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]

[Martin Ice Web]

As we all know, google is manipulating the organic serps or better what has left from them. Meanwhile they are driving a good way with it, having a look at the stock. But in recent times all the new "features" ( knowledgbase, flight plans .. ) are based on scraped or stolen content. While free traffic melts down, WM are not willing to write new content. How will google manage this? On the one side they need websites to scrap their content on the other side they donīt earn money while giving them free users. Sooner or later google will be old fashioned as new topics are not covered.
I allread can see it, when searching for instructional topics or coding based topics. All that is showing up is > 3 year old pages. ( And this is not only googles problem )

[anneconq]

I've been following this thread since I registered. So it's not only me who is experiencing bad traffic and conversion. :-(

[Nutterum]

Desktop traffic is on a decline in general. This is normal seeing the advance of mobile, general knowledge increase about how the web works and the abundance of specialized websites. Simply put (from the average person point of view) if you want to buy something, you visit Amazon, if you want news - Social Media, technical queries, Github & Stack overflow, etc. etc. etc. . Google can`t stop this natural evolution of user behavior. What they can do however is funnel low hanging fruits, like obvious "want to buy" users, to a property they can get revenue from either directly or through ads.

It's how the world works and it was expected. What I did not expect is to happen so soon.

[mrengine]

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.

Shepheard, I think you are missing the point. Google does produce and often refer to what they describe as their "organic" search results. Meaning these search results are equally ranked by various factors of quality. But most of us can see that Google's organic search results are not organized by quality but by how much money they will generate for Google. Is this a bad thing? Probably not because that is how free economies operate. But if that is the case, then Google needs to quit giving people the illusion that organic search results are really organic because they are not. Truth in advertising is something that all should abide by, including Google.

It's been almost two years since Google invested many millions of dollars into a real estate auction website. After that initial investment (I think it was $50 million followed by another $50 million), I watched that auction site rise in the organic search results and get top placement in paid ads too. Today I revisited looking at those search results and in some cases they have three listings above the fold (1 paid and top two organic), especially in high priced real estate markets like California. To imply that this is a natural organic occurrence one would have to overlook Google's incentive to reap the rewards of their investment. I don't think any of us are that foolish, and hope you are not either. So at a minimum, Google should have to rename their organic search results to something that does not imply an equal ranking opportunity for all because Google's serps do not fit that definition and have not for a number of years.

[Shepherd]

Truth in advertising is something that all should abide by, including Google

Absolutely valid point Engine, however, knowing something and proving it are two different worlds. And lets say it is proved that google promotes it's own interests in the organic serps, they have to disclaim, notify the searcher that the search results may contain results that google has a financial interest in? A very high percentage of searchers have no idea the difference between the paid results and organic even though the ads are labeled, does anyone think that another disclaimer would matter? And let's face it, a disclaimer is the worst that's going to happen, search is not ever going to be classified as a public utility or even an essential facility.

Chicken or the egg? One can buy a LOT of SEO and adwords spend with 100 million.

In 2011 google invested in a competitor of ours, same scenario, the company, now flush with cash, rocketed to the top of the paid listings and not too long after slowly climbed up in the serps. They burned through the cash, now they are back with the rest of us trying to make sure they get ROI on ad spend and struggling to climb in the serps. Did google promote them unnaturally, maybe, who knows, I don't and nor do I really care. I see google as a competitor, does not matter if it is directly or indirectly, and as a competitor I expect nothing but competition from them.

[EditorialGuy]

OK, let me ask this: If you're convinced that Google wants to shove your pages to the bottom of the search results for nefarious commercial reasons, why do you continue to rely on Google as a traffic source? That just doesn't make sense. It certainly isn't a strategy for survival.

[flatfile]

EditorialGuy why not come clean your original user name on WebmasterWorld was europeforvisitors

Now it all adds up.

[mrengine]

MozCast is showing a lot of heat yesterday, but I don't see any changes or chatter one would expect to see. Did anyone notice any changes yesterday, beyond the normal flux?

[Shepherd]

Nothing beyond the normal flux, lot's of very small changes though.

[Jez123]

I see a little bit of a swap around but nothing more than normal flux. Domain crowding, but for different sites today. Same old story,, different soundtrack.

[EditorialGuy]

Lately we've been ranking significantly higher for several competitive short-tail queries on topics where we clearly have subject authority or expertise. That hasn't had much effect on traffic, though, since most of our Google traffic still comes from two- and three-word searches.

[Atomic]

My traffic and conversions improved 30% in January compared to December. YoY was +90%.

February is looking even better with an additional 10% bump.

I'm going head to head with huge national brands and winning. So I know it's possible to succeed as a small fish in a big pond (trillion dollar industry).

I've also seen an improvement on a few smaller tail queries, but also long tail. What I see is a huge improvement in high intent traffic.

[ecommerceprofit]

Sheperd, you say, "search is not ever going to be classified as a public utility or even an essential facility"

I disagree...a majority of the population now understands technology enough...not like 1994 anymore...give it a few more years and eventually governments will catch up and start to regulate...you just need to think like you live in 2026. Regulation will come gradually...

[Shepherd]

If we're going to make 2026 predictions I predict that there will be no google organic search results to regulate in 2026.

[EditorialGuy]

Ecommerceprofit, in the U.S., at least two federal courts have ruled that Google's organic results are protected by the First Amendment. Just sayin'.

[seoskunk]

I think that the era of free traffic is over and in many ways the internet is just reflecting real world business now. The small guy is getting stuffed in the serps, same old same old. Google have made organic results largely irrelevant and its ads that dominate anyway. I was stupid to rely on organic traffic for as long as I did and am now actively seeking out other methods of selling, including old fashioned knocking on doors. I urge any webmaster not to rely on organic traffic to build a business. This months updates can just be summed up as "more of the same from Google".

[Atomic]

I think that the era of free traffic is over and in many ways the internet is just reflecting real world business now

I think that you're wrong. My own dashboard is all the counterfactual I need.

[ecommerceprofit]

editorialguy - well aware of this...however, you are interpreting the law narrowly; moreover, congress (in the U.S. - not commenting on other countries for this statement) write the laws...when a new law is written new court decisions take place...you can hide behind the first amendment in some situations but Congress may eventually want to regulate search algorithms. In another example that involves the judicial branch if there is a whistle blower at Google (not saying Google does anything wrong - who knows) but "if" they were doing something nefarious the first amendment would not help.

It's only a matter of time when a big organization with the same amount of lobbyists as Google decide to try and change the laws to create a department of Information Security and Equality or something of that nature...

[EditorialGuy]

In another example that involves the judicial branch if there is a whistle blower at Google (not saying Google does anything wrong - who knows) but "if" they were doing something nefarious the first amendment would not help.

You might want to read the summary of the federal court's decision in Search King, Inc. v. Google Technology, Inc., which was about Google's intentional lowering of Search King's rankings.

[internetlibrary.com...]

The court ruled that search engines have the right, under the First Amendment, to express whatever "opinion" they have about a particular Web site, and also (to quote the judge's exact words):

"Neither Search King nor any other web site has the option of demanding a particular Page Rank, or even whether their web site will be accessible on Google's search engine. In short, Google owes no duty to rank, or refrain from ranking, Search King or any other web site, and its Page Ranks, whether favorable or unfavorable, confer no rights upon the owners or operators of ranked web pages."

[Simon_H]

@EditorialGuy @ecommerceprofit I can understand why a court would rule that no-one has the right to demand ranking on Google organic. Irrespective of any legal ruling, I find it amazing that so many site owners feel this sense of entitlement to free traffic by Google and moan that Google is evil for not providing it.

However, I'd be interested to hear if there are any rulings on *paid* traffic. Because I suspect that a court would feel very differently about Google manipulating the results of their paid service, as a paid service would involve certain duties and a contractual obligations.

[EditorialGuy]

However, I'd be interested to hear if there are any rulings on *paid* traffic. Because I suspect that a court would feel very differently about Google manipulating the results of their paid service, as a paid service would involve certain duties and a contractual obligations.

Google makes no secret of the fact that it uses "Ad Rank" to determine "which ads appear in which positions," and so forth. The details are spelled out in its FAQs, which are part of the program's terms and conditions. Still, that's a topic for the AdWords forum:

[webmasterworld.com...]

[goodoldweb]

EG and co.

So what you are saying is Google can continue to mislead the public claiming that their search results are unbiased and "automatically" machine generated when they are nothing but.

The grips most webmasters have with Google is about the way Google are misleading the public! .... i don't think webmasters would have felt this way if Google would come clean and said publicly what most of us already know. Instead Google are hiding beyond false claims of web naturality and other vegetables. I think that if jo public knew the truth thing would have looked completely different.

Take it to your bosses EG.

[glakes]

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.

When I become a search engine, hold an 80-90% market share and top off the search results with all the unrelated companies I have an interest in, like Google has done, then you can call the regulators on me.

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.

Some see Google as a search engine. I see it as a gateway to information and product. When those search results are topped off with Google's own self interests, it edges out competition and stifles innovation. Imagine a Yellow Pages phone book back in the day with listings of companies appearing first that are also owned by the same phone company that produced the phone book. Those Bells were broken up for a reason, and I'd say the same principals need to be applied to Google.

I care about Google's manipulation, deceit and lack of regulatory action in the USA. Fortunately the EU sees things a little differently. But then again, Google is not supplying their governments with private user data like they are doing in the USA.

[hasek747]

So what you are saying is Google can continue to mislead the public claiming that their search results are unbiased and "automatically" machine generated when they are nothing but.

"The public" (as in the hundreds of millions [or billions? I don't know]) of people who use Google on a regular basis are, I'm pretty sure, not aware of any Google claims. We webmasters are aware of their mission statement, of their claims, of their operations (to an extent). "The public" however doesn't give a damn about Google's statements or claims; they only care that Google answers their query on search. And since they keep coming back, then apparently Google is doing a fine job overall.

The grips most webmasters have with Google is about the way Google are misleading the public!

Not really. Two faults that I can see here:

1) "Most" webmasters don't have any gripes with Google at all; it's just a very small minority of website owners that do. I, for one, have no gripes with them at all, and the only people I know who have gripes with them are the ones who try to heavily game the system (and even among those webmasters many are doing fine), or those who are in highly competitive markets and have just been plain simple outclassed by their competition and are angry. (There are also a few indeed unlucky people caught in the cross-fire, but those are 'the minority among the minority'.). SEO forums give the illusion that there is some mass dissatisfaction with Google going on, but I don't think it's true. Google is doing fine and most users and webmasters love Google.

2) The gripes +some+ webmasters have with Google are not about the way Google is misleading the public; it's about Google not giving them as much free money as they used to anymore. Unless some webmasters actually believe that the average user is indeed aware of some Google "mission statements" or that they care about who owns which company appearing in the search results; in which case I can see how some webmasters would be outraged.

[Shepherd]

then you can call the regulators on me.

You can not tell me when I can call the regulators, it's not fair, I demand that you send me good quality converting traffic from your website for free now, you are stifling my business.

So, the baby Bells came about because of Yellow Pages listings? oh my...

[Simon_H]

@hasek747 Spot on.

@EditorialGuy I appreciate Google paid doesn't belong in a thread about Feb 2016 algo updates, but neither do most of the recent posts.

I only mention Google paid because this discussion has turned into yet another debate about Google ethics and regulation. And my view is that site owners have no right to demand free traffic from Google organic. Google is free to order its organic results however it likes. But I do agree with @glakes on the paid side. I think it's very fair to criticise Google when you pay for clicks (and Google publishes details of how bids/quality score/etc work), yet paid traffic patterns are plainly unnatural and there's evidence that CPCs don't comply with how Ad Rank is allegedly determined. IMO that's the only area where Google could come unstuck.

And now, back to Feb 2016 serp changes.... :-)

[mrengine]

I saw a brief window where Google traffic was converting yesterday, and then they shut it off. About four days passed since the last Google sales burst. Even with the inconsistency in Google's traffic quality to our website, we are experiencing ever increasing sales elsewhere (primarily Amazon). The increasing Amazon sales (five months of data) suggests to me that shoppers with money in hand are moving beyond search to find what they can't easily find in Google's search results.

[ecommerceprofit]

Interesting debate back and forth. When Google has majority market share and the public is affected then this monopoly company could be broken up. Microsoft was almost broken up - sure they had competition with linix, os/2, etc but other businesses were affected. Standard Oil, At&T, etc. The public who consists of individual searchers and businesses are being affected through manipulation of rankings. The public is not seeing free and unfettered results (if that is what is happening).

Don't like my monopoly argument then think about my lobbyist argument...no right or wrong here...just an aggrieved organization that has plenty of their own lobbyists to equal Google's lobbyist strength can change the laws in place. The existing court decisions would go out the window with new statutes and regulations. My judicial arguments still stand and existing opinions can become less potent over the years with new case law.

If you look at my past posts from years back I celebrate Google shaking up the landscape when they change their algorithms...as a younger business I love when old and stale competitors lose their positioning. I miss when Google was fair (my opinion) and you had to earn your position. If I drop in ranking then too bad...I should not expect anything from a free service...should spend money to advertise and man up.

* What I object to is Google artificially making an unfair playing field...they have a duty to be fair and/or responsible due to their power...they no longer have the luxury of being a wholly private business...they are too important to the public at large so can remain private but with regulation *

[Jez123]

I saw a brief window where Google traffic was converting yesterday, and then they shut it off.

It's so #*$! weird! I had a quiet week this week after an absolutely stellar week last week. Slow all week, then today, historically quiet Friday, pretty busy. I've said it before and I'll say it again; where does the paying traffic go the rest of the time?

[aristotle]

Reading the recent posts in this thread makes you wonder why a few members here are so desperate to defend google. They don't accomplish anything at all, yet they keep posting. It's almost bizarre.