looking at the sort of statistics in the report.
And the only country where Google has less than 90% market share and the 2nd options is not Bing: Czechia (Seznam).
Other countries with less that 90% Google market share are: Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, United States (Bing)
PaulKeeble•5mo ago
ivape•5mo ago
Semaphor•5mo ago
aidenn0•5mo ago
rcxdude•5mo ago
onlyrealcuzzo•5mo ago
Every post about Google for years has been people saying it's terrible and dead.
Kagi gets talked about on here constantly, and it's not even on the list (though I suspect there's a reason?)
Even within Google, about a year ago, everyone was saying that Google was dead because of Perplexity, which is barely a blip.
It's kind of shocking to see DuckDuckGo is only about 1%, with everything you hear and how much you hear it within certain bubbles.
brookst•5mo ago
Compared to a year ago, Google has declined from 89.487% to 88.915%. Just half a percent, but IMO it will accelerate.
Meanwhile OpenAI has gone from 0.194% to 0.226% in just three months (they weren’t on previous quarter’s reports).
Sure, it’ll be years before Google drops to 50%. But it will happen.
EbNar•5mo ago
Being at least 10€/month for the only "useful" tier is a powerful reason for that...
Maybe also Kagi being a metasearch engine reduces its visibility? Just speculating, I obviously don't know how it really works.
chrisweekly•5mo ago
EbNar•5mo ago
Fortunately, I have been able to join a family on sharesub and get "unlimited" for basically half the price. Actually, it's a great search engines, with lots of goodies. I really hope it gets more adoption.
toast0•5mo ago
They are terrible, but that doesn't mean anybody else is good or better. And being better at search isn't enough anyway [1]. Also, when you give Google less of your searches, personalization drops off and it gets even worse, but most people give all their searches to google so they see the benefit of personalization if they compare.
[1] When Yahoo did user research on search, one of their findings was that if you asked users which results were better, there was a strong and consistent preference towards results that were shown as Google results, regardless of the actual results. It's been forever since I saw those reports, so I don't remember the numbers, and the numbers are likely different today anyway, but that's a huge barrier to adoption that you have to manage.
gregates•5mo ago
toast0•5mo ago
jorams•5mo ago
Not that I'd expect them high up on the list, but Kagi sends the following response header:
As a result the browser won't send a Referer header with outgoing links, completely excluding them from this report.jeffbee•5mo ago
freediver•5mo ago
Not much, but each one of those deliberate & paid.
[1] https://kagi.com/stats?stat=queries
aidenn0•5mo ago
mgh2•5mo ago
Which do you think is more abundant, lies or truths?
gkbrk•5mo ago
It's not a charity, if people truly preferred Google results over defaults, Google wouldn't give out tens of billions of dollars to be the default.
tanaros•5mo ago
It is a widely held belief that users don’t change the defaults, and I’m not asserting it’s wrong in general, but why doesn’t it apply to web browsers?
As an (unhappy) Windows user, I note that Microsoft pushes Edge aggressively, with each major Windows update “helpfully” offering to “optimize my computer” by making it the default browser again. However, Edge market share is only ~12% on desktop [0], despite the fact it is significantly more work to install Chrome than it is to change a mere default setting. Is that just because desktop users are more willing to jump through hoops?
[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
gkbrk•5mo ago
It also prominently advertised itself on the Google home page, which would probably cost many many billions of dollars if a non-Google browser wanted to do the same thing. On top of that, if you used another modern browser like Firefox, Google websites had popups that you should upgrade your outdated browser to Chrome.
Once Chrome on desktop was popular, then came the "oopses". [1] Accidentally breaking Google websites on non-Chrome browsers left and right.
After Android became popular, it's not hard to guess which browser they shipped by default on millions of devices. Device manufacturers weren't allowed to remove Chrome if they wanted to have working Google Play Services and access to the Google Play Store. I think recently in the EU manufacturers are allowed to remove Chrome and keep Play Services because Google got fined 4 billion euros.
[1]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
cnst•5mo ago
hammock•5mo ago
tokioyoyo•5mo ago
jeffbee•5mo ago