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?

[browndog]

I predict if they won't limit this to health only, it will be rolled out to other niches over time.

This is a quote from Google themselves on scraped content (yes, admittedly they have permission, but it is still scraped).

Purely scraped content, even from high-quality sources, may not provide any added value to your users without additional useful services or content provided by your site; it may also constitute copyright infringement in some cases. It's worthwhile to take the time to create original content that sets your site apart. This will keep your visitors coming back and will provide more useful results for users searching on Google.

[robzilla]

The information is retrieved ("scraped", if you insist) with permission from reputable sources, the same way one might retrieve facts from various authorative books in a library. It is then combined, reviewed and refined by medical professionals. A world of difference with purely scraped content.

[goodroi]

We should be careful not to let our personal frustrations distort our analysis of SEO situations. There is a gray area between bad scraping and good researching. Utilizing authoritative sources with their implicit or explicit permission to develop content is a long held practice that predates Google.

I'm definitely not saying Google is infallible or always operating in the most ethical manner. There a long documented history of their mistakes. Let's just be careful to keep a professional perspective even when we are personally frustrated with Google.

Personally I am more focused on what is needed to best profit (or at least protect my revenue) from Google's handling of answers in SERPs. None of us are rich enough to buy 51% of Google stock, so none of us will change how Google conducts business. We do have the power to change our own businesses to better respond to Google.

[tangor]

I'm with ^^^^

This horse has been beat to death many times. What is more productive, and proactive, is to work YOUR site to best advantage in the jungle that exists. In reality, Answer Box is (as noted above) merely another #1 position on Page #1

In that regard striving to be in either (or both!) of those positions should be a goal.

[MrSavage]

How about the consideration that "work YOUR site" isn't a smart investment of time and money? How about that becomes part of the conversation? Or is that too defeatist or realistic? Lots of industries don't roll over. The complacency of the webmaster community is sickening sometimes. In the face of this, a bad idea might be trying to SEO or out content the scrape. It's also baffling to suggest the "box" would be someone pay to be there rather than Google paying for the content. Reminds me of how sickening the Hollywood music scene was back in the day when bands had to "pay to play". Go check out that music scene today. Google does pay for some content. They backed off newspaper snippets. I'm not suggesting anything other than letting things play out. I'm sure most of the "advisors" here have well established sites that benefited from a time when there was partnership in this. So in other words, the reality of a few websites is not indicative of the health of the "web". One thought to ponder here is when you ask Google home a question and it kicks into that "license" deal with the medical partners, how do they get paid? Or are those freebies? Ask Google home for medical advice. Is that a way to cicumvent the licensing agreement? Some legal mess there eh? More than that, if they are required to pay out for that agreement with medical partners when it comes to "voice" search, then the table is set. Pay. That's all. Pay for what you take and use. Oh right, geniuses think we should pay to get our content in there. Isn't that what ads are for? Top #1 ranks. The box is for non money making searches. No ads right? Boxes go away when there are juicy ads to be listed. Solutions? Pause. Oh yes, build even more content. That would be like building a bunch of new clubs in Hollywood. Oh right, that scene is dead. Bad idea.

[tangor]

I'm sorry, not sure I get it as the free ride goes both ways. Sure there's content theft all over the place, but it is not limited to G or even competitors, it's everywhere. That said:

Nobody promised an income. Period.

Wailing and moaning isn't getting work done, it's just wailing and moaning. And if the heat is that high, the door to the kitchen is over there: --->

There will be a pay to play for the web in the future. Plan for it NOW and make hay.

Why? Tech has regretted the personal computer ever since it happened as they (that IT industry) lost all control over BILLING for services.

That's why Windows 10 is a SERVICE these days.

That's why the Cloud (think One Drive and others) exists.

It is all about regaining control over ACCESS and BILLING every MINUTE and BYTE in nickle and dime. These are the problems to be addressed in the future, not Answer Box in and of itself. That's only a symptom of where the web is headed.

MEANWHILE, there's much still there, time to do it, and thoughtful (and inventive) work and marketing can keep the current landscape active for another 20 years. I'm no fan of answer box (B has it, too), but it is a fact of life and one can work that SEO side just as sincerely as one might do for #1 or Page 1.

Some have already managed to work within those conditions and maintain or expand their presence on the web. Not all solutions will be shared (no blueprints, but only hints). There are ways forward and that's the discussion (or should be).

[EditorialGuy]

I wonder how many (if any) of the people who complain about "answer boxes" have had their pages featured in answer boxes. If you haven't experienced the traffic that answer boxes can produce, the expression "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it" comes to mind.

[browndog]

I complain but am still working hard to adapt too. Not just sitting here whinging. It doesn't mean we have to like it. Firstly, my traffic has dropped dramatically, while many of the articles on my site do necessitate a click through, many don't. I also have some major concerns about Google and the direction they are taking.

My site features in the answer box quite a lot.

Surprisingly, recently I posted a very passionate post on my site's FB page about an article I wrote in 2003 in regards to my children, and I updated it with photos of my children in different stages of their life, and it had a pretty big response on FB (I would say it's the only article on the Internet in regards to children and 'unicorns', which actually shows a timeline. I definitely think from my own perspective, I underutilise FB and the power to drive traffic to pages.

[martinibuster]

I'll take an answer box in position 0. I'm totally ok with that. I think most publishers would like to be in that spot, too.

Movie Carousels
As for the movie carousels, I find those useful when I make a general search query, at which point I drill down and then click on a SERP position. So if you find yourself losing visitors for general queries like "top 50 horror films" then your response should be refocus your efforts on individual movies that are shown in the carousel.

Sidestep Google
Why is it that it seems web publishers don't aspire beyond ranking in Google? It is within your grasp to become a destination, thus moving on from depending on Google to becoming a destination people literally ask for by name, in Google, in bookmarks and in the address bar.

Success is rarely easy.

[MrSavage]

I think most publishers would like to be in that spot, too.

How genius! Geez this is so brilliant. People would want a #1 SERP position PLUS their content and link in a box above the SERP #0!. Geez, imagine that. So not only is it #1, but it's also #0. And that's bad? It's rare to find an answer box that isn't also the #1 position. Think about it. Google says #1 is the best result, but the box is from article #2, #3, or #4? They are openly saying that well, #1 SERP result isn't so great, we will give you the #3 listed site, becuase well, it's okay for #0 spot but isn't worthy of #1 SERP spot. Asinine isn't it? If search is to find the best source (#1) then why would they say the #2 or #3 information is better by using it in the box? Something doesn't add up here.

I'm so fulfilled knowing that owning 2 of the top 5 spots is better than say, one spot in that top five? Brilliant insight there.

web publishers don't aspire beyond ranking in Google

People here want to overlook the utter and total domination of Google. Should we talk about who runs Android and what % of mobile search Google owns? Desktop search, Google is what? 95%? 90%? There is a thing called smart money and dumb money. There is stupid and smart. If you own a "SEO Services" company then certainly I get the rhetoric. You have to believe and sell people on the idea that it's "winnable". You have to sell people on the idea that in one or two years from now Google won't be eating more of peoples content. I call that a disingenuous business sales pitch.

If you want to create or run a business that will flourish on a 5% or 10% of the entire industry you would be laughed off the stage on Shark Tank. They would ask you, that's too small a slice. That's nothingburger. They don't like niches in the first place on Shark Tank but when you are looking at such a small audience, like for example on Google mobile search domination, they would tell you to find another business to run.

Success is rarely easy? Yup. Just ask any business trying to compete against a 95-99% market share competitor. A lot of people might call it a stupid investment of time and money. And to be clear, I'm quite sure that most of the "experts" here are sitting on websites that flourished in a different time when there was a partnership with Google. I'm quite certain that none of the "experts" are pouring buckets of money and resources into a new site that is "search" dependent. Again if you are selling the believe of SEO then sure, promise, promise, promise.

[glitterball]

@MrSavage Absolutely spot on with everything that you just said.

[MrSavage]

I appreciate that comment glitterball. I get the sense that a lot of neutral observers don't frequent the forum much these days. Trying to point out the "big picture" has been an uphill battle to say the least. I tried to create a thread "Google ate the internet." Just in that title alone, nothing really needs to be said. Although I might have to explain to some people that I don't mean Google ate (digested) the internet because Google doesn't have a mouth and doesn't need food and nutrients. Additionally, I may have to also explain that "ate the internet" doesn't mean 100%. If you want to fast forward, then it certainly appears to be the future.

On a side note, and this is worthy for anyone who runs a news site, the Google Home is marketing the ability to "read you the news". So....what happened to the news industry and their snippet complaints? I don't imagine when the box reads the news that there is money provided to the "source(s)". In context, this points out how very troubling this is (if you spend time creating any sort of content).

[Nutterum]

Google could not care less for your informational site if it's purpose is to funnel traffic. Let's be real. 99% of the traffic now-a-days is copy-pasted and let's not fool ourselves that in the eyes of Google your 30 minutes Wikipedia and Nat Geo research produced anything more than re-arranged list of available information, than "original content".

Let us not forget the harsh truth that really original content is hardly viral unless promoted appropriately. Having an informational blog with 2000 word unique content created from interviewing and working with professionals in the field is producing _nothing_ for me unless I push it through the mail lists, social media, and press releases. Only then that content start s paying off.

Google shafts copy-pasted content more and more. At the same time Google can't really index and position your really really original content because it is new, so they have a poor frame of reference as to where to place it. So in both cases in 2017 the content creators take the hit unless they know how to directly reach influencers and site that serve the purpose of "providing direct visibility".

Don't fight the status quo guys, work with it.

[keyplyr]

---

System: The following 2 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4889153.htm [webmasterworld.com] by robert_charlton - 1:35 am on Mar 6, 2018 (PDT -8)

---

I think websites are being systematically phased out and being used as data mines for Google much like the Matrix was for humanity.

Joking... I don't rely on SE traffic like I did years ago. I go out and bring in the traffic. That's the only thing I can count on.

If you just wait for the SEs to furnish all the traffic, I think the battle has already been lost.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 9:39 am (utc) on Mar 6, 2018]
[edit reason] Move from another location [/edit]

[mosxu]

“I think websites are being systematically phased out and being used as data mines for Google much like the Matrix was for humanity.”

Searchers will not need to use your site in many senarious like snippets, local and shopping soon to have a buy now like in eBay and Amazon.

Technically there is no need for a site visit not sure if we will be able to afford the hosting bill.

You create a digital property that you will not own in search engines because there are no laws to protect you.

[Future]

Completely agree, G started showing good results (very much appreciated).
But at times, it still predicts VERY VERY wrong results.. (happened last week in MY locals on a festival day).

An aged person needed urgent cardiac arrest help, (everyone searched G.)
As per search results, those hospitals were working, but were CLOSED ! (as per search results and contact details (false details) those were opened)
(all nearby available hospitals were out of service due to official holiday)

Nearly, 1000+ sites (POWERED BY ADSENSE) predicted nearby hospitals are open ?
Data migration from 1 site to another and make a BIG COMPANY ?

Who is responsible for death ?

Though !

[Future]

I am sure Google is not responsible for this death !
Nor the search results !

But.. (those 1000+ sites, appearing constantly in search).
Enough of Good Google Results ?

[Future]

The algorithm used by Google is known to all X employees of Google..
(MANY QUIT AND MADE FORTUNE) Everyone made a huge fortune.

Stake are those who made hard work.. growing in there respective country. (lol)

Easy money = GOOGLE
Death = GOOGLE
REST = GOOGLE
(not anymore) for sure

[Future]

I am very happy we quit Google Ad sense as source of revenue..

Google cannot be trusted, It kicks you out till you very grow..
(based on idiotic algorithms, layed by professionals, who quit and take over your business).

GOOGLE INDIA, GOOGLE WORLD, is SERPED BY usless SPAM ?
Why not actions, as it all belongs to GOOGLE ?

LOL..
I am already out.. !

[Future]

I made by first account in 2001 i guess on this site..
And been dedicated, but what are reasons for such negative posts ?

Google Answers to crap ?
or
Google Answers our UGC made ?
and
Supported bu BIG BRANDS in country ?

I have generated nearly 1349 companies, who worked hard, but got booted.

LOL. (hope my reply stays) and get assertive replies..

[mosxu]

Also the idea of snippets, locals, PLAs where a visit to your site is not needed will leave everyone guessing for example for how much traffic there is to compete on. Also no analytics the visitor never lands on your site cannot even analyse if it is a bot or human.

Even the fan boys including the mods should get concerned...

Singularity works for one entity only

[EditorialGuy]

I think websites are being systematically phased out and being used as data mines for Google much like the Matrix was for humanity.

Shallow Web sites, Maybe. If Joe Searcher wants to know the capital of North Dakota, it's easy enough for Google, Bing, and other search engines to serve up that information directly. After all, the fact that Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota is in the public domain, and the search engines have as much right to display that information as an independent site owner does.

But for many searches, an answer box (or whatever format is being used) is just an appetizer or teaser. If you're looking up a medical condition that you're worried about, a quick answer isn't going to satisfy. You'll click through to the Mayo Clinic or WebMD or whatever site is in the featured snippet, because you'll want more information.

FWIW, the most popular page on our site is for a query that can be answered in five characters. Searchers don't need to visit that page if all they want is a quick answer, but a whole lot of people want more than the simple five-character answer.

[mosxu]

It is not just about answering what is the capital of North Dakota. According to copyright laws the source of the original content has to be cited and it happens more or less. There is no legal requirement to send the visitors to that original content website but it is like one is buying the book and millions read it free after. No commission. No revenue.

Copyright laws are bent to the highest lobbying bid but to conclude if you are not lobbying for AI not sure how you will monetise your content soon.

[EditorialGuy]

According to copyright laws the source of the original content has to be cited and it happens more or less.

Facts and content are two different things. Facts can't be copyrighted. In the case of something like the capital of North Dakota, there's no need for a citation, because the fact that the capital of North Dakota is Bismarck is in the public domain.

[mosxu]

Not about public domain, most of the snippets are not about public domain or facts and even writing about public domain and facts will fall within copyright laws.

[Robert Charlton]

Not about public domain, most of the snippets are not about public domain or facts and even writing about public domain and facts will fall within copyright laws.

I've pretty much seen it as mosxu describes it here.

Facts that are in the public domain apply more to Google's Knowledge Graph. As I understand it, featured snippets are derived from organic results, whereas the Knowledge Graph is not.

I believe that Featured Snippets have to do with interpretation of intent, and I see them as something that's come out of RankBrain. They might even do double-duty, and could also be a training or calibration tool for RankBrain.

At times, I've thought of featured snippets as analogous to the grouped results where one might see 3 or 4 or 5 or more pages from the same domain, generally for queries where Google doesn't have much query data. Those clusters I've seen which take a long time to get winnowed down are those which are the most long tail (ie, have the fewest matching queries). These featured snippets could well be like that... in that it would take a while for each of those pages, if in conventional serps, for Google to have enough data to determine an order of preference. Increasing the per page exposure to get comparative data might be one of Google's goals here.

Encouraging the user to browse among these... and then perhaps changing the sort order... might be one of the tricks that Google could use to get enough interaction to refine results for these pages, but I'm only guessing that's what Google might be doing with them. It is a way for a lot of results to be returned for the same query within a limited display space. You couldn't browse with results shown on 10 static lines nearly so fast. Anyway, that's my theory.

As far as attribution goes, each is linked to its source, so that's the tradeoff we're given: position-zero if the area of the page is ranked as a snippet, in exchange for some likely loss in organic clicks.

Keep in mind also that these will increasingly be used for voice searches, as well as mobile.

[EditorialGuy]

Not about public domain, most of the snippets are not about public domain or facts and even writing about public domain and facts will fall within copyright laws.

There's also Fair Use, but in any case, I think we can be pretty sure that Google isn't doing what it does on a wing and a prayer--it has plenty of lawyers to dot every "i" and cross every "t."

it seems to me that, instead of tilting at windmills, it makes sense to profit from the additional traffic that such features generate.(And if you don't consider such traffic valuable, it's easy enough to block the search engines' bots or use "noindex.")

[mosxu]

Why bother using noindex if most of the so called visitors are zombies?

How do we know that a visit is from a genuine buyer and not from a hijacked computer or something pretending to be what is not?

So not everyone one is treated as fair as you are in search engines.