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]

[masterjoe]

I have seen the same on off patterns for a while and seem to match users here. However, I have a site that is gradually picking up and is not affected by any algorithms as far as I know which seems to generate fairly consistent income. The majority of my income comes from a site that's been hit with Penguin, which is where I am seeing the most on/off behavior. I also see much larger gains/drops in terms of traffic though on a daily basis though. So far, this has been quite frustrating but I believe my new site will soon overtake the old one and hopefully stay off whatever is causing this zombie traffic.

[EditorialGuy]

Reading the recent posts in this thread makes you wonder why a few members here are so desperate to defend google.

In my case, I'm not defending Google, I'm defending the First Amendment and the right of any Web site (including Google Search) to decide how it links (or even if it links at all) to third-party sites.

I think a lot of the teeth-gnashing about Google stems from the fact that it's no longer easy to make money from sites that were created to take advantage of search. The days when you could use SEO as the foundation of a business are over (unless you're selling SEO services), and in any case, there's a lot more competition today than there was five, 10, or 15 years ago. Consumer habits have changed, too. Case in point: Depending on which estimate you read, Amazon has between 40 and 80 million Prime members, and those free-spending shoppers aren't likely to be scouring organic search results for products at unknown-vendor.com.

[ecommerceprofit]

I agree with you editorialguy about Amazon and also don't forget mobile changes...but you completely ignored what I said in my last post...of course the first amendment allows you to ignore. However, ignoring my last post does not make you right.

[EditorialGuy]

ignoring my last post does not make you right.

It isn't about me being right, it's about First Amendment protection.

Search engines (including Google) get to decide when, how, and even whether to link to third-party sites. So do we. If you live in the U.S. and you value editorial freedom, it's a win for them, and it's also a win for us.

[mrengine]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; where does the paying traffic go the rest of the time?

This is the million dollar question. My sales coming from all non-Google channels, for the lack of a better term, are relatively stable. But I am seeing month over month increases on Amazon and other areas. And sales coming from these channels does not increase on Google zombie days. From my perspective, it is Google turning the dial up on traffic quality for a 3-12 hours period and they turn it off for days or even a week. One theory that was floated is Google would rotate the quality buyer traffic to different merchants of the same or similar product. But that theory holds no water in my industry because we are very small and specialized. We don't have enough competitors for Google to split traffic among to explain why we don't see good traffic from them for a period of days or a week. And the good traffic does not swap from clicks on free search results to paid listings either. I've lost a good amount of money figuring that one out, even when the ads were optimized to increase bids by 20% when Google determines the probability of greater buyer intent.

At this time I am thinking that the majority of good buying traffic from Google is not going elsewhere on what we see as bad traffic quality days, but these searchers are abandoning the purchase cycle entirely out of frustration. Instead of doing a Google search and finding what they want to buy, their search query is not satisfied and they make a decision to initiate their purchase outside of Google. This makes sense to me because I am seeing month over month increases in sales from other channels that were not growing anywhere near the current rate they were before Google traffic quality for merchandise became a problem last year.

[ecommerceprofit]

editorialguy - LOL - you completely ignored my points...that's ok...

[Simon_H]

@mrengine That's a very plausible explanation. Following it through with an example... Say you run a site that sells white widgets. Initially, Google decides to show one of your site pages in searches for 'white designer widget 10cm'. This is a good match and traffic converts well. Then Google decides to stop showing your site in that particular search and instead starts showing you in 'green vintage widgets'. This is a bad match as you don't sell them, so conversions suddenly drop. (I'm generalising hugely and there will be multiple serps being switched in and out.)

In this example, if your industry is small with minimal competition, then when the user searches for 'white designer widget 10cm' and your site is no longer in the serps, the user will get frustrated as the serps will contain little of use and so the user may abandon this channel for purchase. This is your example.

However, it also follows that if it's a competitive industry, then when the user searches for 'white designer widget 10cm' and your site is no longer in those serps, all of your competitors will still be there. The user will be blissfully ignorant of Google omitting your site and will buy from a competitor instead.

[seoskunk]

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

WE have a saying "the sun even shines on a dogs arse somedays" good to see your bucking the trend but the overall trend remains "brand = good, sme = bad" on google

[seoskunk]

Why is so fxxxing hard to logout of webmasterworld now!

[glakes]

So now some people believe the first amendment gives a company the right to monopolize a medium, falsely advertise organic search results when in fact they are used to promote their own self interests without it being disclosed and push competitors out of their index by the unfair marketplace they have created. Someone obviously is not an attorney, because false and misleading commercial speech has no protections under the first amendment. :) If anything, the first amendment gives the people the right to petition their government to stop these abuses, not defend them.

I can see why some avid defenders of Google would grasp for a first amendment excuse straw when Google has failed in their social and economic obligations as being a dominant search engine, and owners of the leading mobile operating system, web browser, video website, email service, etc. I'm sure in a few more years Google will add some more micro-monopolies to their portfolio. It's easy for them because they control well over half of the online advertising market.

[RedBar]

but these searchers are abandoning the purchase cycle entirely out of frustration. Instead of doing a Google search and finding what they want to buy

From a purely personal viewpoint, I do not buy 20% of what I did a few years ago quite simply because the products I buy, mainly tech etc, are so much more reliable therefore longer lasting. 15-20 years ago we were buying new PCs every few months, the one I am typing on now is starting its 8th year, my newest laptop is 4 years old and still flies with the best of what is on offer today.

However saying that I still do look what's on offer etc since I have friends asking me what is available. They don't bother researching, they go directly to where I recommend.

In my realworld industry, specialised construction products, the retail sector has seen a massive change since 2008, Joe Public may do a little research online however the vast majority, and this has been supported by several in-depth surverys in several countries, find more purchasing security and satisfaction by good old-fashioned word of mouth recommendation.

My realword sales to wholesalers are up, their sales to Joe Public are up however both their and my website traffic is down. 10 years ago I would get retail enquiries every day, now it may be once a month if that.

So, my website traffic is down, guess what's up, participation by my entire industry at trade fairs!

I am not saying my experience applies to all and sundry however is there anything that has crept in over the last few years that is being missed?

[Shepherd]

So now some people believe the first amendment gives a company the right to monopolize a medium

Apparently only you, I have not heard anyone else say that.

falsely advertise organic search results when in fact they are used to promote their own self interests

I would like to see one example of this false advertising please.

[Simon_H]

Have those who are complaining that Google is out to kill small businesses actually ever used Google? Every serp I see is packed with small businesses and relatively unknown websites.

There is a huge irony with the 'Google prejudices serps to favour big brands' argument. Firstly, big brand websites are on average higher quality than unknown brand websites simply because they have more money to spend on design and content. Similarly, big brand websites often have a higher CTR because users trust them and favour them, again because they have more money to spend on brand building. The point is that if Google is favouring higher quality websites and genuinely trying to satisfy user demand, then big brand websites will typically rank higher than unknown brand websites. Not because the big brands are paying Google, but because they fulfil the technical/UX requirements for a high ranking site.

The irony is that when certain site owners demand that Google stop listing big brands at the top of the serps and instead push the smaller brands, they're actually asking Google to prejudice the serps and show results that are less favourable to the user.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a Google lover. But if you're going to bash Google, do it for a legitimate reason, e.g. their continual technical failures, Panda/Penguin delays, their insistence of testing on live, their manipulation of paid results, their dreadful support, their tax avoidance. Don't moan at them for listing good sites above crap ones.

[glakes]

I would like to see one example of this false advertising please.

The only example I would like to see requires that Google's organic search results get cracked open by regulators, and I'm sure organic search results would be found to be heavily biased and about as inorganic and unnatural as today's search results demonstrate. Anyone can do their own research to see how Google's organic search results are used to boost their investments in many other markets. This, unfortunately, is the only evidence we have on the outside as to how Google's organic search results favor companies they directly profit from.

Both the Google Ventures and Google Capital websites list scores of companies that Google has a vested interest in. And in many cases, the companies listed within these investment pages sit atop the organic search results for what I would deem as their most important/profitable keywords. Are these great organic ranks coincidental and natural, or part of a more sophisticated profit driven strategy that boosts Google's and their parent company Alphabet's profits beyond paid ads by taking minority ownership of companies that are allegedly held to the same ranking standards as us? I think the later is more likely, and is supported by some of the statements I've seen and of course how well Google backed companies perform in the organic search results.

Google Capital's website states:

Accelerating Growth Together
We help our portfolio companies grow faster by advising them with the support of the vast expertise and resources of Google.

Is the advice given to Google's portfolio companies the same as we get? I find it hard to believe that the advice these portfolio companies get is anything compared to the unspecific and broad information Google gives us - read/follow the webmaster guidelines, watch for warnings in WMT/WSC and post to Google's webmaster help forum with specific problems that the community can respond to. I highly doubt that is the only support given to Google Capital portfolio companies, which would suggest that they have insider information that makes the organic search results slanted to benefit Google and not free markets.

I would encourage anyone interested in Google organic search to do their due diligence and confirm everything I have stated in this post for themselves. What I wrote is 100% accurate and can be validated with just a little bit of time. Industries that Google profits from, outside of selling ads, include help desk support, credit reports, real estate, business loans and other highly profitable industries.

Getting back to my original response to "I would like to see one example of this false advertising please," I see not one but hundreds of examples of how businesses backed and advised by Google have been elevated to the top. Organic search results are not organic at all and Google is falsely advertising them as such. If it smells like a fish, it probably is a fish.

At a minimum, Google backed companies should be labeled as such. Some could argue that these Google backed companies are running afoul of agreements to label ads, but that may be a reach. Regardless of how companies financially backed by Google are labeled, great harm to markets comes from a company that utilizes its massive online advertising network (greater than 50%) to propel their investments to the top and in such a way that excludes participation from competitors. At least with paid ads, competitors have an opportunity to out bid each other. When it comes to companies Google invests in, there is no recourse other than pricey lawsuits since Google has thus far been able to operate in an unregulated environment that enables impunity for those sitting at the top of the food chain.

[Shepherd]

Getting back to my original response to "I would like to see one example of this false advertising please,"

You are accusing google of false advertising... where is this, any, advertisement that makes false claims.

I'm sure organic search results would be found to be heavily biased and about as inorganic and unnatural as today's search results demonstrate.

And it would not matter if it was, again it is google's website, they can do with it what they want and they owe you nothing (Hows that traffic I demanded from your site coming along?). google can rank sites however they want, one signal they use is links. So maybe they consider a link from the googleventures website to be a high indication of a quality site, I would if I were them I find the food in restaurants I own stock in tastes infinitely better the restaurants I don't own stock in. Your site and the google backed site are being judged by the same criterion, all you have to do to make your site high quality in the algo's eye is get a link from the googleventures site.

For the record, I compete directly with a google backed company and the battle has been exactly as I expected it would be, neither fair or unfair, just business. Any "business" that is sitting around waiting for and whining about free traffic from google is going to get smacked around by google and their other competition willing to roll up their sleeves and get their customers before google does.

[glakes]

You are accusing google of false advertising... where is this, any, advertisement that makes false claims.

The false advertising occurs where Google backed websites appear in organic search without being labeled or disclosed. Organic by definition implies natural and the insider information that Google supplies to companies they back, along with any undetermined algorithm boosts, makes any case for natural ranking of Google backed sites false. As I quoted in my previous post. Google publicly states: "We help our portfolio companies grow faster by advising them with the support of the vast expertise and resources of Google" which is a substantial advantage that those independent websites (not financially backed by Google) competing in organic search results do not have.

And it would not matter if it was, again it is google's website, they can do with it what they want

With their market share, they can't unless they are broken up into separate independent companies and held to the same algorithmic and bidding conditions that the rest of us subjected to. With as many financial interests in other companies as they have, Google most certainly can't abuse their dominance in search to corner the markets for any business they buy, invest in or partner with because it is illegal. This appears to be a stumbling block for many who want to over-simplify things by brushing aside the fact that Google's market share and role in digital commerce gives them a greater responsibility. To what degree Google, as a gateway to the web, must be responsible/transparent is something that a number of ongoing antitrust investigations will determine.

[hasek747]

held to the same algorithmic and bidding conditions that the rest of us subjected to.

How do you know that they aren't being held to them already, though? I mean - you say that certain Google properties rank #1 for related terms - fine. Are there, however, Google properties that do NOT rank #1 for such terms? Because if there are (and not just one or two), this would cast significant doubt over your theory.

[Simon_H]

First one I tried... There's a holiday/hotel booking company (initials are SE) that I've heard of in the UK. They're a Google Ventures investment. I search for 'luxury hand picked hotels' (which is part of the company's tag line) and... they come up middle page 2. Tried 'luxury cheap hotels' and they're bottom of page 2. Tried 'luxury uk hotels best rates' and... bottom of page 2. Loads of their competitors are above them in all cases.

Theory debunked.

[Shepherd]

There's a fine line between a theory and trying to project a delusion. Some folks just want someone to force the water to be more buoyant so they don't drown. Might be best to learn to swim instead of begging the government to do something for you.

[spreporter]

By the way very interesting the thread, but nothing to do with February Google updates & SERP changes.....

[Selen]

'luxury cheap hotels' - who would even use such keywords? It's like 'vacation in hot cold countries.'

[Simon_H]

@Selen WebmasterWorld rules don't allow me to name the company, but they advertise themselves as offering luxury hotels at cheap prices. Hence the search. "Discounted luxury hotels" shows them in the same position. Basically, I couldn't get this Google Ventures company to appear anywhere near the top of the serps no matter what related search I tried (apart from their own brand name). Which debunks the theory that Google ranks its own investments at #1.

[Selen]

Whatever I could say about 'debunking of theories' - such random searches prove nothing. When you all of a sudden do a search on 'luxury hotel' then Google - based on your recent searches, profile, location, browser, cookies, gmail / chat message keywords, etc. knows this search is unlikely to result in your buying a ticket to a luxury hotel. It probably treats your search as informational, not commercial, so it doesn't really need to show you links to hotels.

[hasek747]

@Selen

But then the same applies in the other direction, too; whenever you see a Google property or Google-backed property at the very top of page #1, then you should assume that it is only there for you, and therefore it doesn't matter. Your logic, not mine, by the way. You can't just pick which #1 results mean something based on your preferences; we either establish specific criteria for that and then follow that trail and see where it leads, or we assume all of them either don't or do matter.

[Simon_H]

@Selen You're wrong. No debate. Google doesn't think it's an informational search because it's listing multiple competitors above the website. I'm sure you can quickly find the Google property I'm talking about, so try searching with any query you consider reasonable. Come to that, go to the Google Ventures site, go into portfolio, pick a website, search for it as a user would. The theory was that Google ranks all of its properties at the top of the serps. You'll quickly see that's complete nonsense.

Now, as @spreporter says, perhaps we can return to discussing Feb serp changes. This constant hijacking of threads for the sole purpose of unconstructive unsubstantiated Google-bashing is getting tiring.

[timemachined]

Some young whipper snapper who's just had to fork out four months wages on a wedding ring, may well seek out cheap boutique hotels to make his new wife to be, happy, while he hangs up his season ticket and starts shopping at the supermarket for suits as well as nappies.

I just got a sale on a five star hotel and the landing page was based around being cheap. Buyer wouldn't have found the page otherwise as travel is very competitive. The poor people, who make up 90% of this planet and whichever country you're in, do indeed like to enjoy luxury on the cheap.

PS Sunday = typically busy day before the rest of the week dies off until Friday's g algo runs sees it go as quiet as a mouse.

[Painter]

That's right eating up a small business.
I think that's where they are pushing to spend money on Adwords
very sad :(

[RedBar]

'luxury cheap hotels' - who would even use such keywords?

Okie dokie, playing devil's advocate I did just that, I was astonished how fast G's predictive came up with "luxury chea" ... Try it Selen ...

[EditorialGuy]

I was astonished how fast G's predictive came up with "luxury chea" ..

And why not? The expression "Champagne lifestyle on a beer budget" has been around for ages. :-)

[anneconq]

Our site is badly affected by this update.

I don't know what to do. :-(

50% of keyword rank were dropped, 50% of ROI dropped.

Most of my technique is thru posting articles and social media shares. Anymore suggestion please?