People Also Ask no longer appearing

[JS_Harris]

The People Also Ask feature in the US version of Google stopped appearing for many on July 1st and continues to be gone. At the same time several otherwise reputable sites with a page to answer every question, often using the question as a partial title, are ranking a little lower.

At the same time several searches I am required to perform frequently underwent a major change in intent. Stuff like "where are widgets" or where do you find widgets" used to result in pages telling you where they are. Now, not so, all top results tell you how to change a widget. It makes sense, you can't change it without finding it but you may be trying to find it to change it.

- Stop creating granular answer posts, if this isn't a glitch or personalized thing then people also ask questions are going the way of individual keywords.
- Consider making your informational articles more meaningful. 'How much a widget costs' won't beat a 'how to save when buying a widget' moving forward.

Maybe M.U.M. just went live?

[martinibuster]

Google is not 10 Blue Links. Google is discover, top news, WEB STORIES, video, paa, featured snippets.

When Google comes out with a new feature or opportunity like structured data or amp people respond oh I'm not going to put that on my site blah blah blah.

Now Google's begging for sites to get on to the web stories and send them traffic and you know how many of you are even bothering to like take a look at it and try to snag some of that traffic?

The web is bigger than some guy and his pet website.

[mzb44]

@martinibuster - at no point have you addressed the counterpoint to your argument that if PAA were really meant for query refinement / search intent refinement, then they probably would not be plastered directly below the 4 ads or at best 1st or 2nd organic results.

A Brian Dean study recently also showed that only around 3% of searchers interact with PAA. - and yes, I do understand these third party studies can't always be reliable/accurate but I would doubt it's orders of magnitude wrong.

So they are everywhere but are only useful at 3% of the time?

Maybe - at least just partially - it's really just about demoting organic further down the page to reduce CTR.

I'm not denying that search refining/intent refining is also not an element of this. But it's hard to argue, from the way PAA is implemented and work, that ads CTR optimization is not a major part of it.

[mzb44]

So? Are you expecting the 10 blue links?

This is a strawman.

Google is not 10 Blue Links. Google is discover, top news, WEB STORIES, video, paa, featured snippets.

So?

We are not allowed to disagree and criticise the changes Google does?

When Google comes out with a new feature or opportunity like structured data or amp people respond oh I'm not going to put that on my site blah blah blah.

Here, we are talking specifically about PAA which many believe is an extremely aggressive, and a harmful feature to organic and has a questionable usefulness for searchers.

The fact some people don't or didn't like AMP, schema etc. is completely irrelevant here.

Are you implying that because people in the past always complained about other new features, therefore complaining about anything new now is invalid/not justified?

[martinibuster]

RE: This is a strawman.

A straw man is refuting an argument by refuting something else.

They said:
thus PAA can be on any search?

I said:
So? Are you expecting the 10 blue links?

The question about PAA ("thus PAA can be on any search?") implies that PAA cannot belong in every search.

My question rightly asks, Are you expecting the 10 blue links?, which addresses the challenge/question that PAA can be on any search, which implies that the 10 blue links should be there.

I was showing that the presumption that PAA can't belong in every SERP presumes that the PAA feature is a deviation.

THAT presumption that PAA is a deviation (from 10 blue links) is at the heart of the complaints about PAA.

There is no straw man there.

The topic of this discussion, btw, is:
People Also Ask no longer appearing
:)

[JesterMagic]

martinibuster all I can say is you are living in a weird bubble in regards to PAA and must just want to provoke people just for the sake of it. I see no other reason for your hard position on the matter.

PAA is a distraction by Google pure and simple designed to keep people on their site by giving them answers to other questions. It belongs at the bottom of the page after the user has seen all the results. If that wasn't the case then Google would stick it above the ads and not between the ads and the organic results. (as obviously it would steal clicks from ads)

It's also designed to steal content from webmasters by endless adding more snippets. Sure they have a link but the question most likely has been answered and if not Google already has added a few more question and answers to the PAA. With PAA Google gets to create a rather nice FAQ that keeps the visitor on Google. They are basically building a content page on the fly just for that user.

Everything Google does is designed to help Google. Everyone is so locked into the Google eco system with most not knowing how to escape so most will not go elsewhere and live with it until the government steps in and breaks them up.

[mzb44]

And yet another occasion where you intentionally avoid the issue of PAA appearing before any organic results, something that contradicts your 'PAA is for search intent refining' theory.

Are you intentionally only replying to comments that can be attacked on semantic grounds alone and intentionally avoid the hard ones that may refute your arguments?

[mzb44]

A straw man is refuting an argument by refuting something else.

I'm not going to look up the specific name of the logical fallacy you have committed in that comment. I believe in fact there were more than two at least, possibly three.

First, not liking one specific search feature, PAA, does not imply that one wants to eliminate every existing search feature and return back to Google 2007 with 10 blue links. Literally absolutely nobody at all said this.

Actually, strawman was correct.

Second, the fact others have during the past few years complained about various search features does not mean that therefore now people here and today complaining about PAA is invalid.

Third, the fact that Google is constantly changing things and implementing new features does not mean that we must unquestionably like and agree with every single individual change they are making and aren't allowed to criticise. *

* and yes, I do know criticising Google here is not going to get them to roll PAA back, obviously. But that doesn't mean one must bend over and stfu and never say anything negative.

The topic of this discussion, btw, is:
People Also Ask no longer appearing
:)

Yes.

That is the opinion of the person who opened this thread. And it seems almost everyone else's accounts contradict that person's observations.

PS: :)

[saladtosser]

I mean look at the posts with votes vs not, we all (mostly live in democracies) smart people listen to the majority and revaluate normally....Its okay to be wrong, in fact I have more massive respect for people who can hold their hands up and say "maybe I'm wrong...

[martinibuster]

Salad Tosser wrote:

I have more massive respect for people who can hold their hands up and say "maybe I'm wrong...

SaladTosser, I used your OWN example of How to Breed Cats and showed you WHY there's a PAA and you did not raise your hand to say you were wrong about that example.

SaladTosser response to being shown WHY own example showed PAA:

"This would be a valid point if also very specific searches didn't introduce PAA"

I examined YOUR example and then you dismiss the explanation by doing the "What About thing [merriam-webster.com]" by saying well what about "very specific searches."

You didn't hold your hand up and say "maybe I'm wrong." You COULD have said that I had presented a good point and now let's take a look at this other thing, "very specific searches."

But you didn't. You refused to acknowledge that your example had good reason for showing PAA.

So, no offense, but it's kind of odd to read your post about how you admire people who can acknowledge when they are wrong when you had that opportunity to acknowledge that with your example of the cat breeding.

And you know what? I wasn't trying to prove you wrong.
I was just using your own example to examine why that PAA was there. That's it. I've been very respectful to you.

Second, the fact others have during the past few years complained about various search features does not mean that therefore now people here and today complaining about PAA is invalid.

I did not say that complaining about it is invalid. You are mischaracterizing or not understanding what I wrote.

I pointed out that it's happening, why it's happening and what'll probably happen in the future with it and also stating that changes are normal and change will continue to happen.

I never said it was invalid.

My point is about the speculation over Google's motives for PAA and pointing out the historical fear of change over events that never turned out the way it was speculated to turn out. I'm putting that out there for consideration.

It's up to the members to decide for themselves how they choose to react to yet another change. I don't care one way or the other nor am I seeking anyone's approval or waiting for you to cry uncle. I don't debate. I put ideas out for consideration.

Third, the fact that Google is constantly changing things and implementing new features does not mean that we must unquestionably like and agree with every single individual change they are making and aren't allowed to criticise. *

I don't like the PAA's. And I don't encourage anyone else to like it either. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up for you.

What I AM pointing out is that there is no basis to the conspiracy theory that PAA is designed to steal clicks from well formed search queries. That's not a fact. That's conjecture, speculation.

What I'm consistently responding to over and over is the misrepresentation of what I wrote, that I'm somehow supporting PAAs. No, I'm not.

I used one of your examples to show how that one example is reasonable and has a reason for being there and that gets mischaracterized as me saying all instances are valid.

One of you people put that example out there and I in good faith responded to that. Now you're taking that and building something else out of it. Good grief, come on...

I have consistently THANKED some of you for our counterpoints and opinions, not called them invalid.

What it looks like to me is that some people have an agenda (Google is doing this to steal your clicks and to maximize ad clicks) and they are losing their minds because someone doesn't agree with that point of view.

[superclown2]

I wouldn't object to PAA if the answers came from specialist sites whose owners know what they are talking about. In my UK vertical the answers are invariably from mega sites (coincidentally sites that spend a fortune on ads), mainly from the USA, whose answers are, more often than not, incorrect, misleading or boilerplate. I have yet to see, again in my vertical, a single answer that comes from a site with in-depth knowledge.

As a searcher I find them useless and just a hindrance.

Would it be cynical to wonder if PAA is just another way of rewarding high spenders? Surely not.

[mzb44]

I don't like the PAA's. And I don't encourage anyone else to like it either. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up for you.

Thanks for clearing it up.

What I AM pointing out is that there is no basis to the conspiracy theory that PAA is designed to steal clicks from well formed search queries. That's not a fact. That's conjecture, speculation.

I did say specifically that my opinion about Google wanting to steal clicks with PAA is specuation. It can never be more than speculation for obvious reasons.

But you are going way too far in calling it a conspiracy theory. It's called poisoning the well.

I do not think it's that difficult to imagine G could use this feature to influence users' click habits. It would be very easy to do and the benefits would be substantial and apart from some sites losing some organic traffic the downside would be minimal/non-existent.

At every point I clearly stated that this is my opinion based on previous Google behaviour and dynamics of a profit-based enterprise in a capitalist market (not that I think it's wrong necessarily what G is doing - contrary to others here. I'm just describing a phenomenon).

In reality, both your and my opinion that Google is either stealing or not stealing clicks with PAA is speculation, as neither you or me can know for sure.

Edit: And yet again you have avoided touching the issue of PAA appearing before any organic results, especially for high-value commercial queries, which may be the biggest hint that PAA is not just an 'intent refinement' feature.

[superclown2]

I looked up a legal/financial question today. PAA was there of course, so I took a look through the first top ten.

One answer was from a price comparison site. They may be good at comparing prices but for legal questions I prefer a law firm thanks.

The other eight were from American sites - I am in the UK, using a UK ISP. Most were selling a product, not offering legal advice. The information was incorrect and misleading from a UK perspective. Many people trust Google far more than they should and they are likely to believe this incorrect information.

The final one was an authoritative UK site. The answer from the snippet was incorrect; the exact opposite of the real facts. I checked their sites and yes they gave the correct answer there, but the snippet indicated the exact opposite.

This is my objection to PPA; Google is attempting to answer questions algorithmically using an artificial intelligence system which is simply not intelligent enough. They risk giving billions of people answers which may well be incorrect but which these people will believe because they come from Google.

I work in a highly regulated industry. If I was to make the statements that I read today in PAA I would face massive fines. If someone lost money as a result of my statements I would almost certainly be sued.

Google are being reckless. They are in effect giving advice which they are not authorised to give. There should at least be a clear disclaimer pointing out that the answers have been created by an algorithm and so are not reliable. Perhaps the UK Financial Conduct Authority should have a quiet word with them.

[mzb44]

Google are being reckless. They are in effect giving advice which they are not authorised to give. There should at least be a clear disclaimer pointing out that the answers have been created by an algorithm and so are not reliable.

Very good point.

Google is getting very close to become classified as a content creator itself rather than just a platform and may become liable for the content provided.

It's one thing to provide links to third party sites but something else to provide concrete answers to user questions in a format that makes it appear that the displayed answer is the only 'correct' one.

Add the fact that all these are simply machine selected/generated (therefore often times lacking context) but without making this clear to users and you have a lawsuit / regulatory crackdown in the making.

'Reckless' is indeed an accurate term to use.

Edit:

Perhaps the UK Financial Conduct Authority should have a quiet word with them.

I am very familiar with UK FCA regulations as I've worked in that industry before, some years ago.

Currently Google is in breach of UK financial regulations by displaying direct and concrete answers to financial questions on its platform. This constitutes trading advice and it has specific regulations in the UK with which google.com or google.co.uk is not in compliance with.

I would not be surprised if the FCA is already working on a case. If they aren't yet then surely they will do it soon. Perhaps we can hasten this process by submitting complaints?

[brotherhood of LAN]

Have to say @martinibuster it's as it you're looking for Danny Sullivan's old job, the way you reply to Google's implementation of anything whatsoever. You claim you are against it but it seems you're batting in a particular direction which in a sense is understandable because Google is the trailblazer in search.

Your argument seems to stem from 'old webmasters' talking about 10 blue links versus all the implementations in between, and proclaiming that the webmaster community is out of date.

Could we boil it down to a simple question. You ask a question, is the search engine able to answer it unequivocally and truthfully? If the answer is no, then we best leave it to the 'best 10 blue links', or the best ads' surely?

Anything beyond that is a proclamation of knowing better. As if the "people may also ask" is some unequivocal truth, they're generated by the same search engine that was supposed to answer one question. "We might have answered your questions but here's some dodgy excerpts from random websites and you can judge for yourself if the answer is true. If you don't, feel free to (not click | or click) onto something else."

The claim that it doesn't steal clicks from content is a nonsense. It only takes one person to accept an answer there and not click through for it to be true.

[superclown2]

What it looks like to me is that some people have an agenda (Google is doing this to steal your clicks and to maximize ad clicks) and they are losing their minds because someone doesn't agree with that point of view.

With respect - and I really do mean the word 'respect' - I think a lot of us feel that that theory might be true. I don't accept that anyone who expresses that view are guilty of "losing their minds".

However it's good to see both sides of the argument. Your opinions are valuable and we should all recognise that, even if they differ from those of others. You have consistently produced well reasoned opinions in the past.

A lot of people on this forum are suffering and sometimes intemperate comments can, perhaps understandably, slip out. I think we should all remember that.

[saladtosser]

I wouldn't mind PAA so much if we didn't have to contend with PASF (people also search for) and RS (related searches) all on the same page as PAA, repeating the same questions. How is PAA any different from PASF?

Of course, while ignoring YouTube widget, the featured snippet widget, and the images widget at the top. I've done some screen shots, when I find time ill make another thread and post the **amazing** amount of google spam to keep you on search taking up the entire page I find on my searches, why the famous SEO don't cover this is a mystery....well no, no it isn't a mystery at all ;)

I think you even famous SEO's will be amazed to see 3 "paa" type widgets on the same page (repeating the same queries) with the rest of the google spam, its breath taking and hard to imagine anyone suggesting google isn't trying to reduce CTR to other websites!

I'm going to suggest google adds a forth and maybe fifth widget to PAA, PASF and RS. LGBT search per page.....(lesbian, gay, transsexual websites) and maybe BLM (black lives matter), Google, lets just cover every base!

*Search* has become utterly ridiculous unless your savvy like our forum members who know how to evade the crap/spam/ads!

[saladtosser]

They have added additional sections to People also ask in my niche today (pets) now above the standard PAA there is a new PAA carousel about the topic, so far they have "All", "interesting Facts" and "Habitat". When clicked the PAA sections update and look like they contain featured snippets.

Could be a test we will see across the board in PAA in a few months? It pushes the organics down by about another 30-40px but most worrying it really gives you everything you need to know without leaving google by aggregating featured snippets from multiple websites on all questions you could think of.

Edit: Google's John Mueller was asked if a core update can have the people also ask (PAA) results show up more or less often. John said yes [seroundtable.com...]