Matt Cutts: Google multi-week rollout going on now

[SEOPanda]

Matt Cutts: [twitter.com...]

Multi-week rollout going on now, from next week all all the way to the week after July 4th.

Seeing a bunch of junk results... looks like many big keywords are returning results that aren't ideal.

Anyone seeing their rankings moving and being replaced by strange sites?
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:57 am (utc) on Jun 26, 2013]
[edit reason] added quote [/edit]

[ColourOfSpring]

johnhh, power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[seoskunk]

"You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead"
Stan Laurel

I only mention this because we got Laurel & Hardy running the serps these days !

[aristotle]

The pattern for panda updates has been the garbage coming to the top and then it is skimmed off.

To me, this doesn't seem like a good way to do a roll-out. In fact, I'm not even sure I understand how it works. For example, how is the garbage skimmed off? Do defects become apparent as the roll out progresses, and then are quickly fixed? Isn't there some way to test everything beforehand. I don't understand.

[GreenDog18]

@garya I saw the same exact thing. My keywords took a huge hit right before I went to bed last night. (Central Time)

About mid day the rankings returned.

[taberstruths]

Aristotle, I don't claim to understand it. I just have noticed this often. My only thought on it is that they crank up one portion of the algo with a heavier weight and then see what rises and then test it with the panda algo and if they fail, they fall off. Just an opinion.

[EditorialGuy]

My only thought on it is that they crank up one portion of the algo with a heavier weight and then see what rises and then test it with the panda algo and if they fail, they fall off.

Or maybe they just turn off the spam filters so they can see the new algorithm's performance in all its naked glory.

[mcneely]

I'm wading thru the Wordpress mess with my static pages in tow .. I'm an Evenrude in a cesspool it appears, as I have finally started to make some kind of headway after being stuck in the same position for months.

My site isn't new, my concepts aren't new, and my industry isn't new .. What is new tho', is the way I'm revisiting things I've done since 2005.

All of those dinky little things that actual real people really really liked are already in the process of making a comeback on some of my web properties.

A few or so days ago I saw an uptick in traffic upon after dumping about 3/4 of my social networking crap .. Tossed out some of the Adsense too .. Dumped the G+ buttons and totally trashed the authorship tags.

Tho' in 72 hours I've managed to climb 8 more positions, it's the traffic I'm the most interested in. The traffic actually started before the climb did (right around Monday evening).

Referrals from Google are up about 4%, and at this stage of the game, that's a major improvement --

heh .. I'm almost nearly going the opposite direction here .. I used to listen to Cutts .. these days?, not so much .. BS is what it is and for as smart as Cutts is, you'd think he would already know that you can't BS a BS'er ..

I know that the SERP's are in flux and all of this could easily be for naught ..

I'll still write for the standards of the day, but I'm leaning heavily toward the internet version of retro here .. and plan to bring the shiniest parts back to my web properties ..

[taberstruths]

Mcneely, could it be that when you got rid of all the javascript based load on your page that the page speed went up which is why you are getting an increase?

[mcneely]

@taberstruths .. Yes .. You are probably right in that regard .. considering that entire page size is 5.9kB and just "one Google Ad" is 6.8 kB all by itself.

Then again, I've still got a ton of jQuery stuff going on in the backend, so as I move along, most of that will go away too.

I'll be leaning as well to RWD here shortly.

Currently, my total load time is 2.59 seconds ..

as an aside .. some of the RWD stuff I'm considering is a lot heavier .. I've got an old MOBI site I built that ran along side my main until last week, that is a straight 4.8kB (no js, jQuery, -- nothing).. it never listed higher than any of my other stuff tho'.

[taberstruths]

I would bet that this area is your problem. I currently run under 2 seconds with 587.5 kb of info. Something is loading very slow on your site. You should be under 500 milliseconds with such a small amount of data to transfer.

[mcneely]

I just don't know @taberstruths .. Some of my direct competitors are listing higher with stuff 3 times heavier than mine ..

I recognize speed as just one factor of many and I'm addressing that as I move along.

I'd been stuck in the same position for a long time and I just started getting rid of the stuff I thought was garbage -- even from the beginning.

As soon as I started taking the trash out, everything started to move ...

[chalkywhite]

@mcneely @Taberstruths

Google recently said that speed is not currently rewarded with higher rankings, only extrememly slow sites may have problems.

[reseller]

This algo rollout has illustrated with no doubt the victory of a specific spam technique, which I shall refer to as "Multiple Domains Spam".

For example we see a niche related to "Assisted Living" where there are few, large, national 'referral' sites who are buying up domains, and 'leasing' others, so more and more they take up a good number of the top 10 Google Serps.

I read on twitter about another example of "Multiple Domains Spam". A person is spamming Google through several domains. He changes the domain frequently once Google penalises the current domain.

I don't think Panda and Penguin have been able to deal with that kind of spam. Furthermore I see "Multiple Domains Spam" has emerged victorious through the current rollout.

Finaly I wish to mention that I have noticed on twitter that Matt Cutts has already been informed about above mentioned cases of spam in details.

[Saffron]

I still think that ultimately Google will realise that whatever they are doing is not working. Search results are worse than ever. My goal is to try and hang on (which is really hard), and eventually I think Google will go back to producing good search results. How long this will take them is anybody's guess. But it just seems crazy that for all their hard work (and I do think they probably do mean well), their search results are woeful. But Yahoo are still producing good results. Not the same domain listed multiple times, thin content etc. Surely if Yahoo can do it, Google can too?

[Garya]

I notice on google the top 5 real estate sites now have no written content, just listings which are all duplicate content. Is this the new trend for real estate websites.

[Martin Ice Web]

I think that high targeted sites are the loosers of this quality update.
in my niche most sites on serp page #1 have more links to related widgets on it then information about the widget itself. Like 20x times "poeple buyed too this widgets". The widgets are changing with every reload. The links are all follow.
The widget informatinon is only 12 words. This sites have multiple spots on serps page #1.

[Bluejeans]

@johnhh That's pretty explosive. There's been a lot of speculation here and elsewhere about BB dominance. Now, if only we knew what those "hints" were. . .

[taberstruths]

@Chalky, actually if I understand the comment correctly. Page speed is a ranking factor only if there is basically a tie. In other words, if two sites are ranked similar, the one with better speed wins out.

[Awarn]

@Saffron. I do not see them going back. Large corporations usually commit a lot of resources into a project like this. Once it gets the green light it will get pushed through no matter what. Sure there may be huge disagreements inside the company but it will go through. It may then fall flat on it's face and then be retracted. That process could take more than a year. It appears they are still just trying to implement it let alone see its results. Also Google is generating money. Is the intent profitability or search quality? You can not rely on somebody else (Google) to do what you think is right. To survive we must adapt. That means you look at all techniques that seem to be rewarded in the rankings. Amazingly this SEO world is starting to remind me of the Internal Revenue Code with a bunch of loop holes and gray areas and good ideas that were ruined by people trying to manipulate the system.

[Saffron]

I live in hope, Awarn. My main angle is that if we are noticing (and we would be the first, as it affects us), it's only a matter of time before the public notice, and if they are frustrated by poor search results, and one or two sites dominating above the fold, they will do as my friend did, and start using another search engine. It may not happen of course, would be nice if it does. I do believe people are bound to start noticing how awful the search results are soon enough.

I do agree with you about not relying on Google. BIG eye opener there. My focus was purely Google and not other ways to bring in traffic (I have said before that I have NEVER spent a second trying to build links, I figured if people like the site, they will link to it). I'm still not really sure how social media fits in. My main site has a page with 780 users. Probably 30% are regulars from my forums, others have found the FB page. I guess I should plug the site more on FB instead of just engaging with them. I find that side of things all a bit painful. I just like writing articles, not schmoozing.

[snickles121]

Heres a weird thing. My newly created mobile website now over ranks my desktop version in desktop search. Now when you click on the mobile site from the search results in desktop its all distorted because it was meant for mobile.

I think the webmasters dont need to get their stuff together, but google does. This is definetely hurting my conversions.

All coding that google told me to put on both sites are in place.

Whats going on at Google?

[EditorialGuy]

I'm still not really sure how social media fits in. My main site has a page with 780 users. Probably 30% are regulars from my forums, others have found the FB page. I guess I should plug the site more on FB instead of just engaging with them.

Trouble is, many topics don't lend themselves to promotion, sharing, or discovery through social networking. When my electronic car key stops working and I need how-to information about reprogramming it, a Google search will be far quicker and more reliable than asking for advice on Facebook. If my son is planning a trip to Surinam and wonders what shots he needs, his friends and acquaintances on Twitter aren't likely to have the answer. If my cousin is suffering from a minor but embarrassing medical ailment and wants some background info before he sees the doctor, he's unlikely to broadcast his symptoms on Google+. In each case, a search engine is the user's preferred route to a site with the desired information.

From my point of view as a niche Web publisher, search is important because most of my prospective readers don't have friends who can supply expert advice on my topic. I can promote myself on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest, etc. until the cows come home, but that won't help me reach more than a tiny percentage of the people who, at some point, will be looking for the information that my site provides. Most of those people will be using Google to find the information they need, no matter how much I may bluster about the quality of Google's search results or how those users should be using DuckDuckGo, Bing, Facebook, or Twitter.

[taberstruths]

EditorialGuy,
None of those things are likely to go viral unless there is something strange or funny about them that can be caught in a picture or video. However having a sizeable fan base on the major social networks can still be used to determine if you are a legit author with authority on your subject or whether you are a scraper looking for a quick buck. Now I am not saying that some scrapers and dorks are not trying to game that system with fake followers and fans, but that becomes apparent over time.

[besnette]

reseller, you are dead on - I am one of the smaller guys (relatively speaking) in the niche with "multiple domains spam' - working my butt off to be original, produce my own videos, interviews, articles and content, and Friday morning's algo basically put many of those multiple domains, owned by the same large company(s) at the top - all of which, by and large, reproduce the same material, packaged slightly differently. I am glad that some of the upper ups caught wind of it...hopefully it will be ok.

[Saffron]

The multiple domain spam thing really bugs me, I'm seeing that a lot with one or two competitors of mine who Google seem to love at the moment.

If I'm searching for something such as "what's the capital of Turkey", I will visit one site for my answer. If I'm searching for information on "diabetes", I like to visit 5-10 sites to get a wide range of information. I don't think one site will give you everything you need to know. So it really ticks me off when you search for something and the same site has several listings in the top 10 on Google.

I read that younger people tend to use social networks or Youtube more for searching. My 10 year old daughter almost never uses search engines, just goes to Youtube. I will use search for something like "diabetes" but will go to Youtube for "how to" information. Visual is better for that, but for information, I like to sit and read.

I see Facebook show up quite often as a referral, but nowhere near as much as the search engines. But I will keep plugging away. I need to look into Pinterest and all that stuff too. I'm still very old school, haven't quite caught up with all these latest networks.

[EditorialGuy]

I read that younger people tend to use social networks or Youtube more for searching

Could be, but a recent study of 310 million visits on 30 sites across six industries showed that 47% of all visits came from "natural search" and only 2% came from "social." Other sources of traffic were direct visits at 29%, referrals w/o social at 15%, and paid search at 6%. (Those numbers add up to 99%, so I assume the missing percentage point is due to rounding of the other figures.)

Something else to keep in mind: If you've got an information site about widgets, visitors who arrive from search engines are likely to be better prospects for advertisers and affiliate partners, which means more opportunities for revenue. (As Google likes to say in its ads for AdWords, "Who's looking for a guitar? People who search for guitars.")

Of course, there will always be people who don't like to research on their own: They'll ask their friends what brand of refrigerator to buy, what hotel to book at Disney world, and what kind of puppy makes the perfect pet. In the pre-Internet days, they were the folks who'd go to the public library and ask the reference librarian to look things up for them. Today, those people are asking questions on Facebook or TripAdvisor, or writing to niche Web publishers like me and saying "I don't like to read. Just tell me yadda yadda yadda...." (Yes, I once got an e-mail like that.) As a Web publisher, I prefer to target people who *do* like to read published information, and those people are most likely to arrive via search.

[Saffron]

Definitely agree, and I rely on search to bring in my traffic, but I am also trying to branch out. Google have taught me that you can't rely on them. You may be no. 1 for years (as I have been), and then all of a sudden, they ditch you. They are still my top referrer, but I am looking at ways to branch out. Facebook, Twitter, just opened a Pinterest account (don't know what on earth I'm doing yet), I'm pretty much trying everything.

My friend (who runs the same topic site as me) says she won't waste time writing about rare topics. I disagree. They may not get hits, but it's all exposure. And one day that rare topic that none of the other sites can be bothered to write about might be picked up by sites such as the BBC and you get a huge (albeit temporary) boost in traffic. So I don't just write the popular articles, I try to cover the ones my competitors don't want to write about.

I just wish there was more of an even spread of usage with the search engines instead of Google having the majority. I hope that will change, and soon so it's a more even playing field.

As an oldie, I would say I use search engines about 95% of the time for looking stuff up. I will occasionally ask for help on a forum. Never Facebook or Twitter. They're purely fun/social right now. My site has a FB page of course, but it's not something I especially enjoy doing. I'd rather be writing than posting on the site FB page. But it seems to be quite popular.

[reseller]

Just to clarify what I meant by "Multiple Domains Spam" in my previous post.

Multiple Domains Spam: Its a specific smart spam technique to own more than one top position on first page of Google SERPs for the same search term by several different domains you own or lease.

Multiple Domains Spam has been know and implemented by Black Hat SEOes for several years. Unfortunately, Google hasn't been able yet to win the war against Multiple Domains Spam. Furthermore neither Panda nor Penguin have been able to solve the said spam problem.

Niether the current algo rollout is winning the battle against Multiple Domains Spam, unfortunately.

[edited by: reseller at 6:37 am (utc) on Jun 30, 2013]
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:05 am (utc) on Jul 2, 2013]

[Saffron]

Is there actually any way to give Google feedback or will they just ignore us and think we're a bunch of whingers?

[reseller]

@Saffron

In the past Matt Cutts asked sometimes for feedback in connection with Google algo updates.

However, I guess you can tweet your feedback to him directly on Twitter [twitter.com...]

.
Mod's note: Please note that, as the Google Forum Charter [webmasterworld.com] explains, this forum is not a vehicle to communicate with Google - it's a place for us to have our own discussions and analysis. The Charter does describe four of the most effective ways to reach Google. Twitter isn't in our list, but you're welcome to try. ;)

.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:07 am (utc) on Jul 2, 2013]