Google Updates and SERP Changes - September 2014

[Martin Ice Web]

---

System: The following 8 messages were cut out of thread at: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4694139.htm [webmasterworld.com] by goodroi - 3:07 pm on Sep 2, 2014 (utc -5)

---

Hopefully Google is getting this thing tweaked.

as i see today, they didn´t get it right. Very low and nonconverting traffic.
+ domaincrowding
+ not compelling sites are on page #1
+ Content is NOT king
+ search for bananas and get apples


On saturday a friend asked me to look into his niche and all the ranking sites are like
- keyword town
up to page two
I thought this would be considered as spam? There was not one local Business, there was not one realy -> compelling <- site.

[Martin Ice Web]

fathom, maybe i wasn´t correct in my description of the Situation. The sites using the csv datafedd are very samll sites and don´t have any links nor link juice. So what´s your Panda conclusion to this?

[fathom]

I'm deaf, dumb & blind to your situation and have no facts but if you are a gem buried in crap your granular level needs to be somewhat higher to get detected above the crap threshold.

If it works the other way (and Google implies it does) then the same standards apply here.

[rowtc2]

About 50% drop, started yesterday, for a site with unique and compelling content, no thin pages. Its a custom blog with 200 pages.

Instead its places in serps there are bigger and older brands, but their listed pages didnt respond completely to user intent. My content is better, but G list brands with seo link builders as employees.

[superclown2]

Instead its places in serps there are bigger and older brands, but their listed pages didnt respond completely to user intent.

I've noticed the SERPs in my UK vertical becoming even more generalised over the last few days. It's all part of Page's obsession with giving visitors the sites that Google thinks they should be looking for, rather than the ones they actually do want. Big brother knows best.

[EditorialGuy]

It's all part of Page's obsession with giving visitors the sites that Google thinks they should be looking for, rather than the ones they actually do want.

If searchers knew what sites they wanted to visit, why would they be using search engines?

[Saffron]

If searchers knew what sites they wanted to visit, why would they be using search engines?

Just this second I 'Googled' something and the third listing was for howstuffworks, I may not know what sites I want to visit, but I do know that howstuffworks and wikihow are not places I want to get my information from, I prefer dedicated sites on the topic.

[EditorialGuy]

I may not know what sites I want to visit, but I do know that howstuffworks and wikihow are not places I want to get my information from, I prefer dedicated sites on the topic.

Me, too. Maybe it's time for Google Personalization 2.0.

[fathom]

First, results are such that you don't need to click on any specific one... And clearly not everyone prefers your preferences.

Second, one site out of 1000... How non-specific were the rest?

[netmeg]

[searchengineland.com...]

[JesterMagic]

Thanks netmeg... Hmmm Panda update I am not surprised (though I thought we would see the Penguin first).

[samwest]

Panda 27 - a filter designed to penalize “thin” or poor content from ranking well.

The definition is contrary to the serps in my niche. Thin went up again and holds page one tight. Figures.

[netmeg]

I'm hoping against hope this will take out some of my most recent egregious scrapers. They don't outrank me, but it's a matter of principle. They have no original content whatsoever, but millions (literally millions) of pages in the index that are scraped screencaps and text from other sites on the web.

[Andem]

Interesting. Since sometime on the 23rd, my largest and best site has seen a noticeable reduction in traffic.

Meanwhile, an ancient site with pretty mediocre content and a pretty high bounce rate has experienced a 40% increase in traffic.. such movements I haven't seen since before Panda 1!

[Wilburforce]

Panda 27 - a filter designed to penalize “thin” or poor content from ranking well.

The definition is contrary to the serps in my niche. Thin went up again

+1.

#3 for main key term has been a holding page ("currently building a new site...") for months.

[superclown2]

If searchers knew what sites they wanted to visit, why would they be using search engines?

You saying Google is a search engine?

visitors looking for information about apricots, apples or asparagus don't want a list of the biggest greengrocers. There is a difference, which Google is now apparently unaware of, between days, weeks, years and minutes. Searchers - real searchers - would, IMO, like more choice in the top ten than the same gorillas occupying the top spots for every conceivable search term they have a passing acquaintanceship with.

The Serps have been poor for years. They have recently got worse. Period.

[fathom]

You saying Google is a search engine?

visitors looking for information about apricots, apples or asparagus don't want a list of the biggest greengrocers. There is a difference, which Google is now apparently unaware of, between days, weeks, years and minutes. Searchers - real searchers - would, IMO, like more choice in the top ten than the same gorillas occupying the top spots for every conceivable search term they have a passing acquaintanceship with.

The Serps have been poor for years. They have recently got worse. Period.

How do you know what they want?

If I wanted apricots, apples or asparagus I wouldn't go to Google... I would drive to Walmart, Publix, Superstore, or head to my favorite non-search-engine market.

Searchers - real searchers - would just use Bing.com if Google was so bad.

[superclown2]

If I wanted apricots, apples or asparagus I wouldn't go to Google... I would drive to Walmart, Publix, Superstore, or head to my favorite non-search-engine market.

I didn't say they are looking for apricots, apples or asparagus, I said they were looking for information about them. There is a difference.

Searchers don't go to Bing in large numbers because (a) many of them don't even know it exists and (b) Google's marketing has been superb for years.

A bit closer to topic; my own theory is that, in my UK vertical, rather than give much of a boost to small, focussed sites the latest update has penalised those considered to be of thin content. The result has been that sites with better content have moved up slightly whilst the 'thinner' ones have moved down a lot. Meanwhile big brand bias has been unaffected which means that overall the first page of the SERPs have become even more packed with scarcely relevant mega sites. There has been a fair bit of movement in the lower pages but realistically for most sites that won't make a lot of difference to visitor numbers. Again, I am referring to my own UK vertical and other experiences may differ.

[fathom]

A bit closer to topic; my own theory is that, in my UK vertical, rather than give much of a boost to small, focussed sites the latest update has penalised those considered to be of thin content. The result has been that sites with better content have moved up slightly whilst the 'thinner' ones have moved down a lot. Meanwhile big brand bias has been unaffected which means that overall the first page of the SERPs have become even more packed with scarcely relevant mega sites. There has been a fair bit of movement in the lower pages but realistically for most sites that won't make a lot of difference to visitor numbers. Again, I am referring to my own UK vertical and other

Big brand bias is commonly known as naturally occurring links.

When you are well known there it is far easier to acquire links without lifting a finger.

That said, it is pointless to discuss how poor results are as genuine market share (consistently stable or slight growth) does not support that conclusion.

[superclown2]

That said, it is pointless to discuss how poor results are as genuine market share (consistently stable or slight growth) does not support that conclusion.

As I have already said, their market share is a result of their superb marketing, not the 'quality' of their results. A typical VHS v Betamax syndrome. However we are likely to be stuck with them for the foreseeable future.

A particular point I've noticed is that generally speaking my more focussed sites have dipped whilst many of my more 'spur of the moment' ones have risen. I even have a site with a humorous placeholder article (relevant to the keywords but only just) on it producing business. Some of these improving sites have very few backlinks indeed.

Their sole redeeming feature is that they are very, very different to the rest of the competitors.

[engine]

I'm going to wait a little longer before being 100% sure, however, it's interesting that the on-topic ranking is doing pretty good. It's not long tail as it's fairly generic. Slightly away from the precise on-topic and the ranking is consistently poor.

[samwest]

Google is not 100% bad...it 's just like Swiss cheese...lotsa holes. I can imagine that the problems of making every niche a happy place is next to impossible, but I'd like to see them learn a thing or two from DARPA and be able to precision target problem areas rather than the apparent daisy cutter techniques these major updates seem to have on certain sites. Not affected? Lucky you.

IMHO, DARPA's influence is one of the main reasons Google is unpredictable and secretive. It's their modus operandi.

[RedBar]

generally speaking my more focussed sites have dipped

I totally concur, mine have been replaced or pushed down by generic waffle and for those seeking correct specific informational facts they are going to have to search much further in the SERPs as they currently stand.

[mrengine]

Big brand bias is commonly known as naturally occurring links.

Not at all. Much of the host crowding I see include pages that have no links pointing to them as reported by HREFS. It sounds like you believe specialized small retailers are not capable of garnering links without employing some form of manipulative practice. That belief is also incorrect, but appears to be the same philosophy that Google is using the rank websites these days.

What I see are a lot of big brands manipulating Google's brand preference. On most of the product search terms I use, which are not ordinary household products, I know for a fact that these big brands do not sell the products in their retail locations. In fact, most are being sold by a third party with the big brand simply acting in the form of an affiliate. I find it hard to believe Google's algorithm can't see the same text on these product listings as I do (Sold by COMPANY NAME). If I can see that, Google would serve their users better by sending them directly to the actual company websites that are selling the products and not the big brand affiliate.

[philgames]

Im seeing lots of brands that dont have thousands of link on first page.. what links they do have are sponsored links ie either sitewide banner ads.. in article links with tags including onclick (to track click troughs) and sponsored giveaways form bloggers saying Iv been given and paid to post this but all the keyword rich anchor text links and opinions are my own....

[netmeg]

If I can see that, Google would serve their users better by sending them directly to the actual company websites that are selling the products and not the big brand affiliate.

No doubt the big brand is perceived (by Google, and quite possibly the users) to have a better overall user experience. I suspect that is more important these days than most everything else.

[engine]

I suspect that is more important these days than most everything else.

You're right, but to all but the smaller outfit. Mom and Pop is what some used to be called.

Isn't it time to be able to filter out the big brands as there's some great small companies out there with some terrific products. Finding them is difficult.

[samwest]

It may just be my hallucination, but Google seems to use big brand sites to legitimize their ads which likely improves click through. They also seem to prefer (in my niche) vapor thin content, which also increases the exit click through. No matter how it's spun, that's not a good user experience.

It's clear finance rules the serps. Maybe not in every case, it all depends upon the niche. If it happened in a repeatable, recognizable pattern, Google would have failed it's mission.

When you're doing 22% gains every year, you're likely not focusing on user experience, just processing as many users through the ad cycle as possible. If it was a good user experience, the user would sit tight on the site and that's not good for ad revenue.

We have to face it...Google is a business in it for profits. If you look at many older sites, (not all), we see the traffic graph slowly declining. Where did the traffic go?

Think of the empty space above the graph as the weight of your competitors. In the past, page 1 was just our direct, specific competitors. It was apple to apples. Over the years, more site have thrown their hat in the mix. Big brand answer sites and photo sharing is now our competitor. It's apples and oranges now. Not a good user experience, but man does it pay.

So, that space above your traffic graph is probably getting larger as the weight of capitalism bears down. It's time to either shift gears or be left in the dust. That means finding ways to promote your site outside of Google....who was never a good idea to rely on anyway.

[edited by: samwest at 2:23 pm (utc) on Sep 26, 2014]

[superclown2]

If I can see that, Google would serve their users better by sending them directly to the actual company websites that are selling the products and not the big brand affiliate.

This has been an issue for years with some of the companies I partner with. They sell a particular service, and their sites are packed with useful information but they have been totally outranked by their big-brand affiliates with boilerplate content who are taking their business and selling it back to them. This is not good for the consumer in any way. Sadly, with this update the position has got even worse.

[superclown2]

We have to face it...Google is a business in it for profits.

Nearly every business is in it for profits. Google just do it a lot better than most. Some of us made good money, though, even before the Internet, let alone Google, was even dreamed of. Try reading some of Dale Carnegie's books, most of what he wrote is still very relevant today.

[matt621]

I've been using yahoo's clean page for about a year and pretty happy with the results.

[search.yahoo.com...]