Youtube Videos in Serps, can't beat em, join them?

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

I'm certain that, in my corner of the web, a lot of queries lost other features like the featured snippets and now have a youtube videos box that is typically quite large, it pushes the #1 natural non-video result to the bottom of the page and sometimes below the fold.

A typical web page ranks for many search terms and only loses(or gains) some traffic when the special feature changes. In my case I can see that entire sections of my web pages no longer draw as much traffic once the Youtube videos get top priority in the SERPs. I qualify a section as a heading and the content related to that heading. Sections that greatly improved the number of visitors a page receives suddenly don't even if the page continues to do well otherwise.

SO - can't beat em, join them?

I'm not suggesting to bust out the video making equipment and become a youtube creator, I'm referring to possibly including one of the top videos into my content for a term I once got traffic for but no longer do. Call it future proofing or a placeholder if you will. Perhaps one day I will want to create videos and I'll already have web content to feature it from by replacing other videos with my own. For now, I don't.

Pros
- I'd expect the time on page to increase.

Cons
- the default iframe does nothing for the metrics of a webpage but videos can be embeded via html5 using the object tag.
- Random video suggestions made by Youtube at the end of a video may cause the visitor to leave my site but they can be turned off
- The videos are not mine and might disapear from youtube but Search Console now reports about videos embeded on your pages, yours or not, so a replacement can be found
- My visitor privacy is compromised as the video records data from my site but the video can be served from Youtube's nocookie domain so that it records nothing unless the visitor pushes play.

I'd want these videos lower on the page below MY content, of course, and only one per page for a very specific aspect of my page topic. An aspect that google shows the video ahead of my page anyway. Each of the cons seem to have a solution... is it time to include more videos when Google prefers videos for the given query?

It feels like it's time to revisit embeding 3rd party videos. They can help my visitors and my site metrics, is there anything else to worry about after the recent updates? I'm already testing it on several pages that lost traffic after losing the featured snippet to a video section. So far.... not enough data.

edit: Google is encouraging this judging by the fact they added a new section to search console called video discovery.

[MrSnuts]

Hmm, I'm not sure this will work as you intend it to work - I'm not saying it won't work or you should not try, but there are a handful of things that I'd consider.

Adding third party content to your otherwise genuine page does send a signal of "oh, and here's some content from the real experts which I could not have provided myself" - I'm not sure if your "authority" in your field is not questioned because you start to rely on third party content.
As any embeds, they will take a toll on page speed metrics, too.
Maybe one is expected to produce high quality video to be counted as an authority on some topic, it would not surprise me if that was the applied logic.
I'm quite sure the video you embed will get a boost for being embedded on your page, but it might not work the other way around (let us know if it does, one could include the most popular videos from any niche and gain rank if it would).

I also believe the users tendency towards either a website or a video listing can not be approached by adding video on the website, below some text content, and I'd be surprised if Gs AI had not figured that out.

If I want to watch a video without any need to adopt to some specific homepage (youtube feels so much like home, you know), and with the certainty that -in case the video I chose was not to my likings- I'll have a ton of other videos to move on to... well, then I'll head to youtube and watch a video.
Adding video below the fold on some text-based website is a very different experience, and yes, some of your readers will enjoy these videos.
But I guess you get my point that that isn't near the experience the video-audience is looking for.
Just think of mobile users, they can do either text or video, but a mix just doesn't work on mobile IMO.

Again, I'm not saying you might not get a fat ranking boost trying this, I only doubt that it's really beneficial to any users, and if it works its likely not going to work for long as its too obvious not to be abused for blackhat purposes.

Like your creative thinking around here lately, sir.

[FranticFish]

I am not as active online as I used to be, but when I was checking out the dominance of YouTube in informational search, I can't remember finding a YouTube video in the SERPs that led me anywhere but YouTube. Never to the publisher's site (although the url was often given, but unlinked).

If I'm out of date on this then hopefully a screenshot might be allowed.

It's not clear to me exactly what you're asking but is it this:

Do authoritative YouTube videos embedded on your page help YOU in the rankings as well as the video publisher?

People have long speculated about a boost for linking pages as well as linked pages. Perhaps there's something like that for video. This would seem like a desperately easy signal to hack for video, just as it was for links, with the added problem that video takes up much more space than a link.

In my (not very knowledgeable) opinion even if there is a boost for you I'm sure it'd be small potatoes compared to the boost for whoever you feature. Google reportedly started mapping out the way pages rendered (and the size / priority of different parts of the page and elements) long ago. Doesn't that therefore create a conflict?
- not in a prominent sport = not considered important, reduce weighting of signals (if any)
- in a prominent spot = syndicated content (affiliate / dupe flags etc).

[christianz]

Your idea won't work. The very purpose of forcefully pushing videos on number 1 spot on every imaginable query is to boost Googles profits for selling ads on YouTube.

As far as becoming "YouTube creator" - not interested. Video is far inferior for what I do. It can be used as supplement (like image), but in general it's totally overrated, non-interactive medium from 1950s. Video is the past, web apps is the future. Google may not be part of the future, however, by the way they are in recent years.

[BigKat]

The very purpose of forcefully pushing videos on number 1 spot on every imaginable query is to boost Googles profits for selling ads on YouTube.

Exactly. And many of the ads I'm seeing on Youtube are for prescription medications. Even my kids are getting these ads. The way I see it is Alphabet/Google/Youtube and Big Pharma have teamed up to become the largest drug pusher known to mankind. Big Pharma has the money and Google's greed knows no limits, so it makes perfect sense to me...

[christianz]

Exactly. And many of the ads I'm seeing on Youtube are for prescription medications. Even my kids are getting these ads. The way I see it is Alphabet/Google/Youtube and Big Pharma have teamed up to become the largest drug pusher known to mankind. Big Pharma has the money and Google's greed knows no limits, so it makes perfect sense to me...

I am bombarded with casino and gambling ads on YouTube. That's on my phone. On my PC I have installed adblock, without which YouTube is no longer usable. The ad density and invasiveness (unskipability) is far too high. They have gone overboard with desperate revenue chasing.

Combine that with increasing censorship and increasingly unfair recommendation and YouTube search ranking algorithms that prioritize "cable news" type of sources, and I think we are now witnessing peak YouTube. Their silly chase after short videos (TickTock) also don't make matters any better. Stupid short videos are inserted in subscriber feed and search results, just adding clutter.

[EditorialGuy]

Their silly chase after short videos (TickTock) also don't make matters any better. Stupid short videos are inserted in subscriber feed and search results, just adding clutter.

Maybe, but those short videos are as easy to devour as the chocolates in a Whitman's Sampler box. I can see their appeal, even if they're geared more to mindless entertainment than to information.

[christianz]

Maybe, but those short videos are as easy to devour as the chocolates in a Whitman's Sampler box. I can see their appeal, even if they're geared more to mindless entertainment than to information.

So what. Doesn't make them worthy of showing up in such privileged positions. Otherwise SERPs on both YT and google.com should be exclusively clickbait.

SERPs should present best resources that overall best satisfy the query. Not what is most easily consumable or most entertaining.

If we run a giant AI that just optimizes for entertainment value, ease of consumption and happiness, it will just give us hard drugs and make us drug addicts.

[EditorialGuy]

If we run a giant AI that just optimizes for entertainment value, ease of consumption and happiness, it will just give us hard drugs and make us drug addicts.

Or shopping addicts, depending on the query. :-)

[tangor]

But what about us folks that do ANY video at all? How can we get on the gravy train?

(wink wink)

[BigKat]

I am bombarded with casino and gambling ads on YouTube.

Gambling and Big Pharma industries, both of which fall into a category many see as bottom feeders. Not that it matters to Google because their greed will take them to the depths of any cesspool that has a dollar in it.

The lack of regulation is why our children are getting bombarded with ads peddling drugs and ads enticing them to gamble for a rare shot to win great fortunes. Google, being a company allegedly concerned about social justice, does the exact opposite as they profit from promoting this garbage. I just saw a story about people not taking diabetes medication because the bill is $1,200+ per month. I wonder how much of this $1,200 monthly patient bill goes directly to Google for the diabetes medication ads I'm seeing?