Google answers the question

[egem1367]

Lately I've seen in my area, google seems to be basically answering every question at the top of the page. Some times these results look very much like they have been taken from mine and other's hard work, but when you click on them, they take you back to another google search. Has anyone seen an increase in this sort of thing lately?

[EditorialGuy]

One needn't be an "apologist" to understand that tilting at windmills is a waste of time. If you're really concerned that "answers" are a threat to your livelihood, then wouldn't it be more productive to figure out how you can make the best of a bad situation, such as learning how to leverage "answers" that can drive high-quality traffic to your site?

[robzilla]

He said "answers". It's a fact.

I get that you're confused by all these occurrences of the same word "answer" in multiple contexts. Words are so confusing! But again it's really quite simple: it's the most appropriate, all-encompassing term for the various types of search results, and cannot reasonably be interpreted as referring to what the SEO industry has dubbed the Answer Box, which is just a single leg of the SERP centipede. I thought someone else had made that same interpretation in the other thread, but I now happily see it was, in fact, you, so noone else seems to be confused about this.

Isn't most of those "Cards" above the fold simply webmasters and content providers opting in with JSON-LD by providing Google a semantic understanding of your site for popular content types?

I think most of it is likely a result of semantic analysis rather than structured data. Well, the latter probably informs the former to some extent, but I would expect them to prefer drawing knowledge from a wide corpus of documents, not just the few parties providing structured data.

I've tried quite a few queries that invoke Answer Box type results, and there's always attribution. The difference with the familiar text snippets under the blue links, that would zoom in on and highlight the relevant text on the page, is mostly one of presentation. Clearly, they've grown more confident in their ability to distill what's most relevant, and are highlighting those snippets in different, more structured ways. I'm certainly seeing an increase of that this year, but again never without attribution, so you'll want to get in on that action.

[Nutterum]

As much as I like the community to provide the answers to simple questions, I prefer curated content, so that I do not have to fact check every how-to results I stumble upon or every history date. If Google creeps on these types of queries I for one am up for it. Sure it will get some money out of the pockets of people who took their time to make a business out of providing answers to "easy" questions, but to be honest I don't really care as even basic business analysis shows that this model is not sustainable in the medium-long term, unless scaled big time.

[MrSavage]

The most ignorant view point is the notion that it's "simple" answers that are the target. It's a view shared by people who obviously spend little or no time using Google as an end user. It's not even really worth explaining. Ignorance is blind. Easy answers? Is a guide an "easy" answer? Is a recipe an "easy" answer? If I write a 2000 word article which covers 100 points and Google can strip out and create a paragraph from my page, is that me writing "easy" answer content?

I think at this point, only a fool would suggest that today, Oct 23, 2017 is how the answer boxe(s) will look on July 1, 2018 or Oct 10, 2019. When you create a machine that can index, sparse and spin content, there are few boundaries. Check out all the crying about having to file DCMA take down requests. Ah, but Google uses a snippet so it's fair. Not the same. Right? Well those babies crying about content theft are crying because the scraper is taking their content and taking their traffic. If that scraper could take the meat of your content for any given search and outrank you, the same principle applies. YOU CRY BECAUSE YOU ARE LOSING THE TRAFFIC (REVENUE) TO A SCRAPER. An automated process! If somebody scraped your entire article or took just part of your article and outranked you, it would be the same problem. People file DMCA because their original content IS REPLACED by someone else and it's....not.....fair. Correct? If I scrape your content you don't cry so long as you outrank me. You aren't losing out on the traffic to the scraper. But oh wow, if that scraper takes some of yours and cuts into your traffic, just look at the history of crying posts about scrapers outranking original content creators.

Ask Wikipedia the number of people that click the source links at the bottom of the articles. Just like an answer box, the click through rate on that? Right, the link isn't buried on the answer box... It's only logical that the source links become more irrelevant as the AI gets smarter. The scraping can only get better and as it does, the defenders of the link can stuff that argument. I'm sure the same people praising the link in the box also feel super good about being mentioned by the Google Home and Amazon answer boxes that sit on the counter at home. The last time I checked, a "thank you" didn't pay the bills. "Look ma, my website was mentioned on that device! They sell the device for profit and I feed the device content for free!". Just imagine if Google adds a "did you find what you were looking for" feedback link in the answer box! How very arrogant that would be!

It's astonishing the ignorance regarding "easy" answers. Are you so oblivious to this? Google can chop, spin and post from ANY article or content written. Try using Google for a while. Less clicking and you can educate yourself at the same time.

[ByronM]

I think most of it is likely a result of semantic analysis rather than structured data. Well, the latter probably informs the former to some extent, but I would expect them to prefer drawing knowledge from a wide corpus of documents, not just the few parties providing structured data.

I still believe its the JSON-LD more than anything else. I bet if you follow the referenced link and view the site returning the result you would find the JSON. Just glancing at the cards i see they all have this data and the webmaster tool says only sites that are considered authorities earn this capability.

[jambam]

I know I Bang on about amazon affiliate sites a lot but I have seen on a number of searches “best top’ products being listed by google at the top. These sites get their authority via spam links pbn links and blog comments links.... content is poorly written (could even be half spun) but because it is structured in a simple way (<h3>1. Widget by widget</h3>...etc) google machine learning thinks this content is what searches want so ranks it in the answers box as fact. Now the list isn’t factual or honest just a list of products that convert best for the affiliate marketer. Dunno if this is a double edged sword for the affiliate sites too as searchers May instead of clicking on the site just search for the first product being listed.

[engine]

Mod note. I'm not going to single anyone out as this is a general reminder. Please, let's keep it civil, and stop targeting each member as if they are to blame. This is a discussion forum, and i'll remind everyone of the TOS #19

Since this is interactive, and everyone who participates in WebmasterWorld.com is "in it together", please treat others the way you wish to be treated. One way to guard against misunderstandings is to read over your response before you post it. Flaming: flaming or personal attacks are not allowed or tolerated. Should anyone use inappropriate language, start a personal attack, or engage in hate speech, they will be barred from all further discussions.

Back on topic...

The growth of the answer boxes appearing on more and more SERPs are more likely aimed at voice responses, such as you'd get on Google Home.

The problem for me is the accuracy of the content. I've found a few answers that are either mediocre, or are just plain wrong. This results in further searches and more detailed long tail queries.

If it's your own content in there, and you don't want it there, just go ahead and block it.

[robzilla]

I've found a few answers that are either mediocre, or are just plain wrong

That's certainly a big issue, especially considering how the answers are presented. They stand out from other results, so that one might get the impression those are the best, i.e. most accurate, answers, when in fact they may simply be sourced from a popular but not necessarily authoritative source.

[engine]

...when in fact they may simply be sourced from a popular but not necessarily authoritative source.

Exactly. Just because someone's got an answer box result doesn't mean it's correct. Unfortunately, if the answer box is being used and read out by Google Home the recipient of the message will not know the efficacy of the content as there's not necessarily any other data to follow, unlike a visual display of mobile or desktop screen.

I haven't yet found anyone gaming the answer box, yet, but, i've not been looking.

BTW, when I found an incorrect answer I used the feedback link more than once for an incorrect answer. The incorrect answer was still there a month later. I haven't looked recently.

[robzilla]

Using Google Home to search the Web sounds like a clumsy ordeal. The combination of voice and a display works well, the Google Assistant on my phone gives direct spoken answers in response to factual queries, which would work well with Google Home like devices, but in response to less easily answered questions it can resolve to "Here's what I found on the web...", whereas Home, I assume, cannot. I've not read much about the device, but I imagine searching the Web is not among the marketed features.

[EditorialGuy]

I've found a few answers that are either mediocre, or are just plain wrong.

Or they extract only part of answer. For example, I was looking up transit fares for a city, and the answer cited a couple of fares that applied only to a less common form of transportation, not to the mode of transportation that I'd asked about. And even if the answer had been more accurate, I wonder if the "answer box" algorithm would have been able to spell out the difference between visitors' and residents' fares, which are quite different. Algorithms are capable of only so much understanding.

[timemachined]

The most ignorant view point is the notion that it's "simple" answers that are the target. It's a view shared by people who obviously spend little or no time using Google as an end user. It's not even really worth explaining. Ignorance is blind. Easy answers? Is a guide an "easy" answer? Is a recipe an "easy" answer? If I write a 2000 word article which covers 100 points and Google can strip out and create a paragraph from my page, is that me writing "easy" answer content?

As someone who writes articles on the side of running my own site - I have to, G is not easy these days - I can note the amount of times I need to actually visit a website for an answer, that G has already provided. Not very often. Even the zombies don't have to visit a website any more...

G is the biggest scraper on Earth, and just in case they position those servers in outer space to keep them more cool and not contribute to their carbon tax further, the galaxy, it acts against its own terms and conditions.

An interesting court case would be, G disseminating answers from a 2000 word article, to lift 50 words would be fair use, but to lift ten x 50 words and put those answers on ten separate pages, would perhaps be theft.

Yes I understand 'giving permission' JSON, but is it correct to create an atmosphere of give and get less back to perhaps win a lollipop or put up and get nothing? That's why people get divorced from other people. I have to mention people, as some marry their cars. Perhaps if I marry a Google Datacentre, the AI within will look more favourably on me.

[timemachined]

Here's an idea. Why doesn't G have a separate section for 'answers' because honestly, I've seen 42 FAQ style questions before getting to the first ten indexed websites. If you keep clicking they keep coming. Then G pays a website every time someone clicks on one to see an instant answer that G itself got from their website. Call it 'Reverse Adsense.'

I'm not one to fall for this ad sense rubbish, where you get paid poor click rates instead of selling the actual product but some people enjoy that. I'd rather get £150 commission on a brand designer good for one sale than ten 2 pence clicks. But it could work, to get paid to provide Google with content and seems only right but in a different section, that way search results aren't affected.

As let's face it, this answer based results service and algorithm often gets in the way of what were actually trying to find, when not requiring an answer.

[tangor]

I get all the commentary which has been offered I agree with nearly all of it AS A WEBMASTER.

However, we do live in a real world and that is the USER/CONSUMER and how they interact with the web.

Most of them (like nearly ALL of them!) never type a url. Their browser, when it opens, is one search engine and THAT is their internet, not our sites, not our data, not our articles, not anything else.

You have be to an extraordinary brand (think NASA, WALMART, AMAZON) for the user to type a url.

We can rant and rage and all that happy stuff, or we can realize that g is servicing THEIR customers (they were never yours in the first place) and if snippets or "answers" makes their users happy they have done their job.

All the answer box has done is made it that much harder to be #1 in the serps. The best answer doesn't count if the crappy answer actually does answer the query.

Eventually you will see the web go to PAY TO PLAY and at that time all the small to mid web biz will disappear or have to migrate to as yet unnamed alternative that struggles in the SHADOW of the conglomerates.

Merely a heads up. The future is not that murky, unless one deliberately avoids looking.

[EditorialGuy]

All the answer box has done is made it that much harder to be #1 in the serps. The best answer doesn't count if the crappy answer actually does answer the query.

FWIW: Some of our top landing pages are pages that are featured in Google answer boxes. For our topic, at least, a lot of people want more than a simple answer (which is a good thing, because the simple answer is often just a starting point). When those people see a link in an answer box, they click for the full story.

Another thing: Too many site owners (especially those from technical or SEO backgrounds) think "answer" is a synonym for "data." But if that were the case, there wouldn't be a plethora of recipe books, travel guidebooks, books on how to use computer programs or create Web pages, etc. Different people want different degrees of hand-holding, and different people have different tastes. (Some people like their data dry and dull, others like it served up with personality and panache.) Packaging and presentation can be just as important as facts, and an "answer box" that describes how to prepare an omelette or remove an appendix in half a dozen bullet points is just an appetizer for many people.

[MrSavage]

We can debate the future of the web. My accountant always refers to the "Yellow Pages" effect. They had everyone by the balls, then what? Companies do tend to fall off at some point. Beyond that, the web is the least predictable thing ever. A "pay to play" web? Nope. People don't stand for that type of thing. You can go ahead and commercialize and that opens the door for the "next big thing". Just waif for something like YouTube to become overly commercialized (which it is) or become too greedy and be assured people will move onto something else. There is a tipping point.

Acceptance is weak. Newpapers didn't roll over. If the newspaper industry shared the same blah attitude as the content creators, then roll over and just take it in silence. The movie industry could have rolled over and accepted torrents as being the new way and that making money on their movies isn't really possible. How about Getty Images? Did they just roll over? I am personally am sickened by complacency.

The guy who RAN GOOGLE SEARCH by the name of Matt Cutts stated publicly that he struggled with the idea of using peoples content for an answer box snippet without some sort of payment to those content creators. So whatever some people might want to say about "this is just the way", be assured it's despicable in nature. At the very core, getting AI and bots to create your "box" or "answer" off of other peoples labor is just WRONG. Legally? Who knows. Ethically? You bet it's a problem. What did Cutts struggle with? The ethical aspect. Nobody here on this forum ever condoned the use of automated means of taking other peoples uploaded content and using for their own site or product. Get a grip.

[EditorialGuy]

The guy who RAN GOOGLE SEARCH by the name of Matt Cutts

For the record, Matt Cutts never ran Google Search. He was head of the anti-spam team.

[MrSavage]

If I wrote "I'm breaking my back here I'm writing so much" would you take me to see the doctor or would you use common sense instead? Teams obviously run things. Sure, let's focus on the term "ran" rather than the actual point of what I said. Perhaps because the point is actually indisputable means it cannot be acknowledged. Diversion.

In a way it's funny to mention "anti-spam". So you mean he was the guy who wouldn't want to see bot scraped content ahead of the original content as per his job description? Is bot scraped content considered "spam"?

Based on his ability to discuss every aspect of Google search over the years, I wonder who is the person who knew more or had more impact on the operations? The point being, for most people Cutts IS/WAS Google search. He represented Google search and took pride in the results. He also had a moral compass or he knew the job was going to the bots and search was about grabbing rather than finding/directing.

I still think it would be funny to ask him whether finding results for an inquiry that are void of one or two of the keywords typed in the search bar is considered success or failure.

[EditorialGuy]

Much of this thread has been devoted to complaints about the "answer box," but as I've mentioned, some of us have found that Google's "answer boxes" can drive traffic. Search Engine Land published an article last May that included some interesting observations:

"The absolute position of the answer box sits above all other rank positions and is now coined as 'Rank zero'. So what is better than being ranked first in Google search? Being in rank zero.

"However, if that is not convincing enough, let’s dive into our data analysis. On average, the Google Answer Box secures an astounding 32.3 percent CTR."

And:

"According to Google’s patent that has been filed on Answer Box results, the algorithm is calculating “answer elements” and providing an accumulative score.

"To translate this into simple terms, this means that if website A answers the mystery question with a paragraph of text and a direct answer, it receives a score.

"If website B answers that same question, also with paragraph text in a direct fashion, however also answers it with expanded elements (tables, charts, graphs, etc.) then website B has answered the question with more answer elements, thus achieving a higher answer element score.

"In addition, if website B expands and answers 'halo' questions (surrounding or supplementing questions), then it is not only providing more answer elements but a stronger user experience. If it is good for the user it is good for Google."

Bottom line:

1) If your content is featured in "answer boxes," that's a good thing (assuming that you want more traffic from Google).

2) Google's "answer box" algorithm is another example of how Google rewards publishers who go beyond the minimum.

BTW, Wayne Cichanski's Search Engine Land article (titled "Google Answer Box strategy: The Dos and Don’ts") is at:

[searchenginewatch.com...]

[timemachined]

The thing I can't figure out is why answerbox isn't a paid attribute within adwords, webmaster pays for placement. I think their board of directors are idiots. Bait.

So if I can figure out that it will end up being a paid for answerbox, see if your views change, probably not. I believe it world work a bit like this; as it does now, automatically but instead in your account it will say "you have an answerbox but it is currently hidden, pay one billion dollars and you can release it for view. All they are doing right now is testing 'paid answerbox.'

My view doesn't change, as it will still be there. However the amount of answers may vastly reduce above the line. Secondly if G is losing to shopping portals, this extra income will supplement the losses elsewhere. Answerbox should not be free and doubtful it will be in the future. So lap it up if works for you.

[anefarious1]

@ EditorialGuy

Your bottom line is incorrect. #1 is false for high traffic websites that already rank high in the results. #2 Why don't I feel rewarded by losing 60% of my traffic to the answer boxes? To get an idea of the reality one needs to speak with folks who actually have experienced this increasingly important issue rather than read about it. Talk to the guys at Celebrity Net Worth and you'll change your opinion on this.

[EditorialGuy]

Answerbox should not be free and doubtful it will be in the future. So lap it up if works for you.

You could just as easily argue that Google should have gone the LookSmart route of paid inclusion years ago. (Kind of like bloggers whose content consists largely of "sponsored posts.") Then again, look at what happened to LookSmart.

[timemachined]

I always get the feeling if I told you G had killed your parents, you'd say "hey, we can't stand in the way of evolution, parents have to be killed to make way for the young"

Listen to the people around you who have noticeable traffic drops due to people not needing to visit. Like I and someone else said earlier, who needs reference links when wiki has the answers. Surely wiki has all the answers, why do they need to list websites any longer? Why doesn't G just buy wiki and stop being a search engine?

Google is wasting millions upon millions of pounds by not getting owners of websites to pay to be in answerbox positions, you have to wonder how long the shareholders will put up with the lost revenue. As everything else Google does is tilted towards maximising profits and bleeding webmasters at both ends. I can't blame them for that, but they should pay for content like everybody else!

[robzilla]

By that same "get rich quick" logic, we'd all be paying for rich snippets by now. Google is not in the churn and burn business.

Talk to the guys at Celebrity Net Worth and you'll change your opinion on this.

Unlikely. Exactly the type of fluff site that's likely to get buried deeper and deeper over time.

[browndog]

It's so much worse than snippets, they're now answering the entire question and even providing a downloadable pdf based on their scraping of content. This is for a search for 'lupus'...the an entire article is on the RHS and the download pdf at the bottom. Google then put their own name on the top of the page.

[gstatic.com...]

This is not good for anybody but Google.

[EditorialGuy]

Browndog, the example you mention is the result of a deal that Google made with Mayo Clinic a couple of years ago. The content isn't "scraped," it's licensed.

[hitconsultant.net...]

[robzilla]

Not just the Mayo Clinic, also Harvard, WHO, FDA and others: [support.google.com...]

[MrSavage]

LOL. You're saying Google "pays" for that information. Oh isn't that interesting. @robzilla, so they list the sites they scrape the info from. What's your point exactly? Quality and trustworthy scraping?

[timemachined]

Well if they're paying some, why not everybody else?

Because those others were big enough to sue them. Same with the libraries and the newspapers and the politicians who sue when G takes liberties by being anti competitive.

[EditorialGuy]

LOL. You're saying Google "pays" for that information.

It probably depends on the source. The NIH, for example, offers all kinds of free content for other Web sites to use.

As for why Google uses (and links to) information from real health sites, that should be obvious: The Mayo Clinic, NIH, etc. are authoritative, recognized sources. If I were a searcher who wanted to know about lung cancer, chronic heart failure, or pancreatic auto islet transplantation, I'd much rather see Google serve up information from the Mayo Clinic or the NIH than answers culled from Bubba's Homeopathic Affiliate Blog.