Google Updates and SERP Changes - November 2020

[RedBar]

The following 11 messages were cut out of the October 2020 thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/5011839.htm [webmasterworld.com] by robert_charlton



My numbers are in for Occtober 2020:

Global B2B Melded Sites October v September 2020 +8.68%

Melded Sites October 2020 v Sites 1+2 October 2019 +418%

The last week of October was much quieter with, seemingly, no SERPs changes. I am expecting lower traffic levels during Npvember and December.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 2:51 pm (utc) on Nov 2, 2020]
[edit reason] split thread to new month [/edit]

[worker]

I'm seeing a huge number of false results with redirects to #*$! sites for non-#*$! related searches.

For one search phrase, I found:
-one #*$! redirect on page one of the results
-multiple #*$! redirects on page two of the results
-the majority of results on page three redirecting to #*$! sites

The titles and the text for the results looked appropriate to the search phrase, but then redirected when I clicked through to test. Google is clearly being massively manipulated by whatever approach is being used. Out of 30 organic results in the first 3 pages, at least 8-10 were fraudulent redirects to non-related sites.

The implications of this are significant. Is anyone else seeing things like this when testing results?

[christianz]

@Dooku Correct. Traffic is being funneled to web properties owned by few large media corps. Having the best website doesn't matter. I know this because I run information website(s) for 15+ years. One of those favored websites can spit out superfluous, outdated article and it will outrank my custom coded, constantly updated "masterpiece" like nothing.

They call it EAT, I call it corruption, concentration of wealth, power, traffic and mind-share/eyeballs. Totally against the spirit of Internet and democracy.

[Athedian]

Agreed on all posts that said Google doesn't direct good traffic to every site anymore and only focused on mainstream big, authoritative sites.

That's how Google's going to operate from now on since we got this pandemic going on and Google needs every dollar possible to keep their investors happy.

DDG-wise, it's not as accurate as I'd like it to be anymore. I tried it for a few months but it became more and more spammy with irrelevant results in other foreign languages.

[mzb44]

I know and use MP's site, it's easy enough to find, it's a great site for the subject and there's nothing evident wrong with it.

I've found it as well.

It's a quality site with good reporting and a very large number of extremely authoritative real editorial and natural links.

Seems like the only "minus" is that it's not a mainstream and known organization. It would be extremely easy for G to detect this. G may not want to rank these sites for news content during a pandemic/elections (or maybe it's going be always like this from now on).

I still think that if you aren't a major and known org you should stay away from news, finance, tech, legal, medical, etc. You may still rank for micro niches today within these larger niches, but sooner than later all these will be completely dominated by big sites owned by major and known companies or organizations.

[mzb44]

They call it EAT, I call it corruption, concentration of wealth, power, traffic and mind-share/eyeballs. Totally against the spirit of Internet and democracy.

It's just simpler and more efficient for them to do it like this.

First, it's just so much simpler. Big mainstream sites have signals that can never be faked by SEOs no matter how one might try. You tweak it so the "big mainstream site signals" (whatever those are) always take precedence over anything else. Suddenly you don't have to have a thousand of other algos that evaluate link quality, spam filters, unnatural links, anchor text spam, 301 redirect spam, copied content spam, paid link spam, guest post spam, spun content, rewritten content, etc, etc. - at least not to the extent it did before. Big sites page 1 by default, so much simpler this way. Saves so much resources.

This could also mean a reduction in cost for keeping a web spam team, web spam algos, constant new anti-spam updates etc.

Second, it keeps away bad press. After the 2016 elections Google like other tech companies was accused of facilitating fake news russian sites. Shareholders don't like bad press. So, if you only rank big mainstream sites for most things you will never have to worry about this again. The chances of those sites suddenly writing about conspiracy theories is extremely low.

Sure, this may mean somewhat lower quality and more generic content outranking specialized content; but seems like G thinks the trade-off is worth it? Seems like users are just fine with it? Perhaps they even like it to always only find mainstream and big sites when they do a G search? Seems like only SEOs are upset by this but everyone else is happy?

[christianz]

I am not sure if "everyone else is happy". They just don't know any better. They haven't seen there is universe beyond the four walls of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google etc.

There is also very strong herd mentality and group-think which consolidates online audiences into fewer and fewer platforms.

About filtering out fake news - I don't think there is any one organization or person with the magical powers to distinguish fake news from real news. Your fake news may be my real news and my real news may be fake news to you. Factual accuracy doesn't matter. It can be factual but still classified as fake news by Google.

It is up to the reader to absorb ideas and narratives and decide what to believe. If you only allow one viewpoint, it becomes 1984 dystopia. Search engine must not editorialize information, it should not act as ministry of truth.

About spam filtering being easier with mainstream sites - yes, sure. But in this situation there are only mainstream sites and some black hat non-mainstream sites which fall through the cracks and are overoptimized for search to have any chance. Non-mainstream sites which are optimised for normal content / UX may not appear in results at all. It is a tradeoff and it sucks for us but maybe users don't care.

[mzb44]

About filtering out fake news - I don't think there is any one organization or person with the magical powers to distinguish fake news from real news. Your fake news may be my real news and my real news may be fake news to you. Factual accuracy doesn't matter.

Correct. This isn't about what is real or not. It's about what is mainstream accepted and causes the least amount of controversy and public backlash. If pushing mainstream sites does that then that's good enough for G. If the vast majority of G users are content with the type of sites they get recommended then it means G did its job well.

It is up to the reader to absorb ideas and narratives and decide what to believe. If you only allow one viewpoint, it becomes 1984 dystopia.

Google is in the business of making money by providing content to users that they like, leading to more users and more ad clicks. Google is not in the business of maintaining a balanced narrative or saving the world from a 1984 dystopia (or even caring about this in the slightest). Google search will reflect whatever users like best, which will lead to more revenue and share price.

If pushing big mainstream sites at the detriment of everyone else will lead to more revenue and less costs, then that's what G will do. - And I mean this completely objectively and not as kind of a rant or cynicism.

But in this situation there are only mainstream sites and some black hat non-mainstream sites which fall through the cracks and are overoptimized for search to have any chance.

This is why I think subsequent core updates will attempt to push mainstream sites even more, to weed out the remaining the non-mainstream and potentially spam/sketchy sites that fell through the cracks.

[RedBar]

I remember an inteview with JM a few years ago, was it 10 maybe more, when G was having a serious spam and false information problem, he said something like "we may have no choice but the trusted branded sites if we can't filter-out the rubbish, branded sites are trusted therefore we may have to go that way" ... And, of course, everyone then started saying we need to turn oursleves into recognised brands.

As I wrote I can't remember when that was however within a year a major brand of ours basically was demoted in G.com to oblivion even though it was one of the world's top 5 producers of my widgets.

Why? It is based in India and is not a household name, it's a trade-only supplier.

That's when my re-branding excercise started!

[NickMNS]

Your fake news may be my real news and my real news may be fake news to you. Factual accuracy doesn't matter.

What? Factual accuracy doesn't matter?

If you only allow one viewpoint, it becomes 1984 dystopia.

Facts are not viewpoints nor opinions. If we begin to equate fact as opinion, as you are doing in your post then we are facing difficult times ahead. You are absolutely free to have your own opinion and as part of your opinion you may choose to dispute the facts. But a fact remains a fact unless your are able to prove that a fact is false.

What you are suggesting that we treat the a claim that the earth is the center of universe the same as that the earth is not the center of the universe. Furthermore you suggest:

It is up to the reader to absorb ideas and narratives and decide what to believe.

That the earth is not center of the universe is verifiable fact, but verifying this fact is not as simple as simply walking out your door and looking at the sky. Humans for hundreds of years, if not millennia, were fooled by their own eyes to the contrary. Many very intelligent people were fooled, Ptolemy went so far as to build complex models that showed the earth as the center of the universe, it took over 1000 years for Copernicus to prove him wrong. Ask anyone to explain how it is that we know and how can prove that the earth isn't the center of the universe, and they will be unable to tell you.

So now how is the "reader" with out any knowledge of astronomy supposed to decide what is or isn't fact in this case?

The "reader" can decide whether he or she agrees with a given opinion. The "reader" may even dispute a fact, but simply making a baseless claim that fact is false should not be sufficient.

I will end my rant here.

Platform such as Google, Facebook or any other platforms really must be held to a standard where they filter out baseless claims of fact. If we do not have standard to determine what is fact or not then we find ourselves in a situation were it becomes impossible to have any discussion, impossible to have a society.

[christianz]

@NickMNS "What? Factual accuracy doesn't matter?"

I didn't say it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter to Google. They (and the other few IT hegemons) label factually accurate statements as fake news if they don't align with their opinion or whatever opinion they are pushing.

If google cared only about factual accuracy and laws, we wouldn't be having this discussion and we would be living in much better world.

@mzb44 "Google is in the business of making money by providing content to users that they like, leading to more users and more ad clicks. Google is not in the business of maintaining a balanced narrative or saving the world from a 1984 dystopia"

That's terribly short-sighted for a corporation that organizes and delivers worlds information. In a Roman kind of self destructive morally degrading way. With that kind of focus on short term we won't have any of those Mars cities and bright interplanetary future or whatever someone like Musk is dreaming about. More like dark ages ahead.

[NickMNS]

@christianz
Fair enough.

They (and the other few IT hegemons) label factually accurate statements as fake news

So what is the problem?
In you previous post you said:

It is up to the reader to absorb ideas and narratives and decide what to believe.

A label appears on a post and then the reader can decide whether the fact is or isn't accurate.
Wasn't that your argument, the reader should decide?
Google thinks it fake news, so who cares what Google thinks, ignore the label and read on.

[JesterMagic]

@MayankParmar Sorry to hear that. I know what you are going through. I got hit once just before Christmas and it ruins completely the holiday. I know your site as well and even if something small was technically wrong your backlink profile should more than make up for it.

This is one of the problems that needs to be addressed with Google is it is impossible to get a hold of anyone (unless it's for Google Ads). There should be requirement for large companies to have a basic level of customer service.

I've read a few horror stories lately where normal web developers/graphic designers had everything tied to their gmail account (including cloud service, subscriptions for services from 3rd parties) and Google decided to kick them for undisclosed reasons. Google said they sent warning emails (which were not received) and the email appeal was denied and all their data deleted. These business ended up loosing thousands of dollars and a lot of hard work.

Makes me leery having any email account on any of the big services (Google, Apple, Microsoft) and using the OAuth login method with any important websites if you can loose it all with no recourse.

[NickMNS]

@jesterMagic

There should be requirement for large companies to have a basic level of customer service.

Customer service? You are not Google's customer, you are their product.

[MayankParmar]

Discover is not zero now, Google has started picking a few new articles, but I'm still 90% down. Looks like it was some glitch or another update is coming out.

Semrush and Rank Ranger are showing movements :/

[westcoast]

Seeing weird activity for the first time in a long time... both Semrush and a casual check of our main keywords show unusual drops in the SERPs this morning. But, our overall traffic is stronger this morning than expected for a Tuesday morning.

Weird.

Anyone else seeing strange shifts or traffic today?

Entertainment / education

[StupidIntelligent]

@westcoast:"Seeing weird activity for the first time in a long time..." So, you have seen this happen before?

[westcoast]

"@westcoast:"Seeing weird activity for the first time in a long time..." So, you have seen this happen before?"

We are a pretty large site with a couple million pages, so tend to see algorithm changes early. The last couple of days had the lowest SERP volatility in many months, so that itself was unusual.

If I had to guess, I'd say that an update has just started rolling out... we are seeing some of our tail queries which were destroyed in the last BS "pinterest-geddon" update spring back to life over the past few hours. Whether they will remain or get throttled back into oblivion is anyone's guess. Probably the latter, but there's hope some of the damage from the last core update gets rolled back.

[insideout]

Once again lots of fluctuation going on now ...

[MayankParmar]

I am having indexing issues again. Posts taking longer than 15 minutes to get indexed :(

[strummer19]

A nightmare for us today in France -50%

news / sports

[ichthyous]

Wondering what the consensus is right now regarding the value of new links or aging links since the May update. I have a service which I pay monthly that costs me dearly...and I have about 750 inbound links from their site now. I am thinking of cutting off the account I pay monthly and that means I would instantly lose 750 links from 2 years to two weeks old. Is that suicide? I don't want to carry the $250/mo. bill anymore. Any opinions?

FYI I have recently acquired new links from other sites and that seems to have provided a small boost. My name was also included in a governmental press release and so now I am popping up being mentioned in dozens of news articles (no links). So, continuing to accumulate links from the same site doesn't count for much, while getting links from a variety of sites still may help...definitely not as much as it used to though.

[arfmedia]

In the context we are, I'm not sure links will help at all... I am seeing very good sites going down in the SERP while spammers are getting the top positions.. These spammers get busted, shut the site down, and open up a new one copy-pasting all the same content.

I stopped investing money because of this scenario. I still working very hard into content creation and update, and not seeing anything that makes me invest money in additional services.

I'd recommend you to invest accordingly.

[ichthyous]

In the context we are, I'm not sure links will help at all

Links always help, but not as much as they used to. And it seems that new links from the same domain count less than new links from a new domain (assuming that both domains are high authority sites). I am worried about the loss of so many long term links all at the same time.

[Athedian]

Seems like the conversions from the Ads went back up yesterday but today, again, total death (and I still hold firm to my belief that algo updates now tie with the Google Ads as well). Organic conversions in the morning also completely dead. It's like everything with Google right now is so volatile that you can't even plan any strategies accordingly.

And forget about keywords on the pages...seems like backlinks are still what Google's looking at because I checked our competitors that have really bad blog pages with very little content (one even had the entire site blocked off, asking for your subscription before reading their blogs), they still rank better than us because they got millions of backlinks. And oddly enough, the backlink scheme of interlinking multiple sites in different languages but with same or similar content seems to be okay with Google, even if it's from the same company.

So I might as well create a site in English, a site in Chinese, a site in Japanese, and then just interlink them together and I'll get to #1 spot with hundreds of thousands of traffic per day. = =

[Dooku]

I have added one more "G fluctuation checker" to the list to check algo activity, so the cmd file will now open 7 tabs in Firefox all at once for a quick check.
Just add the code below to an empty Notepad text file and save it as a .cmd file, so for example algocheck.cmd


@ECHO OFF
SETLOCAL
start "Firefox!" "C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" -url "https://moz.com/mozcast/" -url "https://cognitiveseo.com/signals/" -url "https://www.advancedwebranking.com/google-algorithm-changes/" -url "https://algoroo.com/" -url "https://www.rankranger.com/rank-risk-index" -url "https://serpmetrics.com/flux/" -url "https://www.semrush.com/sensor/"

[StupidIntelligent]

How are things looking today?

[MayankParmar]

I'm not expecting core update this year.

[webdev29]

Semrush sensor red yesterday...again
to the point where it upsets the SERPs we can no longer talk about update but about BUGs repeatedly. On a store that I followed, it went from more than 30 orders per day, to 2 orders today, I let you imagine the impact from a commercial point of view ... GG doesn't offer any stability anymore

[MayankParmar]

Yeah, and Semrush / Rank Ranger both are green today :)

[ichthyous]

Any thoughts on my comment about the relative value of links post-May update?