Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Talk about splitting hairs.
I'm happy @EditorialGuy and @robzilla that you are content with G's policies - and so eager to advocate for.
Good exposure for 'neglected' sites not so happy result for those replaced.
Few would object to a zero sum game regarding competing sites, as implied. As most by now know, this is hardly the case. Algo updates increasingly siphon larger percentages of traffic to properties of a well known third party - the one in control of the algo.
So what happens when the algo returns results THAT ARE COMPLETELY VOID of one, two or three of the search terms typed into the box? In theory, the algo failed. Right? If I ask for oranges and you show me apples because they are both fruit? That's the algo. So when the ads show oranges and everything else is apples, the ads are the relevant result. So geez, I have NO IDEA how an algo can help business.
I don't believe any of the posters in this thread deny that Google has long been making business decisions that negatively impact organic search referred traffic quality/volume.
Unfortunately even many dedicated 'professional' SEO's are really just illiterate tool users.
Fact: Many times on this forum people have stated that on various searches, the ads are the most relevant result on a search result page. This is a fact folks. Want to deny that?
SEO is about selling the idea that "free" traffic (customers) is attainable in 2018 and beyond.
when it's fact that top "algo" results that are void of one, two, or three search terms typed into the "box"?
Try using the product before claiming expert status on it.
Google wants to be defective by design so that the SEOs cannot reverse engineer the Algo and manipulate the results.
How then when Google does the same thing (blame the algo) we don't call this "defective"?