Alicia keys most certified

Tina Turner is #1 on iTunes! Her 1984 single What’s Love Got To Do With It is on top of the charts… a day after she dies at age 83

May 25, 2023 by www.dailymail.co.uk Leave a Comment

Tina Turner’s 1984 track What’s Love Got To Do With It has reached the top spot on the US iTunes chart.

Several of the late performer’s tracks have also peaked on the chart, and eight out of the top ten tracks on the listing are attributed to the hitmaker.

The singer, who passed away at the age of 83 on Sunday, also has three records, All The Best: The Hits, Simply The Best and Private Dancer, topping the iTunes albums listing.

The music videos for What’s Love Got To Do With It, as well as Private Dancer and We Don’t Need Another Hero, have also become the three most popular music videos on the platform.

Several other music videos featuring Turner’s work have also received a sudden spike in popularity.

Doing well: Tina Turner’s 1984 track What’s Love Got To Do With It has reached the top spot on the US iTunes chart; the late singer is seen in 2018

The late hitmaker’s work has also dominated Amazon’s Movers & Shakers songs, albums and CD & Vinyl charts.

What’s Love Got To Do With It was released as the third single from Private Dancer, which debuted on May 29, 1984.

The track was met with much praise upon its initial release and topped the US Billboard 100 chart at the time.

The song also performed well in various other territories, including Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada.

The name of the track was used as the name of Turner’s biographical film, which was released in 1993.

What’s Love Got To Do With It was named as both the Song and Record Of The Year during the 27th Annual Grammy Awards.

Turner also received the award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance during the ceremony.

What’s Love Got To Do With It was later inducted into the Grammy Hall Of Fame in 2012.

Back on top: Several of the late performer’s tracks have also peaked on the chart, and eight out of the top ten tracks on the listing are attributed to the hitmaker

In the past: What’s Love Got To Do With It was released as the third single from Private Dancer, which debuted on May 29, 1984, and the track was met with much praise upon its initial release; the late singer is seen in 2019

On the big screen: The name of the track was used as the name of Turner’s biographical film, which was released in 1993

It was confirmed that the songwriter had passed away at her home near Zurich, Switzerland, on Sunday.

The late performer’s representatives issued a statement where they spoke about the legacy that the singer had created over the years.

They stated via TMZ : ‘It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Tina Turner. With her music and her boundless passion for life, she enchanted millions of fans around the world and inspired the stars of tomorrow.’

It continued: ‘Today we say goodbye to a dear friend who leaves us all her greatest work: her music. All our heartfelt compassion goes out to her family. Tina, we will miss you dearly.’

Rolling Stone’s 200 Greatest Singers of All Time

#1 – Aretha Franklin

#2 – Whitney Houston

#3 – Sam Cooke

#4 – Billie Holiday

#5 – Mariah Carey

#6 – Ray Charles

#7 – Stevie Wonder

#8 – Beyoncé

#9 – Otis Redding

#10 – Al Green

#11 – Little Richard

#12 – John Lennon

#13 – Patsy Cline

#14 – Freddie Mercury

#15 – Bob Dylan

#16 – Prince

#17 – Elvis Presley

#18 – Celia Cruz

#19 – Frank Sinatra

#20 – Marvin Gaye

#21 – Nina Simone

#22 – Adele

#23 – Smokey Robinson

#24 – George Jones

#25 – Mary J. Blige

#26 – Paul McCartney

#27 – Dolly Parton

#28 – Mahalia Jackson

#29 – Chaka Khan

#30 – Hank Williams

#31 – Luther Vandross

#32 – David Bowie

#33 – Bessie Smith

#34 – Thom Yorke

#35 – Dusty Springfield

#36 – Kurt Cobain

#37 – Van Morrison

#38 – Curtis Mayfield

#39 – Louis Armstrong

#40 – Aaliyah

#41 – Etta James

#42 – Teddy Pendergrass

#43 – Ariana Grande

#44 – James Brown

#45 – Ella Fitzgerald

#46 – Mavis Staples

#47 – Linda Ronstadt

#48 – Toni Braxton

#49 – Rod Stewart

#50 – Joni Mitchell

#51 – Sade

#52 – Mick Jagger

#53 – Miriam Makeba

#54 – Willie Nelson

#55 – Tina Turner

#56 – Barry White

#57 – Brian Wilson

#58 – Lady Gaga

#59 – Howlin’ Wolf

#60 – Kate Bush

#61 – Umm Kulthum

#62 – George Michael

#63 – Robert Plant

#64 – Björk

#65 – Minnie Riperton

#66 – David Ruffin

#67 – Dennis Brown

#68 – Rihanna

#69 – Youssou N’Dour

#70 – Ronnie Spector

#71 – Roy Orbison

#72 – Muddy Waters

#73 – Héctor Lavoe

#74 – Patti LaBelle

#75 – D’Angelo

#76 – Wilson Pickett

#77 – Bruce Springsteen

#78 – Janis Joplin

#79 – Emmylou Harris

#80 – Chris Cornell

#81 – João Gilberto

#82 – Steve Perry

#83 – Amy Winehouse

#84 – Lata Mangeshkar

#85 – Johnny Cash

#86 – Michael Jackson

#87 – Diana Ross

#88 – Jimmie Rodgers

#89 – Selena

#90 – Gal Costa

#91 – Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan

#92 – Anita Baker

#93 – Stevie Nicks

#94 – Toots Hibbert

#95 – Vicente Fernández

#96 – Chuck Berry

#97 – Usher

#98 – Bob Marley

#99 – Clyde McPhatter

#100 – Elton John

#101 – Gladys Knight

#102 – Taylor Swift

#103 – Leonard Cohen

#104 – Aaron Neville

#105 – Eddie Vedder

#106 – Bill Withers

#107 – Lou Reed

#108 – Caetano Veloso

#109 – Roger Daltrey

#110 – The Weeknd

#111 – Fiona Apple

#112 – Ozzy Osbourne

#113 – La India

#114 – Chrissie Hynde

#115 – Patti Smith

#116 – Chet Baker

#117 – Patti Smith

#118 – John Fogerty

#119 – Barrington Levy

#120 – Charlie Rich

#121 – Jackie Wilson

#122 – Donna Summer

#123 – Karen Carpenter

#124 – Robert Johnson

#125 – Joe Strummer

#126 – Donny Hathaway

#127 – Tammy Wynette

#128 – Florence Welch

#129 – Rob Halford

#130 – Courtney Love

#131 – Jeff Buckley

#132 – Loretta Lynn

#133 – Neil Young

#134 – Axl Rose

#135 – IU

#136 – Lauryn Hill

#137 – El DeBarge

#138 – Merle Haggard

#139 – Rocío Dúrcal

#140 – Bono

#141 – Christina Aguilera

#142 – Russell Thompkins Jr.

#143 – Luciano

#144 – Darlene Love

#145 – PJ Harvey

#146 – Ruth Brown

#147 – Barbra Streisand

#148 – Levon Helm

#149 – Wanda Jackson

#150 – Bryan Fery

#151 – Martha Reeves

#152 – Michael Stipe

#153 – Mahlathini

#154 – Dion

#155 – Robert Smith

#156 – George Straight

#157 – Robert Smith

#158 – Carrie Underwood

#159 – Mississippi John Hurt

#160 – Mercedes Sosa

#161 – Brenda Lee

#162 – Françoise Hardy

#163 – Bobby ‘Blue’ Bland

#164 – Sandy Denny

#165 – Ronnie James Dio

#166 – Morrissey

#167 – Marc Anthony

#168 – Debbie Harry

#169 – Sylvester

#170 – Chris Stapleton

#171 – Odetta

#172 – Juan Gabriel

#173 – Marianne Faithfull

#174 – Buddy Holly

#175 – Lana Del Ray

#176 – Iggy Pop

#177 – Patty Loveless

#178 – Tabu Ley Rochereau

#179 – Martha Wash

#180 – SZA

#181 – Bob Seger

#182 – Jazmine Sullivan

#183 – Solomon Burke

#184 – Karen O

#185 – Alicia Keys

#186 – Ofra Haza

#187 – Bonnie Raitt

#188 – Fela Kuti

#189 – Joan Baez

#190 – Frank Ocean

#191 – Jung Kook

#192 – Anohni

#193 – Brandy

#194 – Kelly Clarkson

#195 – Poly Styrene

#196 – Paul Westerberg

#197 – Burna Boy

#198 – Billie Eilish

#199 – Glenn Danzig

#200 – Rosalía

Child victims of Manchester bombing ‘fobbed off’ by GPs, new report details

May 22, 2023 by www.telegraph.co.uk Leave a Comment

Child victims of the Manchester Arena bombing were “fobbed off” by GPs and told teenage hormones were to blame, a damning report has found.

Young people who were at the Ariana Grande concert on May 22, 2017 received wildly varying care, it finds. GPs are accused of falling short in some instances while some teachers have been accused of ignorance and “sweeping it under the carpet”.

The Bee The Difference report has been led by Dr Cath Hill, a social worker lecturer at the University of Lancaster, who is a survivor of the attack after attending with her then 10-year-old son. Both escaped without physical harm.

Dr Hill’s report has involved the University of Lancaster, the victims themselves and the National Emergencies Trust.

The report reveals that 93 per cent of the terror attack’s young survivors felt they needed support in the aftermath of the attack. And one in three got no help within a year of the event.

Some children were well supported, the report stresses, but many were not.

A major issue identified by the report, which focuses specifically on the issues young children faced getting support post attack, is a huge disparity in help provided, often depending on money, location and school.

One anonymous victim told the report’s authors: “When I asked for help they brushed me off and put it down to just teenage hormones.

“[They] then just put me on antidepressants and that was only at 18 — and they didn’t even think of referring me to a therapist.”

Another said they “poured their heart out” to a GP who “totally dismissed everything expressed”.

Dr Hill told The Telegraph that “GPs didn’t come out very well” in the research.

“There were quite a lot of young people who said they went to a GP and were fobbed off,” she told The Telegraph.

No assistance

Alicia Taylor, now 19, was one of the victims who received no assistance following the bombing. Her mum, who was in the foyer to pick up Alicia when the bomb exploded, was partially deafened and suffered with shell shock for several months after the event.

Ms Taylor was at the concert aged just 13 with a friend and is now a second year English literature student at Durham University.

She told The Telegraph that her school provided no help, nor did her GP, and she was left “scrambling in the dark” for help.

She recalls how on the one-year anniversary of the attack, then still only in Year 10, she broke down “crying and sobbing” in the corridor while her teachers “would just walk past and ignore me.”

Ms Taylor said that in April 2018, less than a year after the terror attack, the school – which had several pupils that attended the concert – ran an “unannounced bomb alarm”.

“Knowing full well that there were children in that school who had gone through a terror attack less than a year prior – it retraumatised a lot of children,” she said.

“After the bomb I hid behind an electricity box outside and when the alarm went off I think I was in a food tech class and me and my friend were both transported back there.

“My mum was improving, I had a bit of confidence back, but that was completely wiped away with just a single act of complete ignorance.”

Panic attacks

Some children were also having panic attacks in classrooms where they were learning about bombs exploding in World War Two. Dr Hill said one key recommendation is that schools should create a special designation for pupils suffering with trauma from a major terror attack, so all staff are up to date on the situation and the child can be removed from potentially triggering scenarios and not have to relive the events to inform new staff.

But she also wants to see more systemic change, and is trying to engage with government to improve training standards in order to ensure children who have suffered extreme trauma can all get professional help, irrespective of status or geography.

“We weren’t ready as a nation for a disaster that targeted young people because already the services have been so massively reduced for adolescent mental health,” Dr Hill explained.

“What we found is that there weren’t enough people who were sufficiently trained in trauma with children and young people to be able to meet the need.”

“We want to make sure that future support catches everybody and isn’t a postcode lottery or about whether your parents can pay. If it happens again tomorrow, I’m not certain that we’ve learned a great deal.

“My fear is that in the [Government’s] list of priorities, survivors of terrorism in schools aren’t going to be really high up there.”

Mhairi Sharp, chief executive of National Emergencies Trust, said: “There has been a glaring gap in knowledge about how UK disasters affect children and young people.

“Bee The Difference offers valuable direction for emergency funders like us and means we can build on the good work that the We Love Manchester fund started in 2017.

“We can raise awareness with our partners so that there is less onus on future survivors to seek out support. We can also offer funding to those who would like to set up peer support groups.”

Importance of helmets & how to choose the right one for your motorcycle/scooter – Times of India

May 27, 2023 by timesofindia.indiatimes.com Leave a Comment

India is the largest two-wheeler market in the entire world. Roads are dominated by two-wheelers of all shapes and sizes. However, the affordable mobility that two-wheelers offer over cars or SUVs makes riders (and pillions) some of the most vulnerable road users. Having two less wheels and no ‘safety shell’ around you, there’s always some amount of risk involved when riding on a motorcycle or a scooter.
The risk can be reduced significantly by wearing proper safety gear while riding. While someone riding a high-end sportbike, or even a mid-range motorcycle is typically expected to be able to afford proper gear, the same would be unjust for the majority of two-wheeler riders in India that currently ride a commuter motorcycle/scooter not because they want to, but they have to.

Riding on a race track no longer costs a bomb | TOI Auto

However, one can certainly not argue against wearing a helmet while riding a two-wheeler. According to Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, all riders above the age of four need to wear a protective headgear while riding a two-wheeler of any class or description. For the same reason, all two-wheeler manufacturers offer one complimentary helmet on the purchase of a new motorcycle or scooter, all across India.

As per a report by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), a total of 46,593 persons were killed due to non-wearing of

Why New York City’s Lifeguard Shortage Is Even Worse This Year

May 27, 2023 by www.nytimes.com Leave a Comment

As New York City’s 14 miles of public beaches open for Memorial Day weekend, the city is confronting its worst lifeguard shortage on record — something officials say is partly the result of a bitter fight between the city and the little-known but extraordinarily powerful unions that represent lifeguards.

Millions of New Yorkers are facing the prospect of partial beach closures and limited access to pools when they open next month. Parks Department officials say they currently have fewer than 500 lifeguards ready to work, roughly a third of the number they say is needed to fully staff beaches and pools.

The lifeguard shortage, which also stems from perennial issues like low salaries, a difficult qualifying test and a pandemic-induced slowdown of the lifeguard pipeline, follows months of off-season maneuvering between city officials and an obscure pair of lifeguard locals.

It is an intractable and bizarre union beef that stands out even in a city rife with them and one that has left the city — locked in collective bargaining negotiations with union officials to reach a new contract — blaming the unions for leaving key swimming spots understaffed.

The unions have a checkered past marked by sordid headlines, investigations and damning governmental reports. But they effectively control all lifeguard operations, down to determining who qualifies to work each summer.

Lifeguard coverage is critical in New York City, where beaches and pools are some of the only sources of relief for crowds of often inexperienced swimmers from sweltering neighborhoods with few public swimming resources.

An inability to swim and the dangerous surf can be a fatal combination, especially in places like the Rockaways, whose ocean beaches have dangerous rip currents that often prove deadly, particularly in the evening hours after lifeguards have gone off-duty.

Last summer, amid a nationwide lifeguard shortage, the city had 529 guards by the time public outdoor pools opened in late June, but it continued to certify lifeguards through early July to reach 900.

This year so far, there are only 480 lifeguards on hand, including 280 returning guards and 200 new recruits, parks officials said. They are scrambling to add more before the pools open.

In 2016, by comparison, the city hired nearly 1,500 lifeguards. Even in 2021, there were just over 1,000.

Parks officials said they would still be able to cover the usual eight-hour days at pools and beaches, and that they expected a late wave of returning lifeguards by early July, when summer crowds begin to peak. But swimmers can expect partial closures.

To ratchet up recruitment for this summer, parks officials had rolled out incentives like pay hikes and retention bonuses, and eased the notoriously difficult swim test. Ads were placed at public high schools, job fairs and bus shelters.

Two city officials who requested anonymity to discuss private negotiations said that their recruitment efforts had been met with obstructionist tactics by union leaders, who canceled meetings and insisted on communicating mainly by fax.

But Thea Setterbo, a spokeswoman for District Council 37, disputed the city’s negative claims.

She said lifeguard totals — reduced by the national shortage and not any labor friction — would surpass last year’s numbers within weeks, especially as returning students get certified.

“Our members have a common goal, to keep beaches staffed and the public safe,” she said. “The fact that we’ve had no drownings for eight years is a testament that our lifeguards are doing their job efficiently and maintaining the safety standards that have been in place for decades.”

The shortage has provided oxygen to perennial union critics and their standing claim that union leaders manage lifeguard operations based on favoritism and vengeance.

One of them, Janet Fash, 63, a longtime chief lifeguard in the Rockaways, said union leaders had a unique gatekeeper role that has helped keep them in power.

“It’s a shame that the union has such a stranglehold on the whole operation,” Ms. Fash said. “It’s dysfunctional. They make it so difficult for people to recertify that lifeguards get disgusted and just leave.”

Ms. Fash said: “As long as the lifeguard school is run by the union, which uses it to keep its power and as a tool of retaliation, you’re going to have shortages.”

Although the lifeguard program falls under parks jurisdiction, it has long been run almost autonomously by the leaders of the two locals: Local 461 for rank-and-file lifeguards and Local 508 for supervisors.

The locals, which are part of District Council 37, the city’s largest municipal union, wield outsize power over training, certifying and even assigning and supervising lifeguards.

Henry A. Garrido, District Council 37’s executive director, dismissed Ms. Fash’s criticism as the rantings of a disgruntled dissident.

He commended the union’s stewardship and said a major reason for the problem was that parks officials had their “worst year ever” in bringing back guards from previous years, largely because of salary issues.

By the time some contractual matters were resolved and parks officials announced lifeguard raises in early April — hourly pay for newer lifeguards increased to $21.26 from $16.10, with a $1,000 bonus for those who stay past mid-August — many returning guards had already begun looking for higher-paying jobs at beaches and pools outside the city, Mr. Garrido said.

“Before Covid, you would have 500 lifeguards returning,” he said. “This year, you have about half that.”

Asked about the unions, a parks spokeswoman would not comment on the record. But in a statement, the agency’s first deputy commissioner, Iris Rodriguez-Rosa, noted its “extensive recruitment effort” and said it was “doing everything that we can to bring on new lifeguards.”

Relations between the unions and the city have long been fraught. But parks officials’ efforts to gain more control over some aspects of the operations seem to have worsened an already rocky working relationship, leaving the city likely to fall far short of its goal to staff beaches and pools with 1,400 lifeguards.

The idea of a powerful lifeguard union might seem at odds with the place that the job holds in the public imagination: a quaint image of teenagers in swimsuits working for pocket money and time off to surf. But leaders of the city’s locals run a hard-nosed operation.

The unions have been investigated over the years by the city’s comptroller and the public advocate, who in 1994 detailed a culture of corruption based partly on a monthslong undercover investigation at the lifeguard school.

In 2021, the city’s Department of Investigation found “the structure, history, and culture of the Lifeguard Division reveals systemic dysfunction in its management and accountability.”

At the center of it all is the enigmatic union boss Peter Stein, who heads the supervisors union but holds sway over the lifeguard local as well.

Mr. Stein, who did not respond to requests for comment, has survived decades of headlines , scandals and investigations over union supervision, training and hiring.

A New York magazine article in 2020 , which the director Darren Aronofsky’s production company is now adapting into a television series, described the union’s history as a “Tammany Hall by the Sea” from which Mr. Stein ran things by a “playbook of patronage, power brokering, and intimidation.”

The city had begun trying to get union officials to come to the table to discuss the contract, including recruitment issues, in November, the two city officials said. But the union repeatedly agreed to meetings only to cancel them, finally sitting down to negotiate on Jan. 12, according to the officials. The union also created delays in recertifying lifeguards, the officials said.

The shortage has defied parks officials’ attempts to smooth out a certification process that has come under criticism.

Parks officials had sought to gain more new guards this summer by simplifying the rigorous test prospective lifeguards take to qualify for the 16-week, 40-hour training course.

The test weeds out many potential recruits largely through its 50-yard swim, which prospects historically had to finish in 35 seconds.

Faced with high failure rates — last year, of 900 applicants, only about 26 percent passed the test — and complaints from applicants, parks officials extended the acceptable time for this summer’s applicants to 45 seconds.

They also pushed for more transparency by mandating that applicants be notified of their swimming times, as opposed to merely whether they had passed or failed.

Howard Carswell, a former rescue diver with the city’s Police Department, said his 16-year-old son, a competitive swimmer, withdrew from lifeguard training this year because the officials overseeing it were surly and “generally giving the kids trying to get the certificate a hard time.”

He said his son had opted to spend the summer lifeguarding at an upstate lake for better pay.

“It wasn’t worth the aggravation,” he said. “It was just a generally depressing environment for kids that are looking to become New York City lifeguards.”

Google’s AI Search Feels Like a Content Farm on Steroids

May 27, 2023 by www.tomshardware.com Leave a Comment

Back in the early days, there were many libraries, and all of them had the same books. However, they each had different ways to help you navigate the stacks. Then a new library started, which totally obliterated the Dewey Decimal System and got you to the right shelf faster and easier than anyone else. After 20 years, nearly all other libraries had gone out of business because most people used the speedy library.

Having achieved dominance, the librarian decided that the library itself, rather than the books inside, was the key draw. So he started to write his own, lower-quality books on all the same topics and place them on a giant shelf that sat in front of the regular stacks. He wasn’t an expert on any particular topic, so these books were just weak paraphrases or sometimes word-for-word copies of the original source material. But he figured that, since nearly everyone came to and trusted his library, the readers would grab whatever was on the front shelf and be happy with it. They’d stay in the library longer, where he could sell them pens, coffee and donuts. Did he succeed? Google’s about to find out.

Currently available for testing in limited beta, Google’s new Search Generative Experience (SGE) shifts the site from being a search engine that links the best content to a publication offering its own mini-articles. But instead of hiring expert writers to do the work, Google employs an AI that ingests data from human-authored content and spits out weaksauce advice with no expertise or authority to back it up.

For years, both users and Google itself have complained about “content farms,” websites that produce shallow, low-quality articles at scale on a wide variety of topics so they can grab top search rankings. Google released a specific “Panda” algorithm update in 2011 that was primarily targeted at content farms and recent updates use the author’s expertise or the helpfulness of the article as ranking factors. However, with its LLM (Large Language Model) doing all the writing, Google looks like the world’s biggest content farm, one powered by robotic farmers who can produce an infinite number of custom articles in real-time.

Old Product Listings, Poor Advice

Let’s take this query: “What’s the best CPU?” There’s a very non-committal set of text saying that you should consider performance, speed and power consumption when choosing a processor (no duh, Captain Obvious). And then there’s a list of outdated processors that are not among the best CPUs available today. The top choice is a Ryzen 7 5800X3D which hasn’t been the top processor for a year, and then there’s a link to a Core i5-10400, which is three generations old. This is not helpful advice.

If you have SGE access enabled (see how to sign up for Google’s new AI Tools ), nearly every query you conduct will show you an AI-generated answer above the organic search results. Often, the AI-generated answer will take up so much of the screen – even on a 4K monitor – that you can’t see a single organic search result without doing a lot of scrolling. Google does provide some related links next to its answer, but these are not citations. In addition, in my testing, the quality and relevance of these links is often poor.

On the “what’s the best CPU” query, the number one choice is a list of the best CPUs on PCMag (relevant). Then there’s a link to a Ryzen 7 5700X page from a lesser-known site, Nanoreview, that doesn’t even have an evaluation of the CPU, just specs on its “review.” Let’s also keep in mind that these are not citations. We have no idea why Google chose the Ryzen 7 5800X3D as its best CPU, though we can guess it comes from someone’s web content.

Forget about buying CPUs! What if we ask Google how to install one? Here we get a list of 18 steps that often contradict each other and are out of order. Following these steps verbatim would break your CPU and motherboard.

No one can really argue with steps 1 to 4, which tell you to make sure you’re grounded and to remove any old processor (if you were upgrading, which wasn’t in the query). However, you probably don’t need to clean the CPU socket (number 5), and doing so the wrong way would damage your motherboard. It then says to “install new processor” (which is basically the entire thing) without telling you how to align it. Step 8 says to “install your processor cooler,” but step 9 says to “open latch on your motherboard socket.” You’d need to have opened the latch before putting in the CPU, not after putting on the cooler. Step 10 says to “Grab your CPU and check where the golden triangle is,” but you’d have already done that before seating the CPU, putting on thermal paste and attaching a cooler (all prior steps).

Steps 15 to 18 are a recipe for disaster, even if you hadn’t already followed the previous steps telling you to install the CPU into the socket. Step 16 says to “pull the retention arm from its socket.” That would likely break your motherboard.

And what sites does Google recommend you look at after reading this component-breaking advice? Its related links are from CoolBlue , a tech store in the Netherlands, Computer Info Bits (a site we’ve never heard of before) and a 26-second video from a YouTuber named Mac Coyzkie. These aren’t bad content, but do they have more authority or detail on this topic than everyone else?

Giving Medical Advice Without Credentials

Let’s look at a non-tech query and try a seemingly benign question: “How do I lose weight?” The AI bot gives precisely what you’d expect, a list of well-worn weight loss tips that aren’t particularly controversial, including “drink plenty of water” and “don’t skip breakfast.” However, this is medical advice, and it’s not attributed to anyone. Who says that using a smaller plate is good for weight loss? Is it a doctor or a nutritionist? What are their credentials? No, Dr. Google thinks that the librarian, not the books, is the real authority.

What we can see below the Generative AI result is Google’s old-fashioned featured snippet, which has a lot of the same advice (nearly word-for-word) and links to Great Britain’s National Health Service (NHS). So, it seems likely that Google probably grabbed many of these tips from the NHS article but chose not to credit the real medical professionals whose advice we should trust.

Google is supposedly reticent to give YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) advice via AI so it will not give you the SGE box for some medical and financial questions, but not all. For example, “Do I have COVID” and “best credit cards” didn’t give me the SGE box. However, when I asked, “Do I need a colonoscopy,” it gave me what seemed like a decent answer which was clearly drawn from its first recommended link: a health insurance provider called HealthPartners . Whether bots should be trained on health advice by insurance websites or more neutral medical information is a question I’ll leave up to someone else.

Can’t Understand What a Fast SSD Is

Returning to tech advice, let’s ask, “What’s the fastest SSD?” Again, Google gives a very generic set of tips about what to look for in an SSD and then a list of shopping links that is way off the mark. The top choice here is the Crucial P3 SSD which wasn’t even the fastest SSD when it came out. It’s rated for 3,500 MBps, while the fastest PCIe 5.0 SSDs can operate at three times that rate. Who says that the Crucial P3 is the fastest? Is it someone you should trust?

Dangerous for Publishers, Bad for Readers

Let’s get this out of the way: I’m not an unbiased party here. As a professional writer, I have a vested interest in people viewing my work and the work of my colleagues at other publications. If people just stay on Google.com and rarely leave to visit news and information websites, many of those publications will shut down, and others will go paywall-only. Readers will have fewer and inferior resources available to them, while Google’s bot will draw from a weaker pool of data, making its “advice” even worse.

But let’s look at this from a reader’s perspective. You are getting advice with no authority behind it. Whether it’s buying advice telling you what CPU to purchase or medical advice telling you how to diet or when to get your colon checked, the source of that information matters. You should trust a doctor who is certified by the NHS or the AMA. You should not trust some bozo who runs a website selling weight loss pills. By hiding its sources in an attempt to become the publisher, Google stops you from knowing the reliability of the advice.

The SGE assumes that readers, having been trained to “Google” everything, will blindly follow whatever the bot spits out, no questions asked. Google’s AI is not a doctor, a tech journalist, a florist or a travel agent. It has no arms and legs to pick up a laptop, install benchmarks and try out the keyboard to see if it’s mushy. It has no tongue to taste test food or eyes to watch movies and help you pick the best ones. But it sure can remix existing content!

Google Goes Against Its Own Search Criteria

Google itself knows that expertise matters. In December, the company’s Search Central blog said it is now using E-E-A-T – Experience, Expertise, Authority and Trust – to determine content rankings in search. In other words, content from an experienced author with subject matter expertise should rise to the top, and unreliable advice from johnny-come-lately content farmers should fall to the bottom.

However, Google doesn’t apply the E-E-A-T standard to its SGE or the related links the SGE recommends. Instead, it screams “trust me, just because I’m made by Google.” But you’d be sorely disappointed if you bought the Ryzen 7 5800X3D CPU and Crucial P3 SSD based on its assertion that these were the fastest components today.

While I was writing this article, I had to do some research about keyboard switches and I wanted to find a quick list of linear switches that are currently popular with the enthusiast community. So I Googled “best linear switches” and I got this bad answer:

The advice, which is about choosing a keyboard, not choosing linear key switches, doesn’t answer my query and most of the recommended links don’t address it either. But, even if this were an on-point list of only linear switches, giving me Google’s output is not the best user experience. I want to know what the keyboard experts think are the best linear switches and why. I don’t care what Google’s bot thinks because its opinion is meaningless.

Sometimes You Just Need a Link

A lot of people, including me, use Google like a spellcheck or autosuggest for URLs. You know you want a particular page, but you don’t know the exact web address so you search for what you want and the top result is it. I knew I wanted to visit the main tech security subreddit, but I didn’t remember exactly what it was called. So I Googled “reddit tech security subreddit.”

Instead of getting a list of deep links directly to subreddits, I got Google’s SGE box giving its opinion on which subreddits I should check out, without links to them in the copy.

Here SGE is acting like a rude stranger who, overhearing you ask a friend a question in a public place, jumps into your conversation to offer their unwanted two cents. I just wanted a link, Google SERP was giving it to me and you had to break into the conversation. Ugh!

One of the most “just give me the link” use cases is when you want to log in to an account you have somewhere: your health insurance provider, for example. You want the sign-in page and that is all. However, when I Googled some health insurance providers + “login,” I got the SGE experience telling me how to login (without links to the pages).

This is exactly the kind of behavior we see from content farms. The farmers know that someone is searching for an experience that they cannot provide, but they target that term with an article so that they can divert some traffic their way.

How Google Could Make SGE Usable

The problem with Google SGE is the mission more than the tool. A helpful generative AI experience would:

Always cite specific sources with direct links in the copy like Bing Chat does today.
Not pretend to offer advice: A list of recommended products is advice, as is a list of tips. Any advice should come from a specific human expert. If Google SGE answers queries like “best lubricated switches” at all, it should pinpoint people with expertise, experience and authority in that topic.
Take up less of the screen: Many people are just going to want links. Don’t push all links below the fold, particularly on high-res screens. Making Google’s own content take up the entire screen is anti-competitive behavior.
Give good recommended links: The quality of the recommended links in the SGE box should match the quality of those in Google’s regular organic SERP.
Don’t answer queries where someone is looking for a web page: If I asked for a subreddit or my insurance provider’s login page, don’t give me your advice. Get out of the way.

I hope Google will come around to some of these ideas through its testing, but I’m not holding my breath.

Will Google Focus on Profit or User Experience?

Google seems to be betting that, whether the quality of its advice is good or not, most readers will stick with the answers and advice it gives rather than going to outside websites. So if you click a link from Google Shopping, Google is the one that gets paid. And if you stay on Google.com, rather than clicking through to another site, Google gets to keep 100 percent of the ad revenue.

The problem is not that the SGE content is so good that it puts human writers to shame. The issue is that the librarian has become a publisher and is pushing his own content-farm-level output to the forefront. You may not need to write the best book when you have the front shelf.

Note: As with all of our op-eds, the opinions expressed here belong to the writer alone and not Tom’s Hardware as a team.