Google Updates and SERP Changes - March 2017

[andymorris]

---

System: The following 3 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4834186.htm [webmasterworld.com] by robert_charlton - 11:19 am on Mar 2, 2017 (PDT -8)

---

CTR and position going up on the 28th, not to the december and january levels, but slowly up. Was doing an average of 6000 clicks from search, and on the 28th it got past 1000 for the first time since early feb.

[browndog]

Don't ask what is the minimum needed instead focus on raising the ceiling and providing something new. Become the master of your niche. Be the first to provide online tools, videos, tutorials, comparisons, accurate tests, etc. Think of your site not as an affiliate site but as an online resource that just happens to be monetized with affiliate links.

I couldn't agree more with this. I make money from Google which enables me to spend time creating content. I don't expect to be number one in my search if the quality of my content isn't number one. I don't believe in gaming the system or putting in the least amount of effort. Quite the opposite, put in the most amount of effort until you have literally exhausted the subject. Be proud of your work, make it so that your competitors, news sites, blogs and your visitors want to share it. I hate the concept of putting in the least amount of effort possible, that is what made the Internet so crappy 5 or 10 years ago.

For all my whinging, I do think Google for the most part (not always) have a good job of cleaning things up.

[nonstop]

people always say that Google wants the very best search results, but I can't help wondering that if Google made the results slightly worse then more people would click back and users would spend more time on Google's site, the more time on Google's site means the user is more likely to click an advert which makes Google money.

there must be a formula where slightly worse results = higher revenue & hardly any user loss.

on the flip side better results = lower revenue.

it's not as if anyone is going to be switching in Bing, there's no real competition to Google, even if there was people would be too lazy or wouldn't know how to change and if the change was only slight they'd have no real reason to change.

A few posts up linkbuildr said that his 3 spam sites with cheap content is doing well, others have reported that the SERPs have more junk and maybe that means more profit for Google.

[superclown2]

Respectfully I fully disagree. Based on my own first hand experiences and varied data sources, affiliate sites can definitely thrive if they provide value

I agree - provided that they are not subjected to a manual inspection. This usually happens when competitors complain that a site is spammy. It only takes one competitor with multiple Google accounts (very easy with a few computers, a variable IP address and VirtualBox) and you could have a stack of complaints, an inspection of your site by a fairly low paid employee who may not even speak English as a first language and your site is on page 5+. Remember quality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and these guys can't be experts on every subject on the Internet, so whether or not they can tell the difference between the most important unique data on earth about your particular speciality, or semi-spun drivel is a gamble it's best not to take.

The only real defence is to sell your own product or service from a single domain. No ads, no affiliate links. Definitely no multiple sites or EMDs. Your copy can be as poor as you wish and you'll probably get away with a manual check (although your standing in the SERPs, which is algorithmic and not manual, is a different matter). Oh, and don't believe that the information in the Search Quality Guide is the only instruction they get. Slavishly following it may help but will guarantee nothing.

[browndog]

I don't know their motives, certainly the articles which have been hit more with this update are the really detailed one, but I am still seeing an upswing, so maybe they are still tweaking the update.

I don't think they always get it right and the best article is always in the first spot. I think search results are a lot better than they used to be.

What would rank higher, an site with authority and a shortish (say 500 word article) with a quality design/fast site loading time/and all the other things Google loves, or a really detailed article, by a world expert on a clunky site written in Comic Sans? I spend a lot of time researching and am often surprised that really detailed and high quality articles rank poorly, but they tend to be written by leading authorities FOR other professionals. Maybe Google is trying to appeal to Joe Public which is why those articles are several pages in, or you need to use very specific technical keywords to find them.

[EditorialGuy]

I agree - provided that they are not subjected to a manual inspection.

Interestingly enough, an earlier version of Google's manual for quality evaluators mentioned a page on our site (in a positive way) that had a dozen or more affiliate links. It used the page as an example of affiliate links from a site that provided value for the reader in the forms of articles, advice, etc.

The only real defence is to sell your own product or service from a single domain. No ads, no affiliate links.

Considering how many Webmaster World members with e-commerce sites complain about their search rankings, converting a successful information site into a site that's designed to sell things hardly looks like a winning strategy--especially in light of Google's mission statement, which is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

[superclown2]

Interestingly enough, an earlier version of Google's manual for quality evaluators mentioned a page on our site (in a positive way) that had a dozen or more affiliate links. It used the page as an example of affiliate links from a site that provided value for the reader in the forms of articles, advice, etc.

It's also interesting that you had access to that information. I understood that only Google employees could read those URLs.

Mind telling how you found out?

[Shaddows]

@ superclown

It always leaks. For example, here
[webmasterworld.com...]

[Nutterum]

Are there any news (I could not find anything but maybe I did not look as hard) about Google Analytics not showing data on the 19.03? I see that all verticals are down as if the traffic disappeared. Which is very strange because I can see I have more visitors currently browsing the site in the live metrics than yesterday's traffic?! I can confirm this on 14 separate accounts so far. Organic Search default metric in GA is showing almost 100% decrease in search volume, however the referer table shows the real values. Basically the graph is broken. Can anyone else confirm this on their end, so that I can contact SEroundtable and SELand on this?

[goodroi]

@superclown2 Your statement is puzzling. I know you are not ignorant of the very well known fact among smart SEOs that for over 10 years this document has been very publicly shared EVERY time it has been updated.

Here is a fun thread from 2006 [webmasterworld.com...] that talks about Google's leaked guidelines & how it impacts thin affiliate sites. This is not a new policy. We have literally been talking about the same thing for over 10 years.

[Shaddows]

SERPs have settled down again, after showing multiple traffic sets last week. Branded searches are back with Nav links.

The new settled set looks a lot like the rejected set from the update widely reported 7-9 Feb.

[Vantelli]

Traffic is slightly better today and yesterday, but still approximately 25% down.

There is now much more Youtube videos in SERPs, sometimes 3-4 videos. Much more info boxes and other Google's stuff. I already mentioned that - big brands now dominate the first page of Google. Funny thing - Blank Amazon page outranked me. They have only product name in its title tag and page without content. It only says something like "Do you own this product? Be first to review it!". So, it seems that big brands now can create pages on any subject, they don't even need to fill them with content and such pages will rank very good.

[glakes]

So, it seems that big brands now can create pages on any subject, they don't even need to fill them with content and such pages will rank very good.

It has been that way for a while. Google may have turned up the weight given to big brands even more causing the blank page issues to creep into more queries.

[browndog]

They definitely seem to have turned down the dial, my site is almost back to normal traffic numbers. Very relieved.

[aristotle]

So, it seems that big brands now can create pages on any subject, they don't even need to fill them with content and such pages will rank very good.

That's one way that google combats spam and low quality sites. If they fill the top spots with big brands, everything else is pushed down.

[lostshootingstar]

Also seeing some moderate recovery today. Not quite back to January levels but a marked improvement over the past few depressing weeks. Hoping it sticks or continues in this direction.

[jeremyers1]

Uh-oh ... should I be worried?

Google has been crawling my site at a rate of about 15,000 pages per day (which is strange, because I only have about 2000 posts/pages). But as of two days ago, this plummeted to 1200...

[davgonz90]

@jeremyers1 My crawl rate is very low as well. I have a 120-page site that's only getting about 8 page crawls a day.

Anyone have experience in this area?

Thank you.

[30K_a_month]

no recoveries here.

[syedyasir]

My website too hasn't recovered from the big drop of 13/14th March.

[mosxu]

dropped a few positions on a product but guess what sales are better...

[Vantelli]

Guys, I have a question - Some of my pages are better ranked now than before March 8. Other pages dropped a few positions and there are pages that dropped 50 or so positions. The question is - Should I maybe noindex worst performing pages? If some of my pages are in the top 3 and other are not even in the top 100, maybe these pages have some issues? Could they be a weight that pulls the whole site down? What do you think?

[superclown2]

@superclown2 Your statement is puzzling. I know you are not ignorant of the very well known fact among smart SEOs that for over 10 years this document has been very publicly shared EVERY time it has been updated.

Perhaps I didn't frame my question very well. Mea Culpa.

I have of course been aware of these guidelines for several years. However In earlier incarnations the URLs pointing to the example websites required a log-in to access them. My own Google account logins never allowed access. I merely wondered how editorialguy had managed to read them. Perhaps he can enlighten me.

[EditorialGuy]

However In earlier incarnations the URLs pointing to the example websites required a log-in to access them. My own Google account logins never allowed access. I merely wondered how editorialguy had managed to read them. Perhaps he can enlighten me.

I saw a link on Webmaster World and clicked it. Pretty simple, really.

[EditorialGuy]

Addendum to @superclown2:

Let's not get distracted by irrelevancies. The issue here isn't how one gains access to the readily-available Google quality raters' guidelines, it's how Google regards affiliates. The raters' guidelines make it clear that all affiliates aren't "thin affiliates" in Google's eyes. (But don't take my word for it--read the guidelines.)

[superclown2]

I saw a link on Webmaster World and clicked it. Pretty simple, really. 

Care to share the link? I am not trying to pry into your affairs but I'd be interested to know how the person who provided the link was able to access that information.

Re: being distracted by irrelevancies: I've worked in research of one type or another; from chemical, through behavioural, and recently medical, for more than 50 years. 'Irrelevancies' to the untrained are often vital clues to those who intend to advance their knowledge. Which is the whole purpose of being here.

I am also well aware that companies such as Google may often let information slip out which is designed to lead the rest of us to false conclusions, or which is deliberately incomplete. Frankly, it would be negligent of them not to do so. This is why we should all examine any clues they offer in depth rather than blindly accept everything they say and follow their party line.

[EditorialGuy]

Care to share the link? I am not trying to pry into your affairs but I'd be interested to know how the person who provided the link was able to access that information.

Sorry, but I don't make note of every URL that I visit.

As others have pointed out, Google's Search Quality Evaluators Guidelines are hardly secret. They've been publicized, with links, on sites like Search Engine Land for years.

FWIW, I did a Google search on "google guidelines for quality raters" just now, and the first result was a Google PDF of the current guidelines hosted on Google's own Web site. That stands to reason, since the guidelines are basically a manual of best practices that any search engine would be happy to have site owners read and follow.

[Halaspike]

Hi guys, I have a website which is 1 year 7 months old. For the past 1 year my traffic from google has been the same and i add about 4 quality articles daily with images, 400 words & above, basically all that good stuff Google likes but my traffic has been the same 1600 unique visitors per day from google's organic search. I noticed that anytime i post a new article and it starts getting alot of traffic from search other articles that were on page 1 of google will be pushed down to page 5 sometimes they get pushed down to page 10. It seems like google is throttling or shaping my traffic. I don't understand why this is happening, i need help thanks.

[mosxu]

@Halaspike

no content is better than great content without quality back links from our experience, but it may not be worth the money to invest in links it all depends on the business model

small businesses are not allowed to compete for all productive traffic, your site may be under a quota restriction and whatever you will do will actually be always limited by that quota

this helps certain advertisers to keep growing and also keep the spend in adwards

[frankleeceo]

@Halaspike

This phenomenon is noticed by many yet disavowed by many as well. Try to read through the threads to get a handle on different sides.

[webmasterworld.com...]

It's really tough to break through that quota without proper strategies. (p.s. Keep on adding content is not the proper strategy as you have experienced, and the conclusion that I came to years ago when I first noticed this phenomenon.) Especially when this type of traffic cannibalization is apparent.

I spent about an year or 2 doing what you did, adding awesome content, but that effort is mostly fruitless. The key to breakthrough is to form more types of inbound traffic (links) either through social or entice direct loyalty visitors. Only if people told me what I know now ;p.

Once you hit that ceiling as you have, brand awareness of your site becomes important.

[browndog]

I think you're right frankleeceo, I've been adding 2-3 new articles a week which range in word count from 1000-3000, images where possible, the best content I can possibly produce. On top of that, I have been going through older posts and updating them. Probably update 4-5 articles a week on top of the brand new content. And I am going backwards. I have less traffic now than I did a year ago, despite the content being seriously improved and many more articles added.

I don't know how to actually build links. I thought if you wrote great content you'd get links. I've never asked other sites to link to me, why would they do that? I'm not questioning you, I'm thinking out loud.