Google Updates and SERP Changes - March 2018

[Martin Ice Web]

---

System: The following 7 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4885490.htm [webmasterworld.com] by robert_charlton - 1:35 pm on Mar 1, 2018 (PDT -8)

---

Biggest drop ever. Much bigger than every panda or penguin.
All the work does not pay off. The only winner in this game is google itself.

[Cralamarre]

Just to comment on the idea of Google favoring YouTube and videos being the future... My website deals with software training. I have my written tutorials on my website, and I also have videos of the tutorials on YouTube. My website receives roughly 500,000 visitors per month and I have videos on YouTube with over 100,000 views, so both are popular. But, I can tell you from my own experience that the people who prefer the written articles and the people who prefer the videos want nothing to do with each other.

When I include a link in my video to the written version on my website, no one clicks the link. They'd rather watch the video, even though the written article receives thousands of views each month from Google searches. And when I embed a video into the written article, no one watches the video. They'd rather read the article. Even a video with over 100,000 views on YouTube gets next to no views at all when embedded in the written article. So while there is clearly an audience for video, there remains a large audience for written articles. Even when Google fills the first 4 or 5 spots in the SERPs with videos, many people scroll right past them to get to the written articles.

Google can try all it wants to force book lovers to watch the movie, but there will always be people who prefer books.

[Maximum44]

We have recently been spammed with hundreds of thousands of backlinks from about 40 sites. Earlier this year or so Google said in a hangout not to worry too much about it and that the disavow tools is pretty much unimportant these days. What do you guys think? Add to disavow? We have no manual action or anything.

[penitentman]

Finally an update that has benefited my sites. I own authority sites with geo pages. I was slammed by Fred and Maccabees but have worked on my webmaster violations diligently since. BUT, I'm seeing a lot of my new traffic to be zombies. Conversion rate is down by 30%. Anyone else gain traffic but lose conversion rates?

@jmorgan @rustybrick We can't blame Barry that much. The days of actual reporting is pretty much over. We all wish Barry had a mole in Google or Facebook to leak him news and controversies but that ain't happening (Danny wouldn't dare). All the news comes to us these days through social media and just gets regurgitated. Some regurgitate better than others and Seoroundtable is a good all in one SEO news source. However, Barry you need to work on your comebacks. I see you getting bad mouthed and you don't say much. Give em hell Barry and fight.

[Shepherd]

Google can try all it wants to force book lovers to watch the movie, but there will always be people who prefer books.

Perception might be a little off there. google's job is to satisfy as many end users (searchers) as possible. They are not "forcing" anything, they are attempting to appeal to the majority. Easily consumable content appeals to the majority no matter how much the minority protests.

[EditorialGuy]

Even a video with over 100,000 views on YouTube gets next to no views at all when embedded in the written article. So while there is clearly an audience for video, there remains a large audience for written articles.

For what it's worth, I was at an editorial conference a few years ago where the travel editor of a major national newspaper said videos had been a bust for her newspaper's Web site. (And her paper had made a big commitment to videos.)

[Shepherd]

I prefer to read the news, can't stand seeing video only when I click on an online story. I also understand that I'm an old guy that is in the online minority, I prefer my pants be supported by a belt and not my knees, I do not have a snapchat account...

Ask the next 10 people you see walking down the street with their face in their phone what they are looking at and I bet 9 out of 10 say YouTube or Snapchat.

[Cralamarre]

@EditorialGuy, I think that most people who want to watch videos go straight to YouTube, and people who want to read written articles go to Google. I have one article that's ranked #1 on Google, and the video of it is ranked #1 in Google's video SERPs. Last month the written article received 8,200 visits from Google. The video only received 337.

Meanwhile, the same video, which is also ranked #1 on YouTube, received 37,000 views from YouTube. So I guess the takeaway here is that video appears to be more popular than written articles, but only on YouTube where people are specially searching for videos. On Google, written articles are still more popular.

[edited by: Cralamarre at 5:13 pm (utc) on Mar 14, 2018]

[RedBar]

said videos had been a bust for her newspaper's Web site

I have to ask what this colloquialism means?

Was this good or bad?

I am assuming it was bad however when sick seems to mean good these days :-(

[Cralamarre]

@RedBar, bust = busted = not working :)

My experience with adding videos to my website has been the same. I've seen no evidence that the video has added any SEO value to my pages in Google's eyes, and no one watches the videos. All the videos seem to do is slow down the page load times.

[edited by: Cralamarre at 5:20 pm (utc) on Mar 14, 2018]

[RedBar]

I've seen some people using it inferring it was a good thing, especially in business, strange!

I've always assumed it meant bad, like a busted flush etc.

[RedBar]

I've seen no evidence that the video has added any SEO value to my pages in Google's eyes,

I have a few videos on my sites and hosted by myself, not YouTube etc, and Google ranks them at #1 v the competition however there is very little traffic to them apart from my widget trade since Joe Public most probably wouldn't have a clue about the trade terminology used ... It's not "How to fix whatever" stuff.

[Cralamarre]

One thing I can't figure out is why Google is embedding YouTube videos directly into the SERPs. YouTube videos don't run the high-paying ads at the beginning of the videos when you embed them (another reason not to embed them in web pages), so Google is losing ad revenue by embedding these videos in the SERPs rather than directing people to the YouTube watch page. No one, not Google nor the content creator, benefits from it.

[NeapTide]

We have recently been spammed with hundreds of thousands of backlinks from about 40 sites. Earlier this year or so Google said in a hangout not to worry too much about it and that the disavow tools is pretty much unimportant these days. What do you guys think? Add to disavow? We have no manual action or anything.]

Yes disavow them and do not wait to do that. Any new algo update regarding quality of backlinks and believe me your site will tank. That's what happened with my site. I was also spammed with hundreds of thousands of backlinks and I greatly suffered from their impact for several months.

[webmasterworld.com...]

[EditorialGuy]

One thing I can't figure out is why Google is embedding YouTube videos directly into the SERPs.

Because quite a few people like them. It's about pleasing the end user, even when the financial benefit isn't immediate.

[jmorgan]

@Cralamarre Companies like Google literally making billions each year can afford to put the user experience first before profits.

I would actually recommend most people, if you can afford to, put their users first ahead of making money. It's better in the long run, and for your Google rankings.

Unless you're an established website with strong, authority links, you probably wouldn't be able to last for too long if you have a spammy website filled with ads.

[Black_Sin]

I can say after got hit three times since october till december, I make some changes to my site especially how we place ads and making content a lot more useful for user
My site been stable like usual, no crazy fluctuation even steadly climbing back to where it was before got hit last year (not yet)

Sure spammy sites are in top spot now, but from what I see they will be back down again soon. Some will remain though
What I do right now is to learn user behavior in my specific niche. Do they need quick short information, prefer to see video, etc

Of course it all need to be structured well too

[Maximum44]

@NeapTide thanks for getting back to me. I will do that immediately.

Half of them does not even resolve. It is obvious spam. Sites looking exactly the same. The sites that work seems to have been hacked.

[sdksjdksjd]

@Maximum44
Don't listen for the SEO BS, wasting your time.
My 10+ years old website many times got tens of thousands spammy links and nothing bad happened. Google can handle this by itself since 5 years at least.
But for SEOs this is the way to suck money from web developers, so they promote such myths.

[Maximum44]

Also have have 10+ year old website and the recent spam (half a million links or so) worries me a little. Better be safe than sorry. Have not really used the tool too much other than for obvious spam. It is just 40+ websites linking in with the spam so no worries.

[Rlilly]

@Shepherd +

"To be fair, the end user (the searcher) wants the see the best information not necessarily the best seo'd site for their query."

to be fair todays SEO is creating the best content and information and use experience. So not to argue.. SEO is OVER. Your site can be bumped by the Algo just because some other site has been under-rewarded.

[Shaddows]

Your site can be bumped by the Algo just because some other site has been under-rewarded.

Right. I don't get the problem- surely we can all agree that the best site should be ranked first?

Or do we now think our own site should be ranked first regardless of merit, and any site below us should remain under-rewarded?

[reseller]

Maybe the latest Google Algorithm Udate of March 9, 2018 has been designed to clean up the mess previous junk updates like "Fred" and several unnamed ones have made during 2017. Hence " it’s that changes to our systems are benefiting pages that were previously under-rewarded." :)

[edited by: reseller at 6:41 pm (utc) on Mar 15, 2018]

[Cralamarre]

Personally, the thought of any site with "better SEO" ranking above a site with better content makes me ill.

Regarding the recent update, my Google traffic has definitely improved, but it's still down considerably from a year ago. In fact, this recent update fell on the one year anniversary of the first of two major updates (the second one in May of last year) that combined to take away 50% of my traffic. So while this new update was certainly a step in the right direction, it doesn't make up for last year's disaster.

[sdksjdksjd]

surely we can all agree that the best site should be ranked first?

Yeah, we can. But ...

When I see craigslist style website, full of barely pronounceable scientific medicine words, ranked first only because it doesn't carry ads and supposedly belongs to guy, promoting himself by M.D. sign, then I don't know how to agree. (Note: keyword is consumer related, not science related)

When I see medicine article obviously used as doorway (no ads as well) for the local doctors search website, then I don't know how to agree.

When I see something like this being rewarded, I don't understand how can I agree with Google. I tried honestly.

[EditorialGuy]

Right. I don't get the problem- surely we can all agree that the best site should be ranked first?

What's really needed (and what Google wants to serve up, I believe) is the best result for the user's query. That could be a page from the "best site" or a more relevant page from a "second-best site."

Personalization plays a role, too. If the search engine knows that John Doe has a history of clicking (and not bouncing from) WebMD results for medical queries, it could make sense for the search engine to give a boost to WebMD pages when John is searching on medical topics.

Also, people like to say "Google is broken" when they see a page of results they don't like, or that seem garbled or strange. IMO, expecting perfection is unrealistic, and making broad assumptions based on individual experience is also unrealistic. ("I saw four potholes on my way to work this morning, so it's obvious that Widgetville's public infrastructure is crumbling.")

[JesterMagic]

Personalization plays a role, too. If the search engine knows that John Doe has a history of clicking (and not bouncing from) WebMD results for medical queries, it could make sense for the search engine to give a boost to WebMD pages when John is searching on medical topics.

This already happens at least during the same search session.

[EditorialGuy]

This already happens at least during the same search session.

Yep. and that's been true since 2009:

[searchengineland.com...]

[seoskunk]

But for SEOs this is the way to suck money from web developers, so they promote such myths.

There are over thirty thousand instances everyday and I got that from a Internet Security Company. Maybe you would rank a hell of a lott better if you cleaned up the spam directed at your site. To be honest not even going to get in a debate about IF negative seo exists, a far more interesting question is who is funding it?

[Shepherd]

So after digging through about a weeks worth of data regarding this latest update I'm leaning towards google removing "penalty" layers from the core algorithm (penguin/panda?). My guess is maybe they feel that they have a good handle on ranking worthy sites so maybe they don't need the penalty layer. I would imagine now we will see some shuffling as their (AI, rankbrain, algo) processes the results of a penalty free world.

What led me to think this is while looking at traffic data for our main site I noticed a jump in visitors from an old site of ours. It was hit hard by penguin in 2012 and has been left untouched to wither away since then. Traffic for the site has been on a very steady decline since the initial hit in 2012. This update brought it back to life. It will be a short lifespan though, fired up the 301s to the main site to officially kill it off.

[aristotle]

changes to our systems are benefiting pages that were previously under-rewarded."

So by this statement google admits that before this update its ranking "systems" had a defect that caused some pages to be under-rewarded