The loss of organic result relevance in Google search

[MrSavage]

Things change. Search changes. Our traffic changes. People move into our space. All things require adjustments to survive in business and the web is no different.

But right now I have to speak to something I've seen in the past week. Right now, on my monitor, I see an "answer box", with the good part of a website summarized and displayed and even contains a thumbnail from said web page. Now perhaps that's fine to some, but when I see to the right, an even larger box that says "Shop for.....(insert your search keywords here)" and sponsored shopping links?

That says right now, it's okay to take my content to answer succinctly a persons inquiry, and then display to them, a handful (more than a handful in this instance) of shopping links. Of which of course, said site receives ZILCH from sales. Said website in this example provided the key "answer", with a link of course at the bottom, but the eyes move to the images and the shopping ads. If the answer is good enough, and it is in this case, then WHO CARES ABOUT SAID WEBSITE. That's an extra click afterall.

So, I'm all ears. How is organic results no becoming irrelevant? I've seen in the past weeks, or even days, a substantial, and I mean substantial blocking out of the top portion of page 1 search results for shopping and ads. It's about as aggressive as I've ever seen. This is why I post. This isn't a rant. It's a realization today, what I thought for some time. I'm just wondering if everyone else is ahead of the curve on this one. It's a movement, and I see it as being big time evidence that organic traffic from Google just because a few notches lower in their priority or concern. As a webmaster when I see my relevance clearly slipping away, this is a milestone moment. I would post a pic of what I'm seeing, but find your own for now.

It's absurd that my content or yours could provide an answer and that said content could provide a useful and easy way to get clicks on shopping links for which you don't get a penny. A new frontier and I won't just pin this on Google because I'm sure Bing does this or will do this because together, it's far better than going out alone on these types of content eating sprees.

At this point all I can do about it is to care less about organic and consider long term viability of organic traffic. Also a revision on subjects that might be outside of the shopping ads etc. Not sure. To me this is a biggie. It's the most robust and accurate answer box that I've seen. *Comes complete with a thumbnail image!* (We all know how images affect ads and the no-no about putting images next to ads)

[MrSavage]

I just wanted to clarify the point of discussion as being the trend of "search" (Google, Bing, whatever) being more of a one-stop-shop. In particular, about observations in that regard. It just so happens that I use Google A LOT on a daily basis for a wide range of uses and have seen recent evolutions in terms of simply not needing to click through to a website from the organic listings. It would appear to me at least that whenever and wherever possible, this would be the goal of Google and others. So really the question is, how does my organic listing in the search results have a future? And please let's not get into the obvious which is the past which is trying to suggest this issue only really applies to people trying to provide simple and obvious content. This is "outside of the box" thinking. If people think that it's simple answers being the end game, then that differs from what I've seen myself.

I can say for certain that when I ask for a word definition, I get that answer in the box. Thus, how are the other organic listings not suddenly irrelevant? Does it make sense to bank of this answer/solution situation remaining the same? Nothing stays the same in this game. Google has some of the most brilliant people on the planet. If their goal is to give you an answer on the results page that satisfies you, they will know by the number of people clicking on other links on the page. They know whether it's effective or if it's not working. If it's not working, they can certainly make it better.

But I'm seeing far more than that now, which is why I'm sounding my own alarm. I'm wondering if people feel it's an investable future or not. Now obviously one shoe does not fit all, but for those of me who launched sites with the apparent (my suggestion here) hope of surviving or being worthwhile thanks to "free" traffic, I'm wondering if those types of webmasters are just accepting of the potential future of search engines simply becoming the one-stop-shop.

Ultimately, do people feel that investing in a website/idea that is going to rely on free organic search traffic is a worthwhile venture, when taking into consideration the appetite for the "search engines" to ultimately become "answer engines"?

[netmeg]

Some of us have never thought that.

[glakes]

It's absurd that my content or yours could provide an answer and that said content could provide a useful and easy way to get clicks on shopping links for which you don't get a penny.

I would not worry too much about this unless you are a big or well known brand. The Knowledge Graph, for all intensive purposes, is just another extension of big brand bias that excludes small sites from receiving traffic from Google's organic search product. Google is trying to make it so that keyword queries with buyer intent must be paid for by small businesses through adwords. The gravy train is over, unless you work for Google that is.

[samwest]

Funny how this topic is just being discussed now. I'm been harping on it since 2010. Someone said when things change, webmasters try to fix it. Sorry, but there are no fixes anymore. G has us all by the shorties and will do as it pleases. The web is just like the Wild West land grab and the Gold Rush of 1849. Those days are all over and so are the days of easy prosperity on the web. If you're still hanging in there with your adsense sites then God bless ya, but eventually G will move into your vertical too and you feel it just like many before you. Today I've relegated my old Bread & Butter site to pizza money...I'm interviewing for a job and I'm hanging up my webmaster shingle. I'll still do the occasional site, but there's not much point in providing content when Google knows it all already and will always prefer their or their partner network's version. The only websites that will be practical will be for brick & mortar sites hours of operation and phone number...but once it's posted, Google will circumvent the site and post it through it's all knowing knowledge graph. Goodbye www as we knew it....It was a great run.

[Leosghost]

do people feel that investing in a website/idea that is going to rely on free organic search traffic is a worthwhile venture

Personally, investing time money or effort into a website which is going to rely ( by "rely" I think you mean depend upon for most of it's traffic and most of it's revenues, be they from ads or sales of goods or services ? ) on free organic traffic is indeed a waste of time, money and effort.

But then, making your business ( and indirectly your lifestyle, home, finances ) primarily dependent upon what someone else or some other business does is IMO, and IME, naive and irresponsible. It always has the possibility to end in tears..

The writing has been on the wall for years now, G in particular ( but Bing is following suit ) has been making incremental changes designed to keep the surfer on G properties and the surfers eyeballs exposed to G ads to generate clicks and revenue to G, the "organic" ( and in particular small business websites ) part of any G SERP ( especially page 1 ) have been ( as someone said here ) .."backfill"..

The process began when wikipedia began to dominate the top of the "organics", along with Amazon, Ebay, About, Ehow and latterly Pinterest..Placing them in the top of "organics" pushed other sites down, some of those affected complained..most did not, as an adsense check buys a lot of silence and "loyalty" and unwillingness to "bite the hand that feeds" ( even if the rations were decreasing as G's friends were given the best places for clicks )..G has been "boiling frogs" for years..

They are quite ruthless ( "do no evil" was only designed to be catchy and play against anti Microsoft feeling )..Uncle Eric was never really your friend, and Larry and Sergey are "experimenting" at "societies", they no longer need the money, but the power is a heady draft..

Now that they are also answerable to shareholders and the centres of finance and the investment managers and hedgefunds, taking your content and using it as decoration in close proximity to to their ads will only increase..the "backfill" below the fold is merely to stop it looking like the front page of Yahoo..

They'll take you content via their proxies ( pinterest and other crowdsourced scrapers ) even if you blocked them via robots.txt ( which only stops them "for now" displaying what they find, doesn't stop them crawling and indexing your content, just not displaying it, for now )..G has a new bot ..mentioned elsewhere here..now they are looking to snarf your "media content", mp3s, mp4s etc..
Bing does this already..

If your business depends on your website(s)..be they "informational" or "ecom"..you have to get as many visitors as possible from other non SE sources of traffic and persuade them to clicks on ads that may be on your site(s)..If you are in "ecom" and using your site to sell what you have, or make, you have to get as many of your visitors and potential buyers from sources other than SE traffic..

The "easy times", when you could have a website that talked about or showed images what 1000s of others were talking about and showing and put the adsense code in there and wait for the checks are past..

The days when you could set up a site selling what hundreds or thousands of other sites were selling have long gone..The dropshippers were the first to wither, nowadays aliexpress is on etsy ( and the etsy clones )..TaoBao ( soon to be in English ..everywhere ) and similar are going to go through "mom and pop" stores like tornados..with free, or nearly free shipping..

You are going to have to be either dirt cheap ( take a look at aliexpress and TaoBao..AKA ..the soon to be real "competition"..think you can sell your widgets cheaper than they can sell the same or reasonable copies of your widgets..really..)..

Or you can be ( or sell ) "unique", "special".."rare"..to those willing to pay a premium..or aim at the "luxury" market..where word of mouth and specialist sites and offline media is where your customers get to hear about you and what skills you have to offer, or items to make or to sell ..

Many of the things that would fall into the areas of the previous paragraph are also not things that G is ever likely to be your competitor on ( wouldn't fit their "must scale", or their "projected values" )..They would like you to buy ads from them to promote your goods, but if you choose what you make or sell ( and their markets and identify their potential purchasers ) wisely..You'll not need to be buying expensive adwords to have customers..

You also make sure that when you have sold an item, it continues to sell itself to others who see/use it..Why do apple have their easily recognisable logo on everything they make and sell, idem Chanel, Levis..( that could be a very very long list )..the cutomer advertises your product for you, long after they have bought it..no adwords required..

If your site is informational ( revenue via ads or aff' links )..it either has to be "encyclopedic" ( won't stop wikipedia or ehow ripping you off, but if you really know all about your subject you can keep ahead of them and their ilk, but you will have to watch out for scrapers ) ..and don't make it entirely reliant upon adsense for it's revenue..mix in some aff stuff and maye sell some direct ads..at least that way some of the ads that visitors see will be relevant to your site..with only adsense G will display ads that are best for G's bottom line..even if you "block" categories..

Or you can make it "quirky".."sticky".."distinctive"..

Think about your favourite sites..not your bookmarks..the sites that you like..

For most people those will be the sites that are "quirky".."distinctive"....which brings it back to "unique"..

Now, make it as hard as you can for G or anyone else to steal, scrape or take your content..

And that is as much of a "how to deal with G trying to eat your lunch" as ( IMO ) is wise to post in a place that G and it's crawlers and staff and amigos have access to..

IME, if you don't adapt, stay alert, and have a plan A or B ( that doesn't depend on someone elses business )..you'll not survive..

Or you'll have to do something that makes facebook, or MS or G want to to buy you out..

( there may well be typos..it is late here..05.00 am )

[EditorialGuy]

I can say for certain that when I ask for a word definition, I get that answer in the box. Thus, how are the other organic listings not suddenly irrelevant?

Nobody's saying that some kinds of sites won't become obsolete.For a searcher who wants to know the meaning of "ineffable" or '"Zut alors" and doesn't care about the source dictionary, a search engine's instant answer will do.

But not everyone is looking for "instant answers" or even "answers." Some people want in-depth information--and not just a thousand words of text spat out by an impersonal database, either. In many ways, the Web isn't all that much different from the world of print.

Take recipes: Some people just want a quick five-step recipe for an omelette (the kind of recipe that fits into an answer box or on an eHow page), while others want the kind of illustrated, well-written, entertaining "how to make an omelette like a professional chef" piece that's found in Bon Appetit or Saveur or a cookbook such as The Egg Bible.

If you're targeting the answer-box or eHow crowd, there's little reason for people to click on your organic results in the search engines, but if you're targeting people who want a richer experience, you'll reach the searchers who look beyond the answer boxes for something different.

What's more, common sense would suggest that the search engines will tend to promote the in-depth or "richer experience" sites as they continue to evolve, because such sites complement what they're doing instead of merely duplicating their own answer boxes and other "Knowledge Graph" features.

[MrSavage]

I would think the act of using a sites content on the results page, at the top of page 1 in a box, that they potentially could be in most every vertical. If providing the solution on their page is better for the searcher, then it doesn't matter if they can monetize that particular search or not. A business can get traffic, but it would be a lot harder to get organic traffic in theory. If I offer free ice cream in front of your ice cream store, I'm not really investing on a business that's going to rely on those people skipping the ice cream being sold in front of my shop and coming into my store to see what's going on.

I realize that answer/solution boxes won't be seeing any news stories. Afterall that has been disputed. Safe zones exist obviously, but the opportunities will shrink if search becomes answers to a greater degree. It's speculation but isn't it clear where search is headed? Maybe I'm wrong but it's hard to argue against the evolution of quick solutions and answer boxes. It didn't even exists 1 year ago did it? Two years tops.

I also disagree with the notion that it's brand bias. It's more the top one or two results that might qualify as it were. The top dogs get in the boxes, not the sites in position 4, 5, 6, etc. If the best is deemed to be a brand page (and I'm sure that is what you were inplying) that's just the who the majority will get into the box. In a sort of ironic way, when those big sites see the traffic they do, they would hardly notice the dip in traffic. I'm assuming however that click throughs might suffer as a result of the box. I would though LOL at a counter argument suggesting click throughs are better when what you need is provided on Google search pages. For me, the link becomes absolutely irrelevant. If the box doesn't give you want you need then that team would need to revise it and tweak it until it was better. Otherwise, pre tel, WTF is the point of the box in the first place if the goal of that page element isn't to give searchers what they need? This is why I LOL when anyone claims that it sucks, is wrong, or it's partial. Those are all things that a team would be looking at improving. So my answer is that if the answer currently sucks, I'm going to assume that "they are working on it". And therein lies the irony as I see it.

[MrSavage]

@leos, thank you for posting. I know you have a deep knowledge of the internet and have a lot of experience (that's my opinion based on what I've read from you over the years here). I'm having a lot of sobering thoughts as of late in terms of online pursuits. I'm also not trying to aim this at Google directly because I know Bing and others are equally interested in keeping visitors on site for longer. It's that pursuit of these engines to provide people the quick solution or answer that is driving it. That is likely a sincere and accurate assessment on their part. The book project was a great idea too, but it's an example of where the idea itself would benefit a lot of people, but the ethical issues (and obviously more than just that) got in the way. Right or wrong, if it's the way of the future I'm better off with eyes wide open today and not later. Even if things got to the point where a webmaster could "opt in" to the answer/solution box, there would be a long line-up of the willing. For me it's a matter of what a wise choice. Can I build or work on anything website wise that's going to have value for my kids when they grow up. So it's really to me about what type of site can maintain some value through all this. To me it's brand and that's about it. A few short term projects might work for a while, but it comes down for the time invested vs. revenue opportunities. I may just torch most all the short sighted projects now.

[MrSavage]

@Editorial, I'm with you in the hopes that there is room for people finding my site through a search engine. It's not like that's going to end overnight. I have zero control over what a search engine might deem reasonable to include in an answer box. And because I don't see value in being chosen to be the provider of the answer box, I'm nervous about how this might evolve. I think you're assuming that the box will look like words spat out by a database or something similar, but in my original post, I'm saying that I saw an answer box (not a wikipedia page content) that did include an image from that source page. Thus it wasn't just an ugly answer box. It was taking the form of....an article. Sure it might be a bit unethical for Bing or others to use source page photos in their answer box, but then again, who said 5 years ago that image search would be like it is today where the need to visit the source page has been greatly reduced? I've already seen an answer box now with an articles image in it. There is no reason to believe that in short order I will see an answer box with 2 images, if that improves the quality of the answer box.

[guggi2000]

A. Loss of organic result relevance in search? NO. Ongoing decline: YES.

B. Google is a business and it didn't owe you free traffic, so let's stop whining around.

C. Wanna get some free traffic? Let's think AHEAD. Things change, user behavior changes.Social search maybe? Google won't be around forever.

@samwest Isn't there another way? I feel sorry!

[jon_uk]

@Leo. A very good summary, thank you. It encompasses much that my crystal ball tells me too. @MrSavage started the thread with just ONE of the symptoms of the progressive disease. I was describing this current decay to someone recently - he smiled, dismissed my complaint and said it was pure Darwinism, it hurt. As said earlier, we all need to get away from the coalface (Google). They're a spaceship that visited earth for a while, fed us wondrous free, instant, ecstatically tasting food. They have left for another galaxy, gone forever.

I will say it again, it's pointless pursuing what G once gave you. Doing the same old thing. It's over. The tank is dry.

For the therapy of readers @Leo is right. Concentrate on being astoundingly different in a defensible niche that you know well and inspires you. Change.

[webcentric]

@Leosghost I think you know I agree with your sentiments. I truly believe this whole SEO topic needs to morph into something radically new. This thread gives us a glimpse into what that new discussion could become -- even if some will insist on clinging to tales of the old ways until they've become nothing but stories told around the campfire.

[seoskunk]

I feel like I am trying to climb to the top of a mountain, only to find out there was nothing there anyway. Yes the organic results have largely become backfill, poorly converting traffic and if you want to buy something most people will click on an image than listing. I certainly feel like I'm wasting my time with Google and am looking at other options. I feel offsite seo has become obsolete to be honest and there are better people than me to manage adwords, manage social media and build websites. I did have some success I suppose but those are distant days. Today getting to the first page is what I consider success but it used to be getting No 1. listings.

The market has moved on, and lots of us have been left behind and out in the cold. So reading this was good for me and provides a realistic forecast for what the future holds. Thanks for the discussion, time to stop being a boiled frog I think.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[fathom]

Whether Google turns into another GoTo / Overture in the end I agree with BoL it can always be worse and you can't do a thing unless the searchers decide their interests are not being served.

[MrSavage]

Google is going to introduce a "buy now" button into their mobile serps according to cnet. To me it's just more evidence of where this is headed.

[netmeg]

The writing is on the wall and it's been on the wall for a long time. Lamentations are pretty useless. The entities or forces that are going to stop this are not going to be us. Meanwhile, we have families (or at least ourselves) to feed and rent or mortgages to pay. Google does what Google will do. If you don't think you can prevent it from eating your lunch, then it's time to try a new lunch counter. You're better off thinking about it now than later. I sure am; I have Plans B, C, D and E, and I'm working on F.

[aristotle]

Google is going to introduce a "buy now" button into their mobile serps according to cnet.

Do you mean that the "buy now" button will appear next to some of the organic results? If so, is this intended to be an endorsement of the product? Also, what if the general public starts to think tha Google might be giving special higher rankings to results that have "buy now" buttons next to them?

P.S. This might be important enough to have its own thread.

[fathom]

was reported six months ago...

[wsj.com...]

[searchenginejournal.com...]

[aakk9999]

We had a short discussion about Google and "Buy Now" button in this thread:

Report: Google Shopping Testing Buy Now Button [webmasterworld.com]

[fathom]

Honestly, while growth for any company and shareholders is always a concern all buslnesses have a cap. I can see over time all above the fold areas being incentivized to produce revenue for Google Search but I doubt they will expand beyond that.

Expansion into new territories is what google is good at due to insight from data compilations.

[MrSavage]

I wouldn't be reading an article regarding a "buy now" button that is about 6 months old. A two day article is on cnet on the subject. Seems a bit more encompassing, "Google to let you buy products through mobile search, report says"

It would appear that most people are astute enough to see recent developments that indicate another gear in the movement toward something that doesn't really include organic being a priority or even an afterthought for that matter. I certainly wouldn't want to be a stakeholder in CJ or Clickshare at this point. The soldiers are people like me who's organic traffic make the wheel go round. And at that point, then who would one turn to for traffic to products? I find the topic quite chilling to be honest. @netmeg that is what makes you so successful. It's in the fact that you had the foresight/planning. It's what separates the dorks (like me) from those who can make it in this game.

[Robert Charlton]

A two day article is on cnet on the subject.

The article is apparently a further development on earlier reports noted above...

Google to let you buy products through mobile search, report says
cnet - May 15, 2015
[cnet.com...]

My emphasis added...

The search giant is getting ready to add "buy" buttons to some search results on its mobile app, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.

The feature will be added in the coming weeks, and will be applied only to some sponsored search results, which a company pays for. It will not be applied to "organic" search results, which are generated by Google's algorithms. Potential retail partners could include Macy's....

I feel that this much belongs in this discussion, but further exploration of this particular feature doesn't really involve the organic algorithm, and anyone interested in the topic should follow aristotle's suggestion and start a new thread in Google Business Issues.

[fathom]

I'm astute enough to realize that for "buying terms" there are lots of Adwords on page, and also comparison shopping ads and if that didn't devalue your organic listings enough adding a buy now button to your listing will certainly deprecate its value while also reducing Google's revenue at the same time.

I never jumped to that assumption.

Since more people use mobile than desktop but fewer are buyers - my hypothesis is Google thinks it can get mobile users in the habit of buying. If they include a buy now button like amazon on existing ads.

I generally don't follow news items they always spin facts to sell subscriptions.

[Robert Charlton]

PS: Mod's note that we do now have a dedicated discussion about the Buy Buttons in mobile serps here....

Report: Google to Test Buy Buttons In Mobile SERPs
https://www.webmasterworld.com/goog/4747793.htm [webmasterworld.com]

[MrSavage]

Here's another headline de jour, pushing you-know-what into oblivion: "Mobile Google searches now show real-time tweets"

[FishingDad]

Sponsored search has always been there, are we saying people are now so dumb they are incapable of blanking them out?..
Every shopper just walks into the first shop in the street that smacks them in the face with a big advert?..
No one bothers to scroll down, god forbid clicking to page 2!?..
No one can scroll past the first 8 results of the manufactures website to get to a shop that actually sell there stuff?

People are still people and Google users will use it as they see fit, no matter how many pages of adverts, how many BUY BUY buttons, I mean we all love adverts! NOT. If you have to click to page two to get what you used to get page one, the people who do not like getting "Sold" and told what to buy will just do this.

We do not regard Ebay or Amazon as any threat to our business at all, even though some of what we sell is on there, Google shopping is just a third rate Ebay and I think people can see this. In the UK Tesco have just been found with there pants round there ankles and (not that we did not know already) turns out they have been completely ripping the public off along with there suppliers. I am old enough to remember Gerald Ratner [en.wikipedia.org...]

" We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, "How can you sell this for such a low price?", I say, "because it's total crap." "

And that was the end of his very large business, people don't like being taken for a fool.

[fathom]

While I love your optimism but that wasn't their complaint?

Few to none scrolls passed all the adverts, shopping comparisons and now buy buttons only to click on free listings but are still adverts nonetheless.

I'm sure infringers looking to score great free content will do as you suggest but they aren't likely buyers since they are infringing.