Google Updates and SERP Changes - Feb 2016

[Nutterum]

Continuing from:
Google Updates and SERP Changes - Jan 2015
https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4784754.htm [webmasterworld.com]


I just started checking my properties when I realized most of them experienced a crawl uptrend starting from 20th of Jan. No big spikes just 20% or more pages being crawled on a daily basis. Something that I am not sure how to interpret yet, as since the 20th there were ~2-3% of the pages being de-indexed, which is always sad to see.

That being said can you guys check your crawl rate and index status in the period 20-30 Jan?

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:34 am (utc) on Feb 1, 2016]

[Storiale]

mboydnv - you are correct. Big Box Stores are dominating and often for items they don't even sell. Walmart is beating us for items they don't sell in-store or online. They just have pages available for them. I have noticed that when people are entering search queries or commonly used phrases for products, they are getting How-to articles and information pages instead of e-commerce pages as well. Its quite frustrating to see sites beat us for literally no good reason.

[Simon_H]

@mrengine Yes, lots of 'zombie' on/off converting traffic. Luckily the 'on' periods are good, but traffic vs conversion patterns are completely unnatural.

@Nutterum Does indeed sounds like traffic quotas being enforced and the zombie phenomenon. It would be interesting to hear if you continue to experience these effects, because sadly it does seem that once a site starts seeing this, it doesn't go away.

@mboydnv I totally agree that there is a relationship between paid and organic traffic and that these unnatural traffic vs conversion patterns affect both. However, bear in mind that there can be significant traffic 'leakage' from paid to organic. Google Analytics uses last click attribution which means that if someone finds you on paid and then comes back later and finds you again by searching organic, this will show with a medium as 'organic' in GA. We see this a lot. So if, for example, you increase your paid daily budget, you will see an increase in organic traffic too. It doesn't mean Google is giving enhanced organic rankings to paid customers. I think the reason is more likely to be that whatever algo tweaks/tests are being done to organic that result in the wrong/low quality traffic being sent to sites is also impacting paid results.

[mboydnv]

Simon, do you think a letter to the G webmaster forum would help with Google. I'm in business for twelve years. Regisdtered with State etc. I can detail all the positive changes we have made, but if it falls on death ears what's the point. We've done everything. Our traffic is constantly filtered and eroded. No matter how much quality content or good back links we have/do. Very frustarting. We honestly believe we could have been filtered by a human editor for our niche.

Not one ranking position above 13 for our niche. No matter what we do. Always the same sessions in GWT. Very frustrating.

[EditorialGuy]

I have noticed that when people are entering search queries or commonly used phrases for products, they are getting How-to articles and information pages instead of e-commerce pages as well.

Google ranks Web pages, not businesses. Remember Google's mission statement: "Google's mission is to organize the world's information [my emphasis] and make it universally accessible and useful." In light of that mission statement, it might be wise to ask yourself whether those how-to articles and information pages have more useful information than your product pages do.

Side note: Amazon pages are great examples of what e-commerce pages should be if their owners want them to rank: In addition to the usual product blurbs, Amazon pages often have common questions and answers plus lots of detailed, informative user reviews. It's obviously hard to compete with those, but I wonder how many small e-commerce vendors even try?

[Simon_H]

@mboydnv I wish I knew the answer, but I don't. I don't want to dilute this thread by talking too much about zombie traffic, but based on what I've seen and what clearly others are seeing too, the current algo flux seems to be causing significant variations in the *quality* of traffic to many sites. This seems to indicate that Google is switching sites in and out of different serps, and either (1) doing a dreadful job of it or (2) doing it intentionally to test its algo changes.

Also, I totally agree with @EditorialGuy. The reason big brands may appear to get all the traffic is because their websites are better, not because they're big brands. I'd go further and say that I personally don't believe that anyone should feel entitled to free traffic by Google. If you rank highly on Google organic, that's great, but don't assume it will stay and don't rely on it and don't get angry if Google decides it won't give you free money any more. My gripe with Google is on the paid side, because I feel that as soon as you start paying for a service, then you should absolutely receive that service. So if Google is varying traffic quality on paid then that's unacceptable.

[Selen]

Useful information = diverse information.
Diverse = from different sources.

[ecommerceprofit]

I agree with Simon_H on just about everything; however, I disagree on free organic traffic. You are right...we should not expect that Google owe's us free organic traffic and we should not depend on it. Conversely, Google should not test a small group of web sites into perpetuity (if this is what they are doing) while giving a free pass to other web sites (not testing them).

As time ticks on I am coming to the realization that Google needs regulation...hopefully the Utah attorney general / the European Union or another governmental body will "start" the long road to eventual regulation. Banks are regulated...it's about time information oligopolies are regulated...not just Google...I know my zombie problem is unique to me and my smaller group but there are other "google problems" that are unique to others

...as a whole there is a big problem that needs big regulatory organizations to oversee modern day robber barons (as I see them...they may not be this bad but I have my own opinion).

[glakes]

the current algo flux seems to be causing significant variations in the *quality* of traffic to many sites. This seems to indicate that Google is switching sites in and out of different serps, and either (1) doing a dreadful job of it or (2) doing it intentionally to test its algo changes.

The algo flux you speak of is non-existent in February according to the serp tracker I view most often (algoroo) nor are my keywords bouncing around. If sites were getting switched in and out of serps, as you have suggested, I would see it on my side (I don't) and algoroo would be reporting this as well. The theory of serp flux, or as many are using as an excuse for traffic quality manipulation by Google, is not supported by the data and the flux myth has been debunked.

[Jez123]

My own experience this week could not be any different. Last week everything was on. This week, traffic remains the same but no sales (and Monday is usually the busiest day, with sales trailing off as the week goes on). I personally don't buy into the Zombie phenomenon, but SOMETHING is odd. I find it oddly comforting that paid traffic is acting as strangely. I do not think for one moment that google would attempt to manipulate this aspect of search. So, in my mind, it's something else...

[Simon_H]

@glakes I totally agree. I'm not saying this unnatural conversion behaviour only happens when the flux trackers go crazy. As I've previously posted, we've been seeing this continuously for a long time, although it kicked in properly in mid-September when others started reporting it. However, we do notice it more (and others have reported this too) around the time of big Google algo updates.

Something else to consider is that the flux trackers don't tell the whole story in this case. Because flux trackers monitor relatively few keywords (e.g. mozcast is only ~10,000), they tend to show changes in the short tail, not the longer tail. Whereas I think what we're seeing now is Google playing with the longer tail, which would result in minimal change in the flux trackers, minimal change in the shorter tail keywords you may monitor, but potentially a big change in quality of traffic from the long tail which in our case forms a high proportion of total traffic.

@Jez123 I've said the same in the past about Google never wanting to manipulate paid search, but I think I was wrong. Our paid traffic patterns are so unnatural that it simply can't be statistical noise or seasonal, etc. I don't want to dilute this thread with theories on paid traffic, but it may be worth considering that (1) what we're seeing may not be completely intentional and if Google is experimenting with the organic algo on live then there may be inadvertent impact on paid and (2) I sincerely doubt that the paid algo code is completely separate from the organic algo code; I suspect that there would be significant shared code between them. It's interesting that no-one ever seems to talk about updates to the paid algo - they only ever talk about updates to the organic algo - but updates to the paid algo must happen too. And if there is significant shared code, then it follows that certain changes to the organic algo will affect paid too.

[Shepherd]

Seeing some pretty wild fluctuations in google organic volume this morning.

[Jez123]

Seeing some pretty wild fluctuations in google organic volume this morning.

I see more domain crowding which usually means something is going on. Also that the correct URL for one of my products that google absolutely refuses to use is in use today. I expect it will revert to normal tomorrow and we will be none the wiser as to WTF it was all about.

[masterjoe]

Seeing double listings for the same domain on some searches, typical Amazon and other large etail stores stomping any keywords remotely related to the searches I use.

[Kelowna]

The reason big brands may appear to get all the traffic is because their websites are better, not because they're big brands.

... and the reason they are "Big Brands" is because they are better at promoting.
... and the reason big brands may appear to get all the traffic is because their "LINKS" are better

Get Professional, get some good links and move on. Quit complaining the those that have built "big" sites with "big" backlink profiles are beating out your weak sites with weak backlinks. With Google is has always been the links (PR) and probably always will.

[Martin Ice Web]

Get Professional, get some good links and move on. Quit complaining the those that have built "big" sites with "big" backlink profiles are beating out your weak sites with weak backlinks. With Google is has always been the links (PR) and probably always will.

Some pretty hard words in here. Do you have some evidence for "beating out your weak sites with weak backlinks"?

I donīt like to read posts about judging unknown websites. I think this is not what WebmasterWorld is about.

[mrengine]

Some pretty hard words in here.

They sure are. Any algorithm that weighs links so heavily will return shallow results that can be easily manipulated, which is something I think Google wants to avoid. I'm not in a highly competitive industry (manufacturing) and hold a much different opinion of links then others I'm sure. My competitors don't have great links pointing to their sites, have thin cut and paste images/descriptions for products, and I'm sure do not have the same quality direct type in traffic that I have (think government and big corporations). To think a backlink is going to drive the zombies away is just far fetched in my industry. I am already the big fish in a very, very small pond. Still Google helps me generate few sales because so much of Google's traffic is of the lowest untargeted quality (since fall of 2015).

[goodoldweb]

Get Professional, get some good links and move on. Quit complaining the those that have built "big" sites with "big" backlink profiles are beating out your weak sites with weak backlinks. With Google is has always been the links (PR) and probably always will.

I see a post like that and i can immidatly tell it was written by a clueless, inexperienced industry newcomer...

[Jez123]

I agree that links are important but just with the stuff that we do know about like Penguin and Panda, and who knows what else that we don't know about, links are not the be all and end all. There might be other elements at play holding your site down and negating strong links. It's way, way beyond as simple as "getting professional".

[EditorialGuy]

I see a post like that and i can immidatly tell it was written by a clueless, inexperienced industry newcomer...

The author of that post has been a Webmaster World member since 2004, so your suspicions are misplaced. And while I'd disagree that links and PageRank are all-important in Google's algorithm these days, I do think that complaining incessantly about Google when you're outranked by Amazon, Wikipedia, or whatever isn't a strategy for success. When change happens, you can deal with it (and possibly even succeed with it) or be left behind.

[glakes]

I see a post like that and i can immidatly tell it was written by a clueless, inexperienced industry newcomer...

Fanyboys typically make those bash and dash comments, and don't really add any value to the discussion because they back up their comments with silence or absurd statements that invoke hostile responses. Those comments are not really worth responding to. The data we have does not lie, and we are not blind and can see the serps for ourselves. The proof is in the pudding and the irrelevant posts I see at WebmasterWorld typically are generated to put more smoke in the air and take our eyes off of the real problems associated with a dominant search engine that has harmed many different sectors in a variety of different ways (ie. filling organic search results with companies they own, invest in and have partnered with). Though that is one problem, the other problem is the Adwords funnel - devaluing productive organic traffic to make Adwords more appealing. Though, unfortunately, Adwords traffic suffers from the same zombie problems as organic does. Google wins either way with more clicks and we lose our wallets without conversions.

[goodoldweb]

And while I'd disagree that links and PageRank are all-important in Google's algorithm these days, I do think that complaining incessantly about Google when you're outranked by Amazon, Wikipedia, or whatever isn't a strategy for success

EG, you "incessantly" fail to acknowledge the real problems associated with a dominant search engine that has harmed many different sectors in a variety of different ways ie. filling organic search results with companies they own, invest in and have partnered with. Talk about inexperienced newcommers...

p.s. thank you glakes. You took the words right out of my mouth :)

[Shepherd]

the real problems associated with...

Wouldn't the ecommerce or webmaster general section be a better place for one to complain about their competition eating their lunch?

[goodoldweb]

Shepherd, heres the problem.

"Thier competition" IS google and thier partners. The world simply left the cat to look after the milk...Which IMO is spot on related to this thread and Google constant biased "algo tweeks"...

[EditorialGuy]

"Thier competition" IS google and thier partners. The world simply left the cat to look after the milk...Which IMO is spot on related to this thread and Google constant biased "algo tweeks"...

Again, complaining that Google is unfair isn't a strategy. Parroting conspiracy theories about why your visitors don't convert isn't a strategy. The subtext in so many of these threads seems to be, "I've given up, except for the venting."

[johnhh]

EditorialGuy

why not come clean your original user name on WebmasterWorld was europeforvisitors , but you changed this, and you continue to support google. 2376 posts since 2013 .. do you actually have a business or maybe a hobby...

[glakes]

Wouldn't the ecommerce or webmaster general section be a better place for one to complain about their competition eating their lunch?

Not sure who you are talking about, but my January sales were up 380% from the year prior, despite the competition (main competitor for most ecommerce sites is Google) manipulating their search results and traffic quality. When you sell products you make, which are far superior to the junk coming in the country from Communist nations (China), you don't need Google because word of mouth goes a long way and is not subjected to the same profit driven search results that Google fabricates. I've adapted to what is a narrowing digital economy that benefits a very select group of companies, and hope others are doing the same.

Back to your original question... The competition is not eating my lunch, in case I did not make that clear. But I sure as hell am not paying Google so they can keep their 24/7 buffet stocked with food either. Just because I am doing good does not mean I do not see or feel the financial impact from Google's games. I and many others could be doing much better if the search results were not so heavily biased towards Google's own self interests. And those self interests grow each year with every company that Google buys or financially backs.

[Shepherd]

Was not talking about any specific person Glakes... but since you put it out there:

This thread is "Google Updates and SERP Changes - Feb 2016".

not paying Google so they can

Sounds like a comment for the adwords forum.

I and many others could be doing much better if the search results were not so heavily biased towards Google's own self interests.

No kidding? Really? Yeah, I would be doing much better if all my competition had to advertise my website on their front page for free also, how about why don't YOU have my site advertised for free on your website's front page? It's not fair, I'm calling for regulation against you.

I have a hard time understanding how people can, all in the same breath, acknowledge that google (and their partners) is their competition and complain that google does not send them customers for free.

[goodoldweb]

Shepherd you would have made alot of sense if Google wasnt holding 85% of the world's search market and (clearly) engage in such anti compatative tactics. BUT guss what, they do!

Hence the "logic" you describe in your post above is nothing but utter nonsense. There are laws in place to protect businesses against such exact tactics. Google are breaking those laws left right and cente, in clear day light.

[Shepherd]

Amazon has a 70+% market share of sales of printed books, are they now required to advertise Barnes and Noble for free on their website?

Any reference to these "laws" the restrict businesses from competing with each other?

Are there any countries that have classified "search" as a public utility?

[goodoldweb]

Apples and oranges Shepherd. Apples and oranges...