Google Updates and SERP Changes - February 2020

[Shepherd]

---

System: The following 6 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4978307.htm [webmasterworld.com] by goodroi - 6:54 pm on Feb 1, 2020 (utc -5)

---

FWIW, seeing the featured snippet holder (wikipedia in this case) gone completely from the SERPs this morning, no longer listed on page 2 or anywhere.

[chrisv1963]

I checked one of my most important keywords today. I have been on page one of the SERPS for this word for 10+ years (18 years old website). My website is gone from page one, but then I noticed on Google Image Search that someone else was using my photos. When I clicked on one of the photos to visit the content thief's website, my Norton Antivirus went crazy and warned me for an attempt to install a virus on my desktop. The malicious domain was registered only 3 months ago, and is already ranking on page one of the Google SERPS for an important keyword!

I did the same keyword search on Duck.com and Bing. My website is still on page one and the malicious website is nowhere to be found there. What's wrong with Google? Can't they detect malicious websites? Actually, the Google SERPS are dangerous for people who don't have a proper antivirus protection. It's is pretty clear that Google is no longer the "leading" search engine.

Google turned into a worthless barrel of ads, Google scraped content (featured snippets), Pinterest copyright violating results, Quora copied content and - worst of all - dangerous websites. The "Do No Evil" turned into "Copy, Scrape, Hack and Rank".

Anyhow, since a few weeks my default search engine for personal searches is Duck.com. Refreshing, clean and I find everything I need on Duck. I only use Google once in a while to check my rankings.

[StupidIntelligent]

@chrisv1963 - Which is why it's important to file a DMCA report to Google, even when the websites you figure are auto scrappers. Over time, many of these domains end up showing for more competitive search phrases.

Filing for DMCA is actually a straightforward process. Ironically, you'll also have to Google it.

[StupidIntelligent]

@RC - "To clarify, we allow... no crystal balls, no tea leaves, no prophetic software. no ghosts of friends who once delivered pizza to Larry Page."

Larry doesn't like pizzas.

But, like I said before, your forum, your rules.

I'll shut up and go back to my cave.

[RedBar]

@Dimitri

Google will detect the niche is generating interest, and so will start to target this niche for itself,

I'm not saying you're right or wrong however this seems to be what happened to many of us back in 2011/2012(?) with successful image galleries.

During the previous 12-18 months Google was advising image owners to "mark-up" their images correctly with alt and titles plus proper image extensions rather than hexadecimal etc, and then overnight they took a minimum 90% of the image gallery owners' trafiic away, mine was 95%.

It didn't matter how unique or how much time and money one had spent on these galleries, bang, the traffic was gone, includng, as we should all remember, Getty images.

Certainly they must have identified multiple gallery owners taking earnings from their galleries otherwise why did they do it?

In my global widget industry this marked a dramatic change in its attitude towards G which remains to this day, basically no one has trusted G ever since.

[PlinyTheElder]

@Dimitry, I totally, entirely, completely agree with your opinion. I had a website in a micro niche, which accumulated over 200K unique visitors/day. I have been succeeding within three years. For this period, a lot of websites have been trying to repeat my success. Everybody stole my original content. Google can't identify the primary source of the content. When the number of copies reached the critical mass, Google completely destroyed my website in December 2016. Since then I have undertaken at least five attempts to revive this website or make another one on the same niche. However, all the attempts concluded without a result. Within a year my traffic dropped from 200,000/day to 1,000, and then to 0 (ZERO). I have never purchased a single backlink. Since then I don't believe in G at all.

[StupidIntelligent]

@PlinyTheElder - This is a major problem that Google cannot fix, and that has something to do with the way search for "newer, previously unknown-concepts," work.
Either, one can lead the niche by continuously pushing out new information - which others can copy, but it wouldn't hurt you - or rehash what's already in the market; add more value to it and then wait. It will eventually force the jockey to shoot the old horse off the racetrack.

[NickMNS]

@chrisv1963

but then I noticed on Google Image Search that someone else was using my photos.

This is really a topic for another thread, so I will give you TL:DR version. You need to implement hotlink protection. This isn't only one site but likely thousands of spam sites hotlinking your images. @Stupid Intelligent's recommendation is a waste of time and effort, DMCA is useless in this case as it will take you months if not years to file all the requests to all the spam websites that will not care or react. If you start a new thread on the topic I would be happy to provide recommendations.

[universenet]

FWIW, seeing the featured snippet holder (wikipedia in this case) gone completely from the SERPs this morning, no longer listed on page 2 or anywhere.

Google is amazing, really the best seach engine, I like google

[glakes]

This is a major problem that Google cannot fix

It's not a problem for Google. In fact, it can be quite profitable for them. Here's an example:

I sell a unique product and obviously don't want ads on my site to lead users elsewhere. Someone comes along and copies my content and throws some Adsense ads on it. Google ranks the page above my page, which I only learn of when I start seeing my ad spend increase dramatically. Come to find out Google is displaying my ads on the site that scraped my content. Nothing like Google giving you a swift kick between the legs.

Google makes money selling ads and could care less who the original author is.

[nmbrsk]

Posted this in the Google Publisher Center Forum, but to no avail... Has anyone faced a similar issue? As you can see from the screenshot below, our visibility for AMP articles has dropped dramatically and we're getting next to nothing now...

[imgur.com...]

We have been approved on the original Google News for over a year; everything working well. Since the middle of January, our appearance in Google News and Top Stories carousel has completely gone.

Let's say our site name is 'ESPN'. When searching for 'ESPN' before, we would get a Top Stories carousel on our search term, with all our latest stories. We would also be in the Top Stories for news that we publish for other terms. However, we no longer appear on this section and the section doesn't even show up for our publication name - can anyone explain why that is?

When we search for 'ESPN news' in the News tab, none of our articles show up - even when they used to before. Articles from completely different websites unrelated to us show up instead. This is the case for searching for just our brand name too. We have been approved on the new Publisher Center as well - but to no change/difference in our appearance.

As you can see from the screenshot below, our AMP article search appearance has gone from 150-300k impressions on some days, to basically 0 since the middle of January.

We've checked the technical aspects of our website - but everything looks OK. Can you please advise what we need to do to bring our visibility back? As you can see, this bug/update has decimated our traffic for no reason we see fit.

[StupidIntelligent]

@NickMNS - My response on DMCA was in line with the text content. And hotlink protection does not stop someone from stealing an image, adding more value to it through text content and then ranking higher.

But, of course this topic should be talked about in another thread.

[PlinyTheElder]

It's the simplest task to define the original source of the content. The solution is to take a look at the date of publication. Well, one may argue that anyone can change the date. No doubt! Yet you can't change the date when Google first scanned the document. The solution, thereby is completely on the Google's side.

For me, it's the primary issue while launching another web project. I have spent three years writing over 2,000 exclusive articles, each containing at least 1,500 words. And what? I've just waste my time.

Look, every old (at least a year old domain) is under any Google penalty. And it's obvious that a new website with exclusive content is better upon the Google's eyes. As a result, the simple solution is to mirror my website. It's so simple, isn't it? The thief thereby gets over 2,000 exclusive articles at a new domain. Bingo!

Before Google releases the solution to protect the exclusive content, all our efforts are useless. If Google managed to penalize my "crystal clean" project, with over 2,000 hand-written articles and no (unnatural) backlinks from 200,000 unique visitors per day (and 800,000 subscribers, by the way) to 0, only because 10 thieves stole the entire content of my website, so what, in such a case, Google wants from a webmaster?

I always followed the rule "I must make quality website." And what? Now is 2020, and I still can't recover from the Dec. 2016 Google algorithm update. Bravo, Google. Since then I won't publish a single exclusive article anymore.

[samwest]

Mods note: I've just removed a post that was claiming to see the future, predicting an update with no documentation or reasons to it, but making claims big enough and boastful enough that it created lots of curiosity... and in the proceess was derailing all useful discussion in this thread.

The poster has a questionable track record in this forum, and did nothing but waste a bunch of volunteer mods' time.

To those who make such posts, I'd avoid both crystal balls and tea-leaves, unless you've can suggest some pretty strong reasons or patterns about why you're making these predictions. Thanks all, and my apologies to those whose posts were removed.

I was about to post a new SERP observation and found the above mods note. Shocking. To censor someone's observation and comments really has a "chilling effect" on these forums. The internet is so varied that no one observer is either 100% right, or wrong. Maybe he is speculating, but what else can we do when dealing with a "Black Box". When Google starts making their algorithmic updates 100% transparent, then yeah, I'll agree in that part with the mods note. However, the day Google starts making updates and AI transparent will also be the day hell freezes over. And that's no speculation.

Sure, I will admit to staring at TV static trying to identify a pattern in the chaos. Zombie traffic was one (as my old backdraft7 account) observational contributions that still holds popular today, much to the chagrin of some mods, users and probably Google. Problem with watching for patterns is that the die hard pro Google users look at your observations and theories and label you a nut or tin foil hat conspiracy theorist. I've already started to slow my observational posts to avoid being chastised by mods as a nut case, as stupidintelligent was, in what came across as an attempt to shame him off the forum. (a likely ToS violation if a mere users did that). Makes me wonder about my own 'track record'.

Besides, our observations and theories only populate WebmasterWorld forums with free content as viewed by trained end users. What's the point to all these posts anyway? In all my years, I've seen little useful info, just a lot of gripes and speculation...mine included. It's become little more than a sounding board for our collective misery and frustration. Perhaps I've worn out my welcome too. I've certainly tired of the censorship on WebmasterWorld and that's too bad. Thanks & Have Fun.

[edited by: samwest at 4:44 pm (utc) on Feb 19, 2020]

[RedBar]

Someone comes along and copies my content and throws some Adsense ads on it.

The only problem with that example is in assuming that people will click on ads.

Last April 2019 I removed AdSense from all my sites after being a publisher from its very start in 2003. Over the years G managed to reduce my income but the kicker was the great image theft of 2011/12 'ish.

The only websites in my entire global widget sector carrying AdSense are those sites not updated in years, in some cases 15/16 years however an average of 10 years wouldn't be far off.

AdSense may affect some high traffic volume sectors but, I'm guessing, most sectors are not high volume whatsoever.

Those promoting current and popular consumer-demanded goods may probably have issues however my usage of search etc tends to suggest the "normal" specalist widget sites don't use AdSense any more.

Meanwhile the higj traffic sites with ads thrown all over the place deserve to have visitors use ad blockers, or the better browsers, so that anyone doesn't have to endure a 5 minute html dance as ads from eleventy million agencies attempt to load all at different rates in different positions.

And for those sites requesting me to white list or unblock their sites ... you brought it on yourselves ... Oooops, a little rant there :-)

[glakes]

The only problem with that example is in assuming that people will click on ads.

A content thief, who plans on surrounding stolen content with ads, doesn't mind increasing their income by employing click fraud.

Before Google releases the solution to protect the exclusive content, all our efforts are useless.

I wouldn't expect Google to lift one finger, without pressure from regulators, to provide a working solution that respects original authors. As I said previously, Google is making money from content thieves who surround the stolen content with ads. In addition to losing ad revenue, such a solution would also cost Google money to develop and maintain. 7-1/2 years ago Google announced they were going to demote sites with large numbers of DMCA notices: [search.googleblog.com...]

As we all know, Google has not made much progress on any solution since 2012 outside of specific anti-piracy measures pushed by the music and movie industries back in 2014. We are left to fend for ourselves, which is not useless. But it takes precious time to monitor ones work or money if one is willing to pay a business that specializes in IP monitoring/enforcement.

[TeresaD]

There is a lot of speculation on these threads about the updates because we have no reliable information but have stats from previous years showing how much conversions have been lost but several people have seen the same pattern.

I have learned that

zombies and ghosts are not in my imagination.
users and visits are increased, probably from the zombies.
at one stage a few of us had weird geo locations staying on the site for up to an hour at at time, they stopped around the same time so it was not site specific.
backlinks seem to be affected on several sites
none of us use black hat.
users are not converting even during widget season, again not just on my site but on others.
tin foil hats are not a good look but when you are out of options it might be worth trying one on for size.

While I am very frustrated at the updates I am also glad that there are people in here seeing the same patterns and also that I have someone to discuss and bounce suggestions off. In my real life if I start talking about SEO, googlebots or analytics to my friends and family their eyes start to glaze over and they make a quick escape.

[cwalker216]

@dimitri - "If you receive a significant amount of traffic, Google can consider that you are making significant money from it, and so start "indirectly" charging you for this traffic by pushing you down, to make you buy ad spaces."

Which would be fine and all if not for the fact that, unless you're the owner of the product you're selling, your site / landing page will be considered a 'bridge page' if you're an affiliate.

I can (and have) created very successful PPC campaigns for products I'm affiliated with, only to have them slapped down within 48 hours of their creation because 'bridge page' or whatever that means.

[cwalker216]

@chrisv1963 Everything you mentioned has been happening for well over a year at this point. I've actually had a few keyword searches in my niche where literally 8 out of 10 of the FIRST page results had the exact situation you described (IE Anti Virus going off the charts at every link I clicked on)

[samwest]

Final thought..

predicting an update with no documentation or reasons to it

...since when does any update come with associated documentation or reason?
...other than post update 'propaganda' from Mueller.

Matt Cutts actually came across as credible and sincere in his guidance.
While he as left Google; now being director of the USDS really indicates who is driving the ship...and has from the start. Wisely perhaps.
[searchengineland.com...]

I'll leave my TF hat on the table at the exit.

[RedBar]

Which would be fine and all if not for the fact that, unless you're the owner of the product you're selling, your site / landing page will be considered a 'bridge page' if you're an affiliate.

And even original product owners get slapped down and demoted for absolutely no apparent reason whatsoever meanwhile ALL other search engines continue to rank it at #1 even 2-3 years later.

Methinks there's a magic switch at The Plex operated by a dubious operator!

[EditorialGuy]

I'm seeing more videos being displayed across a wider variety of "how to" queries where the entire above the fold area is consumed by YouTube videos and ads in some queries.

Sure, because people like such videos and find them helpful. (I've found YouTube how-to videos to be useful for everything from home repairs to language study to bread baking.)

It's worth remembering that a search engine's target audience consists of searchers, not site owners.

[glakes]

Sure, because people like such videos and find them helpful.

Sure, videos can be helpful. But I'm sure it's helpful to Google to only display YouTube videos in featured snippets/video block instead of those from competing services. Or are we to believe that only YouTube videos can be helpful?

[RedBar]

Or are we to believe that only YouTube videos can be helpful?

Absolutely correct!

I used to have several self-hosted widget videos ranking well until about two years ago, now they're gone along with all other independent video hosting sites.

No manipulation there then?

[glakes]

No manipulation there then?

It's terrible to see how much Google has gobbled up and placed in the SERPS. For a lot of how to queries I see on desktop, everything above the fold is an ad block followed by one massive YouTube video and a video block underneath consisting of three more YouTube videos. Competing against Google for above the fold eyeballs on these queries is next to impossible without paying for ads.

Using Google video search, once again it's nothing but YouTube videos and a small percentage of embedded YouTube videos for general queries. The only way for me to see competing videos is to actually use the name of the video service in my query.

[universenet]

Sure, because people like such videos and find them helpful. (I've found YouTube how-to videos to be useful for everything from home repairs to language study to bread baking.)

It's worth remembering that a search engine's target audience consists of searchers, not site owners.

yes, videos are great, google should fill out all first 4 or first 5 pages in search with videos and pages after put some organic results but even organic is not neccesery, videos are amazing, imagine home made video for weather forecast where say that every day will be sun and clear, videos can change our lifes,, why put videos in videos parts if can be in organic search parts, google is incredible

[seowinning]

Google goal is to fill the first page with Ads, results will start from second page

[RedBar]

Has anyone any idea if the EU has any proposals to do anything like they "supposedly" did a few years ago since that clearly hasn't worked / Google has totally ignored everything?

[glakes]

A judge indicated the €2.42 billion fine for giving preference to its shopping service was too small of a fine to deter Google from changing their behavior and could be raised. There is also pending regulations in the EU to regulate AI, which I believe Google and other big tech companies are lobbying against. A draft of this AI policy was supposed to be released today by the VP of the EU Commission. That's about all I know of, but I'm not following EU policy too closely.

[Dooku]

Google is practically under constant investigation by the EU, the latest one being from december 2019 and results expected later this year. Google has been fined over 8 billion Euro in the last 24 months already. Currently the largest travel and booking websites/companies have also joined in a collective official complaint against Google because of illegal use of data and anti-competitive practices against their industry.
If any naive people still consider Google to be a "normal company" than it's really time to reconsider?

The EU is useless in this regard, they should just follow the Chinese and Russian example, kick Google's butt and create their own search engine. 28 countries and all that money......and still nothing.

[RedBar]

28 countries and all that money......and still nothing.

Agreed, too many countries with their "pet" projects and objectives and unless one is used to working with these different departments it's a nigtmare.

Have you tried [mojeek.com...] ?

Mod's note: Mojeek is an alternative search engine, with no user-tracking, based in the UK.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 4:28 am (utc) on Feb 20, 2020]
[edit reason] Clarified link.... [/edit]