Effect of Google Updates and SERP Changes on Your Business

[nomis5]

---

System: The following 17 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4842918.htm [webmasterworld.com] by goodroi - 4:48 pm on Apr 24, 2017 (utc -5)

---

My article, is still ranking at no. 10. Sometimes I wonder if I go into too much detail. The people visiting my site are the average Joe wanting help.

The Nestle owned site which is suddenly all over Google has cookie cutter type articles which are short and really don't cover the topics in any detail. But they're now ranking one.

A couple of years ago G shifted its reliance on links. Somehow, some way they now have different mechanisms for judging the value of a website / webpage. Links are not excluded but degraded in importance.

Whatever mechanism they are using, it seems to be better able to judge what content a viewer wants to see. Unfortunately, many, many viewers want to see these short articles. That leads to the problem of better constructed and more detailed content ranking lower sometimes compared to short, sharp and often inaccurate content ranking higher - even though the more detailed articles have more quality links.

[smilie]

@EditorialGuy, if you have not had a spammer use your pics and post thousand of spam-related things on Pinterest, at the least, you had not competed in the niche.

The content sites are much easier than commerce sites. Commerce in niches that top 7 out of 10 and higher on a competition scale - this is where the hard things come.

@EG, if there was someone who wanted to really dethrone you in your little niche - such as if there was millions to be made - you will find out very quickly that doing nothing doesn't work (this is re your other comment that you do nothing marketing-wise). Basically are you so sure that with millions to be made there isn't an entity who could take your spot via better content and photography? Here you go.

@NickMNS , your rankings may have gone up and you were lucky to not get hit by 1 out 100 previous updates since last 4 years. Hundreds of people who did not come back here since 2013 when it was the largest online forum beg to differ. I am not saying everyone got it. I am saying that chances of you being hit are very high. AND since you are using dubious Google coverup for negative link weights, disavow file, what were you doing between 2013 and 2014 when there was not one? And how did you find out one exists, did you lose ranking? Do you know if your ranking should be as it is now, or should it be significantly higher (I am talking about 10 times traffic)? Do you know that your current ranking, unless your site is whitelisted by G gods, is negatively weighted on every single KW?

@EG

if your site caters to aardvark owners and is a compendium of helpful, interesting, professionally-written information about how to raise, care for, equip, and treat aardvarks. If your site is the "go to" resource for aardvark owners, people are going to trust you to sell them the products their pet aardvarks need.

This works if you've been in business of selling aardvarks for decades (better yet, generational), AND you are this good in writing content.
What would other 99% of the web do? (hint the other 99% do marketing)

[smilie]

Ping, does not show up in My Threads when it is cut out from another thread.

[NickMNS]

@smilie you bring up a few good points. First, I only started in 2013 so I was saved from the devastation. But at the same time I saw the impact on others. Between 2013 and 2014 I did not encounter the problem.

Do I know if I am ranked were I should be? Great question, from my point of view, no I should be number 1. Objectively, it impossible to know, for me or anyone else. But ultimately it is pointless question, I am ranked were I am ranked, and continuously trying to improve.

[browndog]

Whatever mechanism they are using, it seems to be better able to judge what content a viewer wants to see. Unfortunately, many, many viewers want to see these short articles. That leads to the problem of better constructed and more detailed content ranking lower sometimes compared to short, sharp and often inaccurate content ranking higher - even though the more detailed articles have more quality links.

I'm thinking that I might start doing what my main competitor is doing and make several articles on a topic. So what I do now is just create one long article on widgititis.

What they do is make a general article on widgititis (never as long as mine), then an article on acute widgetitis and an article on chronic widgetitis. That is how and why they often get several links on the first page.

[EditorialGuy]

Whatever mechanism they are using, it seems to be better able to judge what content a viewer wants to see. Unfortunately, many, many viewers want to see these short articles.

On the other hand, some people do like to read, and they're likely to be educated (and often high-income) users.

The best editorial approach to take depends on the audience you want to reach.

[browndog]

I keep reading that long and detailed articles are ranking better, but that is not the case in my niche. It doesn't matter how much I cover a topic, my main competitor will always rank no. 1. Even with shorter articles and zero images. There is nothing I can do to leapfrog over them.

As for how it has affected my business. In 2011 I left my job to focus on my site which was doing really well. In early 2013 Panda hit it hard, but it almost fully recovered by September. For the past 18 months it has slowly dropped and dropped, no matter what I do. Going through old articles to update, adding lots and lots of fresh new content, it continues to sink. It is now at the point where we can no longer survive. I have a job interview on Monday as I need to return to the workforce.

To me it feels like no matter what I do, how hard I work, and for the past year I have been working 7 days a week, the site keeps sliding. Meanwhile my competitor is enjoying 2, 3 and even 4 links on the first page of google on lots of topics. You just can't beat that.

[7_Driver]

Sorry to hear that browndog - that's a sad story :-(

Sounds like you've been doing loads of work on your content.

How does your link profile compare to your competitors? Have they been building more links than you?

[NickMNS]

@browndog, improving quality pays dividends but it can take time.

Also, not seeing a ranking boost does not mean that there is no benefit. Quality protects against algo updates and other Google animals.

[browndog]

7 driver, I honestly don't know. I've never built links, just let them develop organically (which is what Google wants). They are a large media company I'm just a one man show. Their content is okay, but they don't dig deep or include images, it's just 500 or so word articles. I can go up to 3,000 words with multiple photos to show the topic, and still can't outrank them.

That's a good point NickMNS, I'm running scared now. Currently my site is experiencing an upswing, but I don't trust them not to bring the hatchet down again. The site is still nearly 50% down on the best year (2012). Despite hundreds more articles.

Edit: A prime example is my no. 1 article which has received thousands of likes. In this period of 2012 it received 29,000 visits, this period in 2017 it's received 1900 visits. My competitor sits at no. 2 (Wiki is first), their article has 500 words and no images. Mine has 1800 words with clear information on what it is, the mechanism of how it works, how to care for it, other uses for it, and other similar widgets, it also contains 9 images plus a video. I'm not saying word count and images are the be all and end all, but I do have to start wondering if my longer articles are not what Google likes.

[martinibuster]

Unfortunately, many, many viewers want to see these short articles.

I agree with you 100%.
Google (and Information research in general) is about understanding what the user wants and giving that to them. So if users want shorter articles then that's what users will get.

However, in my opinion, many articles are poorly optimized (ironically) for how Google ranks websites today. Thus the shorter articles in some cases may better communicate what they're about (in addition to satisfying what a user wants).

I've reviewed content for clients and found some of them are making mistakes like using a keyword for Demographic A but publishing content for Demographic B, with Google unable to figure out where to rank them so they get ranked in position 7. Meanwhile the content that focuses on the correct demographic carries the top of the SERPs.

That leads to the problem of better constructed and more detailed content ranking lower sometimes

Yes! I agree with you on that point, too.
I believe it's often a case of less users wanting more detailed content, so Google ranks it lower for those who do want detail.

In my opinion, no matter how many links you get it won't defeat the user intent part of the algorithm that divides the SERPs according to the percentage of users want A level focus, what part wants B level focus and what percentage wants news about the topic.

Good luck,
;)

Roger Montti

[masterjoe]

Isn't it strange how Panda penalized sites that had "thin" content, but now people are looking for these types of articles. I may have to set up a few test websites and summarize all the information on my money sites and see if they rank any better or worse. Seems to me Google is contradicting itself once again. Like when they slapped SER with Panda, but happily steal snippets of everyones most important content to display in their ridiculous answer boxes.

[EditorialGuy]

Isn't it strange how Panda penalized sites that had "thin" content, but now people are looking for these types of articles.

"Short" and "thin" aren't necessarily the same thing. A dictionary isn't a "content farm," but a site with hundreds of thousands of 200-word articles like "How to boil water on an electric stove," "How to boil water on a gas stove," and "How to boil water on an induction cooktop" probably is.

As for what people are looking for in Google Search, Google probably knows more about that than we do.

[smilie]

Since it's "effects of updates on your business" , I'll update.

After seeing online businesses around me drop dead like flies and people just quitting it and going into : other jobs, selling on Amazon, even starting a completely web-free trucking company. To a point that around my former colleagues who were going to make millions (or did) on or before 2013 and all of them but one are now gone from online commerce.

After all this, I did get the message. So I am investing into two completely non-website related companies.

The sign is on the wall and has been there for several years. There's no turning back from Panda/Penguin. Your website can get killed by random spammer, by one out of 100 latest Google updates and by many other factors. The business of bringing traffic to your site and making money off of it is way , way too fragile.

Small business used to generate over 50% of the jobs in USA. Also right after 2010 online commerce was the fastest and basically the only growing US industry. Not anymore for small merchants.

By the way, unicorns are also starting to feel the squeeze, dot com 2.0 bubble is here. What is very disturbing is that during dot com 1.0 Silicone Valley was producing GDP, hardware and 10% of US exports. Today, nothing but ads and vaporware ("next killer mobile apps").

[browndog]

Google is like that really crazy boyfriend/girlfriend who loves you for having brown hair one day and then despises you for having brown hair the next, then they're back because they love brown hair. Just too unpredictable, I have absolutely no faith in the belief that you produce good content you will be rewarded. I think they score sites, and sites with high scores rank well even if their content is average.

[EditorialGuy]

Small business used to generate over 50% of the jobs in USA. Also right after 2010 online commerce was the fastest and basically the only growing US industry. Not anymore for small merchants.

I'm not sure that you can ascribe small online merchants' p\roblems entirely to "Google updates and SERP changes." One could argue that Google's SERPs simply reflect what's happening outside online search.

In the typical American city, for example, there are more big-box pet stores by the freeways than there are neighborhood pet shops these days, and supermarket chains began edging out corner grocery stores at least several generations ago. If there's a trend toward Amazon and away from mom-and-pop e-commerce sites, that just means the Web is beginning to synchronize with the real world.

What's more, what might seem like a great business idea at one point in time may soon become obsolete. (Remember Internet cafes?) IMO, too many Web businesses were not only built on Web search and SEO, but inspired by Web search and SEO--not unlike the "pure play" affiliate sites of 15 or 20 years ago or AdSense "click arbitrage" sites in the last decade. Regardless of Google's motives, if Google's SERPs evolve to reflect how people behave in the larger world (buying from known and trusted brands, for instance), merchants who are the 21st Century counterpart to small-time direct-mail vendors of the 20th Century are bound to suffer.

[vegasrick]

I noticed something wacky today and could very well be an error in the search results.

I check the rankings for my site under a very strong keyword, where we usually rank at 3 or 4. As of the first day of May we dropped down to 10, while the site that usually ranks at position 2 is now at position 12, and funny enough their facebook page is ranking three positions ahead of their site.

The number one position now occupied by some article someone penned two days ago.

Hope this clears up soon.

[glakes]

What should be interesting to watch unfold is how AI will evolve. Google crawls the web gathering information not just from websites, but books, videos, emails, etc. and other human level habits/data can also be fed to AI through interaction with the Chrome web browser. Imagine a day when Google's knowledge box expands into actual informational SERP query sets where answers to user questions are produced not from individual websites but by Google themselves using the collective knowledge of AI. In other words, a set of search results for a users query that produces one result generated from AI. The impact on the global economy would be huge and make it exceedingly difficult to reach users. I would imagine many small time publishers would be out of a job, but technology is gradually making human labor obsolete in many industries anyway. I see it in my industry where additive manufacturing technology, which was once only feasible for prototyping, has improved in both speed and quality to provide production quality components from a simple printer that can sit on a kitchen table. But technology is not restricted to information and manufacturing. We've all seen how restaurants are investing in automated cooking technologies, when coupled with self-serve kiosks and ordering through mobile apps, will result in the need for far less labor. Genetically modified grass, as another example, only needs to be cut once a month or even longer which means no need for the landscaper's weekly services. The construction services industry is not immune from advanced technology either. An Australian company named Fastbrick Robotics ( [fbr.com.au...] ) has automated equipment that can lay 1,000 bricks per hour, which is said to be the equivalent of two brick layers labor for an entire day. My guess is that ten years from now many, many people will be out of a job and competition for what few jobs exist will be exceedingly high and offer low wages.

Don't get me wrong, Google has not been friendly to webmasters and the majority of Google's income is based on monetizing human creation by controlling the dissemination of that information to the general public. However, Google is not alone in moving towards technology based solutions that make humans obsolete. Since we are webmasters, we have a better understanding of how Google is hurting our businesses, but webmasters do not share in this grief alone. A broader debate needs to take place regarding technology, the impact on people to provide for their families and how the world can ensure technology driven profits do not overtake the one human trait we all share (or should); compassion for one another.

[smilie]

@EG: I'm not sure that you can ascribe small online merchants' p\roblems entirely to "Google updates and SERP changes." One could argue that Google's SERPs simply reflect what's happening outside online search.

In the typical American city, for example, there are more big-box pet stores by the freeways than there are neighborhood pet shops these days

@EG, We already discussed this. It is not nearly the same in offline business. When someone builds a store near a freeway , you can at least expect several things to be there: the freeway and customers driving by. Google keeps removing freeway twice per month.

The investment in the online is no longer viable as risk outscores reward 100:1. Even WHEN I know how to build a commercial site, how to market etc. and it isn't hard to pick a niche with less competition if one is diligent enough. Even when all this is known, all this is more risky to invest into an online than offline. It's riskier than to buy a restaurant franchise, although those are also very volatile and risky as 9 out of 10 restaurants are out of business, but at least mathematically it is 10:1 and not 100:1.

@EG: What's more, what might seem like a great business idea at one point in time may soon become obsolete.

Yep, that's the ticket. With Amazon dominating online commerce and owning now over 30% of all US online commerce due to Google putting them #1 everywhere for years. And with Google shaking small merchants twice a month for money via "updates" "to remove spam" and "make SERPs better" until small sites start paying ransom, Adwords, because of all volatility that's impossible to handle when you are small.

Yep, 95% of small online merchants are now obsolete, or pay Google extortion fees via Adwords.

[EditorialGuy]

Yep, 95% of small online merchants are now obsolete, or pay Google extortion fees via Adwords.

I wouldn't call advertising "extortion fees." It's simply what you pay to gain access to somebody else's audience. If it works for you, you buy it; if it doesn't, you don't.

As for small online merchants being obsolete (or not), is it possible that middlemen in general are under threat in an era when manufacturers can easily sell direct and an increasing number of consumers are accustomed to buying online? (Obviously, people aren't going to order Oreos from Nabisco or bananas from Dole, but for many consumers, will there always be a compelling reason to order from Amazon and not from Lenovo, Panasonic, or Apple?)

[smilie]

@glakes: Google themselves using the collective knowledge of AI. In other words, a set of search results for a users query that produces one result generated from AI. The impact on the global economy would be huge and make it exceedingly difficult to reach users.

"Collective knowledge of AI" is a database. Nothing more, nothing else. With some logic that it "learned". You query a database and return 10 results based on user's input. Then you'd have to put your buddies from Amazon and Walmart on top. So UI is there to be "blamed" for the SERPs as in "look it's not us who is making these SERPs, it the magical and all-powerful AI", i.e. BS.

I would imagine many small time publishers would be out of a job, but technology is gradually making human labor obsolete in many industries anyway.

They won't. Today , 1000 bloggers are more powerful than all staff and all the AI of the top news producing outlet. Because 1000 bloggers have the knowledge of subject, which you can't hire because high level knowledge is often not for hire. AI won't make a slightest difference here. We (as in USA) right now have 0 analytics in news, again AI won't help here, but 10 bloggers getting together can , again, be more powerful then all the AI.

We've all seen how restaurants are investing in automated cooking technologies, when coupled with self-serve kiosks and ordering through mobile apps, will result in the need for far less labor.

Yep, fast food may go that route. And eliminate labor pool for poor and kids. There's no way no how expensive restaurants will eliminate waiters, nobody likes to click instead of being actually served, especially older folks with money.

Google is not alone in moving towards technology based solutions that make humans obsolete.

They don't like humans. On the tech side, I'd imagine they mostly hire geekiest of the geeks who aren't fond of human interaction. So, I imagine this idea comes naturally by being part of that Google culture.

Luckily for us as humanity , they are wrong.

So at one point after their AI failed miserably in taking over the world, they'll realize that it's because of all the bad humans (and not their bad ideas). And will start punishing us via updates - you know, to eliminate "bad spammers", "fake news" etc. etc. Until their own very quick and virtual death as a company - because as soon as you are trying to eliminate your customers you are on the wrong path, to obsolescence.

I'll give you an example. They are all dreaming of driver-less cars with all powerful AI. Humans had hundred thousand years of evolution and danger avoidance on this magic "AI". When AI is capable of detecting that some guy in a pickup truck upfront put a christmas tree and did not tie it up properly, and at 60 mph on a highway that tree might fly off , then maybe it will be ready. Because humans can easily detect that one out of hundred thousand other uncommon situations which you can't program in, and give that truck some headroom.

Until then, AI will randomly kill some humans and with trigger happy lawyers that will put it where it belongs, with human driver always present, LEGALLY. Which is what already happened to Tesla's half baked autonomous software. Google knows this, that's why they are making it a separate company, they know the lawsuits are coming. As US economy is tanking and will be hit with dot com 2.0 bubble bust , there will be hard times and lots of unemployed folks that you can blame "AI" for as a good diversion for the top pocketing billions and their failure to govern properly.

So , back on topic. The true AI is decades off , if that, probably more. There's not enough resources on the planet for everyone to drive electric car (transmission lines, batteries etc. physics is against the dreamers). So, stay on realistic topics with your business and don't bet on these two to go through shortly.

[smilie]

@EG: As for small online merchants being obsolete (or not), is it possible that middlemen in general are under threat in an era when manufacturers can easily sell direct and an increasing number of consumers are accustomed to buying online?
Obviously, people aren't going to order Oreos from Nabisco or bananas from Dole, but for many consumers, will there always be a compelling reason to order from Amazon and not from Lenovo, Panasonic, or Apple?

You brought up a good point.

In business you specialize. You either manufacture, wholesale or retail. There's a reason for all 3 to exist. It is EXTREMELY hard to have all 3 done right, and if it's done you get to be very well off. Apple is a prime example.
But usually you become a flying car - crappy car and crappy plane.

Now, Apple is also a prime example of manufacturer who sells through retail , as they sell through AT&T , Verizon etc. all the local phone MONOPOLIES (typically they have a geographical monopoly on land line and/or internet). They are still behind Samsung and number of chinese and japanese phones by several years. Regardless of their $200 Billion in the bank. AND technically Apple is not a true manufacturer, they are a designer and a wholesaler-retailer, as their manufacturer is in China.

Typically there's not enough resources when you are a manufacturer to do both wholesale and retail. It's completely different businesses, with retail being the hardest because you'd have to have sales, customer service , etc. etc. Manufacturers typically want none of the headaches of customer service as they already have their headaches: raw materials, machinery, people to run machinery, quality control, warranties, bulk shipping always on time, etc.

Online there's also a cut throat competition as you are completely exposed to your competitors. Only when you can claim lowest price or best technology (can't claim best tech for long), or other other options like Dell and customizations, you can sell direct, otherwise your products become commodotized. And there's only one compelling reason to order from Amazon, cheapest price, that's why it's commonly losing billions or barely making any money except for their cloud division (which judging by Cloudera's half-ing its IPO, is also slowing down).

So if you are a manufacturer, you could sell online directly and on Amazon. You will shortly lose your wholesale and retailers because now you are competing directly. And having hundred thousand customers instead of just 100 makes for a lot of headaches. And your distributors and retailers all of a sudden start competing against you , all that and it quickly becomes not pretty at all. Network is always bigger.

[NickMNS]

I'm not one to complain about Google. But this is the type of thing that makes even me feel uneasy.
[seroundtable.com...]

Answer boxes / knowledge graph are questionable at best but when Google starts to slowly (or not so slowly) eat away at the businesses that feed them, then eventually there will be a real problem.

Is this a signal that days of the big aggregator sites are limited. What's next?

[smilie]

@NickMNS, Google always eats their customer's lunch. They find niches that are profitable to webmasters and eliminate them one by one by making it profitable to them only.

* Affiliates.
* Adsense , content marketers
* Domainers
* Mom-and-pop ecommerce
* Used to be free Google products listings
* "Free" Google analytics

Next up is mobile. There are people who make ok money in mobile, and Google+Facebook are middlemen, collecting significant portions of ad revenue. Let me rephrase, SIGNIFICANT. Yet, in 1-2 years in not so distant future, they will decide that some mobile apps where people were really , really creative in making them profitable, are "making too much". Just like content marketers with Adsense. Just like affiliates. Just like mom-and-pop ecommerce. And Google will find ways to take larger and larger portion of their revenue. Until the mobile ad market, which is a borderline Pyramid scheme (because apps live mostly on advertising other apps) , collapses on itself. And then there won't be any growth there either. Just like in US online retail.

FYI. If you own any mobile apps that make money on advertising only , mostly other mobile apps, don't tell me you were not warned. Signs are everywhere. As soon as unicorns start collapsing (because their business model is like dot com 1.0, eyeballs), big money will start pulling out and your ad revenue is going to get hit. I would think of a better business model and implement it starting right now.

[EditorialGuy]

Just like content marketers with Adsense

I hate to sound pedantic, but content publishers aren't "content marketers."

Content marketing is a technique used by brands to sell things.

[smilie]

@EG, yes you are correct, content publishers. Two different things.

[smilie]

I started a new thread on Https, where I also outlined reasons for small business sites beying yo-yo-ed in G.

Also I suggested a solution to the fact that Google completely ignores webmasters here, on this site. I think that Google Bombing some of the SEO guru's site pages out of Google top is a good idea to bring attention to the fact that small business sites are being heavily hurt by negative link weights. And the fact that SEOs selling SEO service make out like bandits in this environment, but this isn't really good for the web.

Recommended read:
[webmasterworld.com...]