Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 34.204.169.76

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Featured Home Page Discussion

Update Maverick : Google Updates and SERP Changes - July 2019

     
3:09 pm on Jul 1, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

joined:Nov 2, 2018
posts:55
votes: 24



System: The following message was cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4947706.htm [webmasterworld.com] by goodroi - 1:17 pm on Jul 1, 2019 (utc -5)


Many advocate that to combat reliance on visits through Google Search you need to build a brand. Obviously it is not enough.
11:26 am on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 5, 2004
posts: 595
votes: 79


@MayankParmar - I am not sure of the age of your site but I have found for 5+ year old sites after a loss like you experience it will take another major update or 2 (6 months to a year) before things will turn around (as long as you have decent content and backlinks already). Sites don't really bounce around anymore in the serps after doing a major UX change to the site or something similar (I find). You can try to chase down the signals you think Google is using to demote your site (it could be nothing as Google just promoted the other sites) or just concentrate on 1 or 2 things that you were planning to work on anyways. If the sites ahead of you are poor quality or using black hat techniques Google will figure out eventually and your traffic will come back (at least in part) after a core major update. You just have to continue adding content etc.. as you were doing before (which can be hard if you don't have any funds coming in).
1:02 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member from MX 

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 24, 2018
posts:77
votes: 31


If the sites ahead of you are poor quality or using black hat techniques Google will figure out eventually and your traffic will come back (at least in part) after a core major update.


In a couple of my niches, this is not happening, yes the blackhat sites ranking get demoted and are replaced by more of the same. As long as there are people that can afford to spend between $3000.00 - $5000.00 per expired domain those sites will continue to rank. The black hatters have a good pattern and its working for them and it seems that Googles algorithm can't do anything about it.

This is why in many areas search is garbage, a lot of the domains ranking are old and have good backlink profiles with mediocre content, they will only last a year or so but if you look at page 2 and 3 there are more of the same coming up behind them, its truly a churn and burn thing.

I have done the same with less expensive domains but in the last update, the ones I had have now been outranked with domains with better link profiles. I think Googles algorithm has now used these types of domains as a ranking factor or comparison.
2:09 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member zeus is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 28, 2002
posts:3468
votes: 18


Does anyone know, what the June Update was about or is now so complicated (manipulative) that no one have a clue.
2:57 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Full Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2018
posts: 317
votes: 147


If the sites ahead of you are poor quality or using black hat techniques Google will figure out eventually


Simply not true - I have competitors using blackhat (but doing so very well) for years now and they dominate because of it. They have been reported for doing so with conclusive evidence and nothing is ever done and im talking at least the last 3 years and increasingly so year on year , so unless 'eventually' means decades then I would have to disagree. Google simply does not care about sites using blackhat techniques and things that go against their own guidelines.
2:58 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3634
votes: 365


Does anyone know, what the June Update was about or is now so complicated (manipulative) that no one have a clue.

Well anyone can speculate. To me, the term "core update" suggests that google didn't add any major new pieces to the algorithm, but merely adjusted some of the parameters in the "core". Some parts of the core, such as panda and penguin, were originally developed as separate pieces, but now are apparently incorporated into the core. Parameters may be used for adjustments of the different parts. I don't see how it would be possible to ever blend all the parts together.

So if several different parts were adjusted, then some parts could have affected one group of sites, whereas other parts could have affected other groups of sites. That would make it hard to single out one particular part of the algorithm as the main culprit.

But as i said, this is just speculation.
4:20 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member zeus is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 28, 2002
posts:3468
votes: 18


Yes I also think that, but still think they are after Health, Finance,.. sites. So google dont want freedom of speech, they slowly adjust those sites that maybe could have another opinion to a health topic, as example. A little start on Censorship be cause its a monopoly SE. I think thats why some see huge drops.
5:45 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

New User

joined:Mar 31, 2019
posts:13
votes: 13


Freedom of speech when you are giving magical medical advice, no thanks.
I rather read the opinion of a doctor who studied medicine, you know, the science?
I'm glad Google is getting rid of sites selling magical threatment to cancer patients. Seriously f off into Oblivion.
6:06 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Dec 11, 2013
posts:356
votes: 100


Most people are incapable of making good choices, so dangerous information and ideas should be erased.
6:14 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member redbar is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 14, 2013
posts:3229
votes: 496


@MayankParmar

I often use your site for Win updates/info/etc when I think I may have missed something however my question is from where do you get your information?

Are these general trade press releases from MS or an online source that G may be favouring over yours?

This is not a criticism of your site, just trying to help since I don't see any other site covering it like you do, maybe I've not looked enough, but there has to be a "simple" reason why G seems to have smacked you so hard.
6:15 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

joined:Feb 20, 2016
posts:45
votes: 24


Freedom of speech when you are discussing your political views that i find reprehensible, no thanks.

I rather read the opinion of the Google-approved list of politicians, you know, the mainstream ones?

Most people are incapable of making good choices, so Google should be appointed judge, jury and executioner and the plebs should be grateful they even have an internet to begin with!
6:53 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member zeus is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 28, 2002
posts:3468
votes: 18


thanks paranoid android
7:03 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 25, 2018
posts:139
votes: 30


Freedom of speech when you are giving magical medical advice, no thanks.
I rather read the opinion of a doctor who studied medicine, you know, the science?
I'm glad Google is getting rid of sites selling magical treatment to cancer patients. Seriously f off into Oblivion.


I get your point... you don't want some website selling homeopathy treatments for cancer... That is just crazy.

There is definitely a lot of "woo-woo" stuff out there, but there is also valuable research being done to pass on information to people where doctors simply don't have the time to even know about. Fasting and cancer is one hot area right now because it can reverse resistance to chemotherapy and protect healthy cells (Valter Longo Ph.D. has done a lot of work here). Multiple clinical studies are on-going but I'd bet that the vast majority of people or oncologists don't know this is even an option or some of the very positive early data.

I wrote earlier how I was able to identify in just 15 minutes the cause of acne for a girl who had it a very long time. Her doctors, as well as dermatologists, failed to spot the reason so it never went away. I was able to do this because of my 16 years of experience on the diet as well as years of research and knowledge I've accumulated from reading peer-reviewed clinical studies. And I had an issue with it too a long time ago... so I recognized it, from experience.

    This was her message a few weeks later:


[imgur.com...]

She's just one person out of many that I've helped. None of them serious problems, but I'm able to figure them out mostly because not of qualifications, but experience and research.

I understand the whole idea of making moves for harm reduction.. so let's go with the safest sites which have information reviewed by doctors. But the thing is, a lot of specific queries are now going to completely irrelevant and non-helpful articles. You can't even do a search in Health/Diet without Healthline being top.

I remember years ago when I tried to find something to help GERD. I had it for years... doctors weren't much use tbh. It got so bad that I even had trouble eating at one point. I came across research on how Manuka Honey kills H. Pylori and helps stomach issues. After 2 years of having the problem, it was gone within a couple of weeks. Swallowing issues resolved within days.

Google is helping stop people from doing dumb things by hiding information, and most supplement cures out there is nonsense. But there will also be a lot of people who will not get better because of Google.

But Google is going so far in one direction that you need to be a Doctor now to tell people to eat Broccoli or talk about its benefits.

If Google no longer values experience (which it said it did in its QRG) then it should just say. So we can all move on.

[edited by: whoa182 at 7:12 pm (utc) on Jul 21, 2019]

7:10 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

New User

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 26, 2019
posts:32
votes: 29


@Milchan
Simply not true - I have competitors using blackhat (but doing so very well) for years now and they dominate because of it. Google simply does not care about sites using blackhat techniques and things that go against their own guidelines.


Agreed. The Google Algo is not as sophisticated as it is made out to be and it is unable to cope with the increasing size of the internet. Yes, it does penalize some bad sites, but along with it, a whole bunch of legit sites. Now what's the point of that?

In many cases, the algo is not even able to find out the original source of article from duplicated ones.

Here's a tip: Want to get your competitors penalized? Simply copy and paste their articles on Medium.com and other such sites that allow user generated content without any screening. You are completely free of liability because Medium now owns the content, not you. And Google will end up thinking that the original article belongs to Medium as Medium has a stronger backlink profile.

Also, not sure if anyone else noticed this, but a whole bunch of books listed on 'Google Books' have nothing but duplicated content. I noticed many books that copy entire articles from many different websites and compile a book. Again, I think Google probably thinks the original content belongs to the book author as opposed the original website.

[edited by: equidistant at 7:37 pm (utc) on Jul 21, 2019]

7:16 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 25, 2018
posts:139
votes: 30


@equidistant

Google can't even figure out that my competitor who is doing amazing with every update is creating fake identities (several sites in one niche) and pretending to be a health professional and their picture is a stock photo from Story Blocks. It's easily searchable with a reverse image search. I don't get how someone could game Google so easily.
7:33 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

New User

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 26, 2019
posts:32
votes: 29


@whoa182 I am not surprised. Their recent algos have a whole lot of loopholes that need to be fixed.

I remember at one point Google was advocating authors to add the 'rel author' tag to their articles and even publishing the author image in their SERPs. That feature failed as it was heavily abused and they stopped supporting it. But it looks like they are going back to it now.
7:41 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member aristotle is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 4, 2008
posts:3634
votes: 365


Well a minority opinion always faces an uphill battle against a majority view.

(This post isn't about charlatans and quacks. That should be a separate topic. This post also isn't about gaming google's algorithm. That's also another topic.)

What this post is about are the accusations that google is intentionally suppressing "free speech"

On political and social issues, for instance, the majority usually has considerable control of the schools, the media, the government, etc. It's very difficult for a minority to overcome that advantage.

On the internet, websites that promote the majority view will be favored by most people (the majority). These sites will naturally get more clicks from the search results, more backlinks, more social media mentions, etc. Even if google's algorithm is somehow perfectly neutral (no built-in bias), these sites will tend to win out in the results. This isn't an intentional suppression of free speech -- it's a natural result of the majority's inherent advantage.

As I mentioned here a few days ago, some U.S. politicians have been claiming that google's algorithm is intentionally biased politically. I suggested that this could cause one segment of the population to start looking for an alternative to google.
8:16 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 24, 2003
posts:754
votes: 79


If the sites ahead of you are poor quality or using black hat techniques Google will figure out eventually


In my niche I don't think many are using black hat techniques, but once your site goes down it never comes back up again. My traffic has been declining since Sept. of last year and I was doing fine until June. The June update dropped my traffic further and killed off whatever remaining inquiries I had. I'm getting as many inquiries in a week as I used to get in a day. It's been more than 9 months since my traffic first fell off a cliff and I don't think this is ever going to reverse itself. I also wonder if the global economy is slowing down. That has a lot to do with my niche, which is very high price point items that are only purchased when one has lots of disposable income.
9:16 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 5, 2004
posts: 595
votes: 79


If the sites ahead of you are poor quality or using black hat techniques Google will figure out eventually

Yes it can take years. I had someone ranking above me for almost 3 years that was using a private blog network and got his sites (there were about 10 that covered a whole bunch of keywords) to rank in the top 5. Within the first 6 months I sent Google a long email reporting the sites along with how the PBN worked. Nothing happened and I resent an updated message after a year. Still nothing. Almost 3 years later after a core update the sites disappeared from Google completely. This is not the only example I have.

If your niche is extremely competitive or if your site doesn't have a decent enough backlink profile chances are you will not survive. My comment was more directed at MayankParmar and his site specifically. I've been on his site before and know the quality of his content, levels of traffic, etc..
10:26 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 25, 2018
posts:139
votes: 30


Does anyone think that Google is trying to shift opinion or nudge people in a certain direction?

Here's an example I found with Google's Auto Complete and Google Trends:

Google trends and search terms:
[imgur.com...]

I put in the following

- Supplements are bad
- Supplements are good
- Supplements are a waste of money

Despite the fact that "supplements are good" getting far higher searches than the other two, it appears further down the list.

I just thought that was kind of interesting. It reminds me of something Dr. Epstein mentioned recently to Ted Cruz about Google possibly influencing people without them consciously knowing.

I have no idea how this even works (list order) so I'm not accusing Google of anything. I just thought it was interesting.
11:24 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Dec 7, 2005
posts:353
votes: 76


But it's true though. Supplements are a waste of money. :)
11:46 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 25, 2018
posts:139
votes: 30


Idk, I haven't been sick at all in over 10 years since I found a couple of supplements which helped. I'd also say that for vegans, B12 isn't a waste of money (just one example.) So I'll respectfully disagree and withhold my case and evidence as this is definitely the wrong place and the wrong time! haha

[edited by: whoa182 at 11:51 pm (utc) on Jul 21, 2019]

11:50 pm on July 21, 2019 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Dec 11, 2013
posts:356
votes: 100


"vitamins are..."
macronutrients
12:13 am on July 22, 2019 (gmt 0)

New User

joined:July 19, 2018
posts:5
votes: 4


My mom had an eyes inflammation for two years. She was literally losing her sight. I was terribly worried and turned to the best ophthalmology departments in Europe. I spent almost all my savings. No cure was working. A continuous deterioration towards blindness. One day, searching on Google (by the way, just before the medic update), my brother started giving her an EPA / DHA supplement. In a week the ocular inflammation was resolved. After 1 year, still no inflammation.
So ok, the supplements are a waste of money, but finding certain articles on Google that talked about EPA / DHA was literally one of the most precious moments of my life (and my mom life, and my brother life).
1:25 am on July 22, 2019 (gmt 0)

Full Member

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2018
posts: 317
votes: 147


I rather read the opinion of a doctor who studied medicine, you know, the science?


I think that is a bit of a blinkered approach to apply that across the board to be honest. Yes of course we would all rather trust a qualified doctor than an obviously crazy person but there are plenty of areas that doctors are not very knowledgeable in . For example , most doctors now very little about nutrition unless they have made a concerted effort to study it after leaving medical school as they actually receive very little in the way of training in that area. Your average body builder is likely to know more than your average GP on that subject. Many doctors for example for example until quite recently (and plenty still) would state that vegan or even vegetarian diets means you cannot get enough protein and that is complete nonsense. Its just an example and im not wanting to get off topic and go into that argument but it is an example to show that there are plenty of things that the people considered experts in the medical field dont know.
2:28 am on July 22, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member editorialguy is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 28, 2013
posts:3464
votes: 777


Google doesn't need to cater to small or medium-sized publishers anymore.

Google caters to searchers, not to publishers. (Which isn't to say that small or medium-sized publishers can't reach plenty of searchers via Google.)
4:47 am on July 22, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member from IN 

5+ Year Member

joined:Apr 10, 2013
posts:47
votes: 7


Traffic from other search engines are increasing gradually including from Baidu. I wonder what kind of update is it?
7:58 am on July 22, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member zeus is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 28, 2002
posts:3468
votes: 18


whoa182 I remember a Interview where he said we want to tell people what to do, maybe we are slowly there.
8:19 am on July 22, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member from MX 

Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 24, 2018
posts:77
votes: 31


Kind of interesting to read the different opinions and perceptions of Googles algorithm and search, it seems that if Google is in fact pushing a strong bias in search regardless of the topic or subject it's no longer useful. The beauty of Google and the internet was a free platform with unlimited (unbiased) search posibilties. This may be the reason I'm seeing more search queries from other search engines. I personally don't feel like I need something filtering my search with what it feels is safe or not.

A couple of topics I know I can't use Google for and get reasonable unbiased answers for includes health, torrents,IP tv streaming sites, supplements, anabolic steroids, certain political views, alternative health care, natural cancer treatments those are just a few that come to mind.
9:22 am on July 22, 2019 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

joined:Feb 20, 2016
posts:45
votes: 24


People get so caught up in their own ideologies that they miss the bigger picture.

A big tech company with such an enormous control on the flow of information online should NEVER be allowed to editorialize the internet in this way. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the views/stance the big tech platform is taking - its patently obvious that giving a corporation control of the internet in this way is absolutely dangerous. More dangerous than any fringe views by individuals or small organizations might be.
10:35 am on July 22, 2019 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from IN 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 30, 2017
posts:1532
votes: 295


@RedBar many of the articles are based on press releases, hidden/leaked documents, Twitter and Reddit chatter. I don't think Google is favouring any particular source.
This 518 message thread spans 18 pages: 518