Google Updates and SERP Changes - June 2015

[netmeg]

---

System: The following 2 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4744522.htm [webmasterworld.com] by robert_charlton - 10:38 am on Jun 1, 2015 (PDT -8)

---

netmeg -- we don't know for sure how big of a role user metrics plays in Google's algorithm.

No, we don't, but I do know my own experiences and so far in my experience, sites that are really really loved by users who come back to them over and over again tend to rank pretty well and stay ranked. Pinterest is one of those sites.

[Martin Ice Web]

After the algo change last weekend we had a very good week. Converting like before panda/penguin had been introduced. Bounce was very, very low.
Today all this has been reverted back again. Bounce is through the roof. Fully mismatched users are coming from google.de.

But i guess that the "UK informational site" is strong and does not see any changes.

[rustybrick]

Martin,

The update over the weekend helped you and it reverted back today? Not the update from Wednesday?

[Martin Ice Web]

Rustybrick,

we had been hit hard with the phantom update. The update last weekend lifted a filter again. Wednesday we had a very good day ( like pre panda days ). Today traffic switches from good (low bounce) to bad (high bounce) and back. Neither the good nor the bad traffic convert in any way.

I realy was astonished about traffic/conversions from saturday to thursday as i thought that google has no buyers at all becuase they are all on amazon. But this one clearly shows that google is able to send users with buying intention to smaller ecoms. The pitty about this is, that a wanted to rise my GSA limit on next monday as we thought we could effort this now. But this new updated killed the plans.

Edit:
One last thing about this last updates. All other updates did hit all sites i have an eye on but this last three updates hit only some sites and while the other site got a boost. A donīt see a site that "tingled" through the algo changes without traffic changes.

[kewlchat]

still going downhill but one interesting thing is all my rankings for the best keywords have actually improved I think im losing longtail,
im up 3 spots for (best keyword) yes traffic is -1000 from yesterday and close to a -1000 from the day before, I cant take much more of that lol thing is there isn't anything at all wrong with my sites its good, and lots of quality, lets wait to the dust settles and see what happens.

[samwest]

Had a "lucid" traffic period yesterday between 3:30 am and 2:15 pm. Sales conversions reverted to "old time" levels, on the hour or better. After 2:15 pm, it all shut down again. It seems every few days or weeks we get a period where they reboot or revert to an older data set or filter that allows buyers through. All other times the traffic is poorly converting zombies. These periods of lucidity are becoming fewer and farther between. One they do indicate is how incredibly manipulated traffic has become in the past 5 years.

[Hollywood]

Amen Samwest, I see this as well, WEIRD! Agree.

[kewlchat]

Hi gang, not sure what's going on with this new update, but today it seems my traffics starting to come back after loseing about a 1000 uv a day over the last 3 days, I noticed this morning I gained some through the night time hours usa time, and then today its steadly climbing im still a ways off from where I was a few days ago, but im seeing improvement and I checked my rankings and for all the good keywords im up, I notice some sites are missing and a few I never seen before are now on page one. I might add that I made a few big posts one over 800 words yesterday and its supurb content im sure my readers will be kinda entertained by my witty humor lol how ever I don't know if this is related to my rankings coming back up, at least I doubt it. but google did say it was a quality update so I thought id add a little quality after all it cant hurt. Also traffic quality is good I have had 3x number of conversions today.

[glakes]

One they do indicate is how incredibly manipulated traffic has become in the past 5 years.

@samwest

Google has a wide net to collect data. Many sites have Google Analytics, Adsense or call on an API for some feature (example being fonts, jquery, etc.). Then on the user side users may have Chrome installed, are cookied with super cookies, or receive emails to their Gmail accounts confirming an order. There are many different ways Google can detect that a sale has occurred. Just as Analytics can be setup to track goals, I suspect Google can easily determine when a sale has occurred when data across all of their services is collectively analyzed. Though this would take a significant amount of computing power, I believe many of us underestimate just how quickly Google can analyze and log these events. In fact, this (actual sales) could very easily be a strong quality signal that Google uses to rank ecommerce websites.

[keyplyr]

@ glakes - You left out Chromecast where Google now knows what type TV movies//media you stream. I'm sure there's an additional value factor there when added to the rest.

[samwest]

@glakes, so by that logic, don't you think Google would look at sites that convert well on "normal" traffic and reward them for delivering, useful, "compelling" content? (which by "their" own definition = "evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way".)
Oddly it seems to be the opposite...useful "PAID" content is subject to some "phantom" filter that throttles how much converting traffic (and yes, they know what traffic is converting) and restrict business to those sites. I say PAID because my content is technical / PDF in nature and Google seems to have some distaste for that type of intangible ecom. Since they can't review my paid content, they must be using the "guilty until proven innocent" approach and pooling me in with the old "clickbank ebook trash content" group. Perhaps a better approach to delivering my content would be to create a separate web page for each page of my content (that would be over 300) jazzed up with 20 ads per page so they could review it AND get their cut. Before the filters, they used to get their cut via adwords, but since they choked the site off, there's no longer enough to go around.

[EditorialGuy]

Samwest: Are you implying that Google should be indexing and ranking content that you're hiding behind a paywall? if so, this article might be helpful:

[themediabriefing.com...]

[samwest]

EG - No. That's not what I'm implying. Our front end should say enough about our paid content to rank it accordingly...just like it did in the past. Consider a book or a movie; you should not have to display each page of a book or each frame of a movie for Google to evaluate it's quality. A synopsis or trailer combined with published user feedback should be enough....but for the data hungry Google, likely not. Good article, but hardly relates to how I operate. My site does not cloak content for specific users, it simply describes the product document(s) in detail, with some samples and examples, just like a tangible. Plus we offer dozens of testimonials from actual product users and to add more credibility, I've been a BBB accredited member for years with an A+ rating. Apparently that carries very little weight with Google. Perhaps this is where Google assumption of business models fails as it falsely id's unique models as assumed spam or low quality. They can't get 'em all right and clearly don't.

[EditorialGuy]

I've been a BBB accredited member for years with an A+ rating. Apparently that carries very little weight with Google.

It probably doesn't carry any weight with Google. (I don't think I've ever heard even a serious suggestion that BBB membership lists and ratings figure into Google's algorithm.)

Perhaps this is where Google assumption of business models fails as it falsely id's unique models as assumed spam or low quality. They can't get 'em all right and clearly don't.

Or maybe your problem is that Google indexes and ranks sites, not businesses. I've often seen people here complain "We ship faster than Amazon, our out-of-stock rate is lower than Amazon's, our prices are better, etc..." as if Google were able to know all that.

With Google Search, it's about the Web site, not the business that owns the Web site.

[samwest]

EG - preaching to the choir...

[glakes]

I've often seen people here complain "We ship faster than Amazon, our out-of-stock rate is lower than Amazon's, our prices are better, etc..." as if Google were able to know all that.

Google does know that Bezos invested in Google in the early days and that 25% of their board of directors are ex Amazon executives. That speaks volumes as to why Amazon gets preferential treatment from Google that even surpasses the manufacturers of products who also retail them.

[seoskunk]

Google does know that Bezos invested in Google in the early days and that 25% of their board of directors are ex Amazon executives. That speaks volumes as to why Amazon gets preferential treatment from Google that even surpasses the manufacturers of products who also retail them.

Google first Brand biased update "Vince" happened just a few months after there CEO attended the Bilderberg Meeeting in 2008. Since then they have been steadily pushing brands over independent business. It seems that at this secretive meeting Google basically "sold out" in favor of promoting brands that Bilderberg members could benefit from.

Don't be evil - My ass!

Source - Vince Update [searchengineland.com...]
Bilderberg Participation [en.wikipedia.org...]

[rainborick]

If it was ever true that 25% of Google's Board of Directors was a past executive with Amazon, that no longer seems to be the case. I could find only one current board member who used to be associated with Amazon, and he left them in 1999. It's also worth keeping in mind that Google's corporate structure is very unusual, in that three men, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt, hold controlling interest in the corporation. And I find it hard to believe that Page and Brin, whose combined estimated net worth is in the neighborhood of $50-60 billion (or, for that matter, Eric Schmidt who comes in at a paltry ~$9 billion), could be pressured by anyone into imposing decisions on the search division for financial reasons.

The only way I can see profits being involved in such decisions is at executive levels where revenue levels are likely to be a part of judging their job performance in some way.

[EditorialGuy]

That speaks volumes as to why Amazon gets preferential treatment from Google that even surpasses the manufacturers of products who also retail them.

Or maybe Amazon just does a great job of serving its customers, and--just as important in the context of Google Search--Amazon has more genuinely useful content on its product pages (in the form of user reviews) than its competitors do. I've used Amazon user reviews for tech support, for example--and just yesterday, I posted a review that will provide tech support to other people who bought the same item I did and need help in getting it to work properly.

All e-commerce sites sell stuff. Amazon goes beyond that by providing added value in the form of helpful content that, in many cases, can't be found anywhere else.That provides great spider food for Googlebot, and it also leads to great user metrics.

[Babadook]

I can't understand why anyone would be an apologist for this obvious manipulation EG. I agree with seoskunk, there is more in play than just search results. There's something bigger that happens to show itself in online commerce. Do not think for a moment that this is all by chance, it's not. By the way EG about Amazon, Steve Ballmer said it, they don't make a profit and didn't feel a business was really a business without making a profit, I agree. The world is upside down right now, wake up.

[EditorialGuy]

Babadook, I think you underestimate Amazon's content, its popularity with users, and the signals that such content and popularity give to search engines. If Google's search results are being "manipulated" to favor Amazon, then that manipulation extends to Bing and Yandex, where Amazon pages also rank extremely well.

[KumarDGM]

Yes, for me visits dropped 25-30% June 1st to Till when i compared the visits to past year.
Analytics showing major drops when compared past year. But there's no official algorithm announcement from Google so far.
Feel like crappy.. Trying to overcome!

[jrs79]

With Google Search, it's about the Web site, not the business that owns the Web site.

I would disagree. It is probably more about the user than the website which has a lot more to do with the business behind the website than the actual website.

[netmeg]

This is the updates and SERPs item, folks.

[samwest]

^ agreed - get it back on topic. Go start an argument topic if that's your thing.

[RedBar]

Welcome to WebmasterWorld KumarDGM

Yes, for me visits dropped 25-30% June 1st to Till when i compared the visits to past year.

Wait until you've lost 85% thanks to Google stealing all your images!

[jrs79]

Sorry for getting off topic.

Most of the sites that I watch are fine and are even increasing in traffic YoY. However, I have seen a few that got hit with quality update. To me this means a drop of around 25%. It could be related to thin or duplicate content. I have yet to see a roll back for these sites.

I have also seen the knowledge graph thing start to pop up in Industrial searches. It is usually just defining the industrial term, but it has had an impact on visits for a few sites. The most interesting thing to note is that the term may seem informational, but it is actually very transactional. The definition used by Google is from a company that does this type of business. I would have to guess that they are very happy for the knowledge graph and the link it provides to their services.

[sandboxsam]

< moved from another location >

Do you see a preference for https sites moving up?

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 4:32 am (utc) on Jun 23, 2015]

[MrSavage]

I've noticed more ehow than usual. This is a very recent change imo.

[Robert Charlton]

Note that there has been a quick analysis recently published on the June 17 algo change. It apparently has to do with QDF and extreme topicality, and boosts mostly well-known news and major sites that would have access to breaking news.

If you have a site that targets, say, celebrity names, I can imagine that the algo might affect you whenever a queried celebrity is in the news, since a news site with a breaking topical story might be favored over you.

This also makes clear why some were seeing extremely volatile results and others weren't seeing any changes at all.

I've posted that thread here...

June 17 Google algorithm changes: "News-Wave Update"
June 22, 2015
https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4753914.htm [webmasterworld.com]

[silentneedle]

Our german informational site got a boost for pretty much major keywords in it's niche from page 2 to rank #2-#5 since sunday morning (GMT), but we lost some long tail keywords completely.