Penguin 2.0 is upon us - May 22, 2013

[viral]

Matt has announced Penguin 2.0 (Penguin 4). Either way it is out there and affecting.

Is anyone noticing much movement in the serps? I personally haven't seen much flux but Mozcast seems to be feeling something.

[mattcutts.com...]

We started rolling out the next generation of the Penguin webspam algorithm this afternoon (May 22, 2013), and the rollout is now complete. About 2.3% of English-US queries are affected to the degree that a regular user might notice. The change has also finished rolling out for other languages world-wide. The scope of Penguin varies by language, e.g. languages with more webspam will see more impact.

This is the fourth Penguin-related launch Google has done, but because this is an updated algorithm (not just a data refresh), we’ve been referring to this change as Penguin 2.0 internally. For more information on what SEOs should expect in the coming months, see the video that we recently released.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:12 pm (utc) on May 23, 2013]
[edit reason] added quote [/edit]

[turbocharged]

I don't like what google is doing because it affects my bottom line negatively. I have to think that google likes what they are doing because it is affecting their bottom line positively.

This is very true. The two metrics Google is most concerned about are (1)profits and (2)shareholder value. Google is exceeding projections on both these fronts. Because Google's profits are largely based on search related activity, they have to treat webmasters as competitors. This is exactly what Google is doing, in my opinion.

Penguin has instilled fear into webmasters. In an almost chaotic panic, webmasters have been sending out link removal requests left and right. Delinking the web allows surfers fewer opportunities to find what they are looking for, which in turn makes them more dependent on a search product. With Google's dominance in the search market, they stand to gain nearly 70% of the search traffic that would have otherwise been served by hyperlinks.

It's a brilliant strategy. Panda smacks you for what you have on your site and who you link to, while Penguin smacks you for who links to you. This has dazed many webmasters and left them confused as to how they can fix the problem. This confusion allows Google to continue moving forward with their plans, which I believe will ultimately eliminate organic search results for those queries that have enough Adwords users. Organic listings will become a type of filler material to serve searchers when no other paid options exist.

All hyperlinks, which deprive Google of search traffic, are in Google's crosshairs right now. This raises some interesting issues as the foundation of the internet is built on sites linking to other sites. Is Google trying to employ a strategy that reduces user choice to make users more dependent on a search product? At the same time webmasters are removing links, businesses are becoming more reliant on buying links in Google Search and in other search engines, social networks, etc. It's a winning proposition for Google and all the political infighting in Washington D.C. makes it far easier for them to stay under the radar. Additionally, no international governing body/credible group exists to stand in Google's way. Google is a member of the W3C and likely helps to fund their activities just as they do with the EFF. Then we have the Internet Association, which is Google's Washington D.C. based lobbying group that claims to be the voice of the internet economy but has only members such as Amazon, eBay, Facebook and many other 800lb gorillas that control most of the internet traffic. It's a private club for the elite, and no small businesses are allowed.

We should not be confused by what we see in the SERPS and what Google's motive is. The quality of search results are down at a time when Google's profits are soaring. This is not a coincidence, but by design. It can be spun many different ways, but Google is making every effort to continue to expand their search product. Because Google Search is already quite large, the only way it can continue to grow is by taking money out of our pockets (webmasters) and putting it into theirs.

[Play_Bach]

> Organic listings will become a type of filler material to serve searchers when no other paid options exist.

Feels like we're there now...
Great post @turbocharged, thanks.

[Hollywood]

I have been in business 13 years with my site, they just keep killing my traffic on any update at all. I am trying so many different things, website just keeps tanking, losing positions, etc. I had like top 10-15 positions for about 500 terms, now it's like 230 only, I get no warnings nothing. With GOOG at 800/share expect it to go higher yes. It's all about the investors.

I agree exactly with TurboCharged!

"All hyperlinks, which deprive Google of search traffic, are in Google's crosshairs right now. This raises some interesting issues as the foundation of the internet is built on sites linking to other sites. Is Google trying to employ a strategy that reduces user choice to make users more dependent on a search product? At the same time webmasters are removing links, businesses are becoming more reliant on buying links in Google Search and in other search engines, social networks, etc. It's a winning proposition for Google and all the political infighting in Washington D.C. makes it far easier for them to stay under the radar. Additionally, no international governing body/credible group exists to stand in Google's way. Google is a member of the W3C and likely helps to fund their activities just as they do with the EFF. Then we have the Internet Association, which is Google's Washington D.C. based lobbying group that claims to be the voice of the internet economy but has only members such as Amazon, eBay, Facebook and many other 800lb gorillas that control most of the internet traffic. It's a private club for the elite, and no small businesses are allowed.

We should not be confused by what we see in the SERPS and what Google's motive is. The quality of search results are down at a time when Google's profits are soaring. This is not a coincidence, but by design. It can be spun many different ways, but Google is making every effort to continue to expand their search product. Because Google Search is already quite large, the only way it can continue to grow is by taking money out of our pockets (webmasters) and putting it into theirs."

[Kelowna]

Penguin has instilled fear into webmasters. In an almost chaotic panic, webmasters have been sending out link removal requests left and right.

Well I guess it all depends on what circles you hang in. With this latest update spam is working better than ever. Now even for the toughest terms it only costs a couple hundred bucks worth of spam links to hit page one. The only losers to this update it appears are those that "fall in love" with their site that is not doing well and spend all their time and energy into trying to fix it. I personally just keep my so called good sites for Bing traffic and just feed the penguin tons of spam as that is the only thing that works for the Gorg lately. If google wants junk to rank, then feed them junk. Simple, no? It is their search engine after all and they get the final say as to what shows up on page one.

The day they want quality is the day I will change. If you want to see quality, use Bing. If you want to rank and bank, then target the Gorg. With this latest update good luck trying to outrank the spam with a so called white hat site.

Oh... and that manual spam reporting tool... ha ha ha... there are already bots in place that spam the sh!t out of it by reporting the top 10,000 alexa ranked sites... just saying if you think it will help trying to report the spam manually, I am sure they are over whelmed with so much junk by now that it is worthless as well. Just thought you guys might want some input from someone who is benefiting from these so called "Google improvements".

Now time to hear from all the spammer haters... I didn't make these new rules, Google did after all...

[Wilburforce]

The situation here is looking very bleak. Bing is now ahead of Google as a referrer in my web logs (WMT recorded referrals are down 75% from a little over a year ago).

Only one of the handful of Google referrals in the last 24 hours is business related, and several are so far off-track I am surprised my site comes up in the SERPS at all (I have checked, and I get page 1 for stuff I don't come near to doing, and am nowhere for anything I do).

Presumably, someone who doesn't do what I do is getting all the referrals for it. Does anyone want to start a book on how much longer the public-at-large will keep using Google?

[ColourOfSpring]

This is very true. The two metrics Google is most concerned about are (1)profits and (2)shareholder value. Google is exceeding projections on both these fronts. Because Google's profits are largely based on search related activity, they have to treat webmasters as competitors. This is exactly what Google is doing, in my opinion.

Penguin has instilled fear into webmasters. In an almost chaotic panic, webmasters have been sending out link removal requests left and right. Delinking the web allows surfers fewer opportunities to find what they are looking for, which in turn makes them more dependent on a search product. With Google's dominance in the search market, they stand to gain nearly 70% of the search traffic that would have otherwise been served by hyperlinks.

It's a brilliant strategy. Panda smacks you for what you have on your site and who you link to, while Penguin smacks you for who links to you. This has dazed many webmasters and left them confused as to how they can fix the problem. This confusion allows Google to continue moving forward with their plans, which I believe will ultimately eliminate organic search results for those queries that have enough Adwords users. Organic listings will become a type of filler material to serve searchers when no other paid options exist.

All hyperlinks, which deprive Google of search traffic, are in Google's crosshairs right now. This raises some interesting issues as the foundation of the internet is built on sites linking to other sites. Is Google trying to employ a strategy that reduces user choice to make users more dependent on a search product? At the same time webmasters are removing links, businesses are becoming more reliant on buying links in Google Search and in other search engines, social networks, etc. It's a winning proposition for Google and all the political infighting in Washington D.C. makes it far easier for them to stay under the radar. Additionally, no international governing body/credible group exists to stand in Google's way. Google is a member of the W3C and likely helps to fund their activities just as they do with the EFF. Then we have the Internet Association, which is Google's Washington D.C. based lobbying group that claims to be the voice of the internet economy but has only members such as Amazon, eBay, Facebook and many other 800lb gorillas that control most of the internet traffic. It's a private club for the elite, and no small businesses are allowed.

We should not be confused by what we see in the SERPS and what Google's motive is. The quality of search results are down at a time when Google's profits are soaring. This is not a coincidence, but by design. It can be spun many different ways, but Google is making every effort to continue to expand their search product. Because Google Search is already quite large, the only way it can continue to grow is by taking money out of our pockets (webmasters) and putting it into theirs.

turbocharged, what a FINE post. This is the best thing I've read on webmasterworld.com. It sums everything up so concisely.

YES, Google want to unlink the web. Referal traffic is Google's enemy. They don't want us traversing the web outside of Google. Google are like an abusive spouse who demands their partner has no friends of their own and that only *THEY* can introduce friends that they decide are good for you, and *THEY* must be present with you when you visit these friends (that you didn't really pick yourself). That level of control is abusive and unsustainable - eventually the abused no longer puts up with it, and they seek healthier relationships. Remember the internet even just 2 years ago? People linking out without a worry. Just like 1996, 1998, 2000 and so on. The internet IS links. The INTER - NET - get it? The internet IS a freedom to do as you please - it's not listening to Matt Cutts telling us to label an article as "sponsored story"(!). Google want the internet to be Google's home page. What a depressing prospect. All it will take is a tipping point to make businesses realise that Google are just A N Other traffic source, and the internet will once again be free from the clutches of an abusive dictator. And what a wonderful time that will be.

[diberry]

^^^Agreed.

So what do we do in response? Trudge along individually and hope for the best?

What we need to do is find ways of working with each other so that in the event we lose Google traffic, it's not the end of anybody's sites.

[turbocharged]

What we need to do is find ways of working with each other so that in the event we lose Google traffic, it's not the end of anybody's sites.

It's not a matter of if we will lose free Google traffic but when and what kind of impact this will have on small businesses. Working together is an excellent idea, but for what purpose and to accomplish what set of goals?

Personally, I think what is needed most in the webmaster community is a collective voice. Essentially, such a voice would have to be a trade association/lobby to counterbalance what Google, Amazon, Facebook, Yahoo, eBay, etc. are trying to do with their lobbying organization. Instead of an association of whiners, it would have to be data based to substantiate the harmful effects these extremely large corporations are having on small businesses and their opportunity to compete in a fair market.

Data regarding Penguin 2.0, such as is found in the Moz Blog, offers some insight to what initially occurred. It's just a matter of connecting the dots and continually presenting this kind of information to regulators and policymakers to resist some of the harmful change that is being forced on us. For example, some of the "big 20" sub-domain rank changes for Google's Internet Association members are:

Amazon: -.75%
eBay: +1.98%
Facebook: +6.05%
TripAdvisor: +4.54%
YouTube: +3.11%

One could argue that although Amazon slipped slightly, they are benefiting from host crowding that may more than compensate for the limited loss in ranks. All other Internet Association members posted strong immediate gains after Penguin 2.0 was initially released. More data needs to come to light and for the rest of the Internet Association's members to get a complete picture.

It's very difficult for anyone to tell another company what they can and can't do with their business. However, eCommerce is a one trillion dollar a year industry. It needs to be adequately regulated and protected so that all businesses have an opportunity to compete and consumers retain choice. Collectively, the Internet Association controls most of the internet traffic and points of origin for eCommerce transactions. This should sound off the alarm bells for regulators, but nobody that I know of is trying to press places like the FTC to look into the activities of this organization and whether just their working together should raise anti-trust concerns.

Many small businesses I have worked with have been hurt badly. Because of Panda they wanted to fix their websites and de-optimize them. Then there is Penguin, which many small business owners have spent money on removing links or spent many hours monitoring their backlinks in Webmaster Tools. This equates to a significant loss in productivity and the burden is targeted towards small businesses, while big businesses tend to get granular types of penalties (a penalized page and not the whole site). This places small businesses at an even further competitive disadvantage because Google has told them that they must allocate money and/or time to what many of us now know to be extremely unproductive tasks (solutions which do not work for most) if they ever hope to be seen in Google Search again. And where would these businesses rank at anyway? Below a couple YouTube videos, multiple Amazon listings, a Wikipedia listing and of course all those paid ads and images?

These are very difficult times for small businesses trying to maintain a visible presence online. From the trends I have seen, these problems are likely to get far worse in the near future. For me personally, it may have broad ramifications. What small business is going to want to develop or expand a website if they must first pay Google or another Internet Association member to be seen? Especially with the continued assault on hyperlinks, this could become a real possibility if small businesses do not allocate a large enough budget to compete with the big corporations.

[Awarn]

An organization would be good as a start. But a knowledge engine or search engine has the data to make it valuable because webmasters made it available. That is really the strange part. Without the sites there is nothing to sell. No advertising dollars. No Adwords, no business. So the sites helped make Google and Google help make the sites. But now Google thinks they are bigger than the sites. Remember they are God, in their eyes. The webmasters still control the sites and the information. In my niche I do get people that say nobody else has that item. Do you know that. Yes I do. It would be very easy for me to make it so people searching on Google could not find the items. They can easily find it on other engines. What would be really nice would a method to take dynamic site and some how create maybe bing specific, google specific, yahoo specific formats. Say if Google rewards black hat spam the page is formatted with spam and only Googlebot gets that page etc etc.

If there was an organization that would kind of research what ranks, I think it would be very feasible to charge thousands per year to be a member to this data. And if as a requirement it was mandated that if the requires you as a member to shut down a site or block a bot at times to boycott the businesses practices of certain internet companies, That organization could in fact become VERY powerful because at that point they in fact control the information on the web.

[Play_Bach]

"The genie is out of the bottle," unfortunately. While I applaud those wanting to take a stand against Google, the sad truth is their market share is so large that short of government intervention, there's nothing to stop them from continuing to do whatever they want to do.

[diberry]

I wasn't thinking any big organized front or anything anti-Google.

I was thinking how SEO has made us all paranoid and divisive toward each other. Like, how we're scared to show each other our sites, afraid someone will steal our business model or negative SEO it into oblivion. Well, in the offline world of brick and mortar shops, people know your business model and yet somehow a lot of small businesses thrive. That's because in the offline world, people realize that "marketing" and "networking" are forms of promotion that don't stop working because some search engine had an algo update.

We're afraid to link, afraid to use navigation anchor text that makes sense to readers, etc. This is not a sensible way to do business.

I personally am ready to say, "I just don't know what Google wants, and if I did, they would change their minds next month anyway" and focus on actual marketing and networking. We should be linking out when it serves visitors. We should be cross-promoting our brands with other brands when it will please visitors, regardless of how Google might or might not interpret that interlinkage.

That's what I was talking about. I don't want to organize my business around Google, and I guess what I'm suggesting is that we drop SEO entirely and start thinking like marketers - just get converting eyeballs on the page, no matter where they come from. But maybe I'm in the wrong forum for that, I guess.

[Zivush]

drop SEO entirely and start thinking like marketers

Amen

[tedster]

This discussion has become generic observations about Google rather than a specific discussion of Penguin 2.0 itself - so it is now locked. If anyone has specific input about Panda 2.0, please let me know what your would like to share and I'll open the thread for you.