Biggest Change In SEO in 25 years - Publishers

[Samsam1978]

Google's latest move has raised concerns about the future viability of all our websites/ business. It seems they are prioritizing their own AI-generated content over natural search results with a new interface, potentially leaving us with decreased visibility and traffic. While the courts may consider this fair use, it poses a major risk to our income. Our entire business model relies on attracting traffic through organic search, but now our content will be overshadowed by AI-generated results. This could lead to a decline in click-through rates and ultimately impact our bottom line. What are your thoughts?

[superclown2]

Do the courts consider this fair use? I haven't seen it tested yet. And which courts? The rest of the world outside America may have their own opinions.

And why should Google break a highly profitable business model in favour of a leap into the dark?

[RedBar]

Our entire business model relies on attracting traffic through organic search,

Thanks for your honesty however is this a business model that can be successfully achieved with G these days?

It has been successful in the past but with G principally being a classified ads site these days it is much more difficult if not almost impossible.

My initial analysis is that we have even more of localisation which is quite understandable simply because there are more local / regional / national product searches than international B2B. G mostly financially survives on product searches and not on evergreen / factual / informational research.

Next week I shall be in Italy at my widget world's largest trade fair, far from being quieter it will be the busiest-ever simply because promoting via The Internet is a nigh-on impossibiliy since if one cannot be seen one will not survive.

[Samsam1978]

Put it like this I put my site into you.com and bing.com and they were using my images and my text in the AI search without my permission and of course I was top. Yes, I run a site based on display advertising model so it will effect me. The question is, does the human user want all this AI driven content or do they want human?

[superclown2]

The question is, does the human user want all this AI driven content or do they want human?

Content created by AI can be good but it can be recognised as such by most people - at present. Result: a loss of confidence in the site and a fast bounce out.

Perhaps in the future it will be unrecognisable from human created content but we are not there yet.

I suspect that Google is getting better at recognising it too - it may well be a reason why pages get downgraded. If that isn't happening now, it could well in the future. After all the web is awash with it and even Google's server capacity isn't limitless.

[Kendo]

Google will always want you to think that it has the best interests of its clients interests at heart. But nothing has changed in 20 years...

Fact A: SEO according to what Google and its so-called experts recommend actually has no correlation to website traffic.

Fact B: That paying for Google Ads has no effect on online sales.

[edited by: not2easy at 12:44 pm (utc) on Sep 26, 2023]
[edit reason] Please see TOS [webmasterworld.com] [/edit]

[OldFaces]

Agree with Kendo...except clarification one thing has changed in 20 years...."Don't be evil" ;)

[christianz]

@Kendo

Wise words. I can feel and sense you have been around the block....

I can't attest to "Fact B" but I can verify to the "Fact A". I think next stage will be (and it already feels like its started with latest updates) that content itself will have no correlation to website traffic. The only thing that will mater will be who you are as organization or individual. Or to use video game terminology - "pay to win".

[tangor]

Authority, Legacy (news), Government will likely continue to gather strength (and serps) as these are issues g has to deal with every day in lawsuits, investigations, and new rules/laws by various governments and agencies.

Small fry with small budgets are not likely to be heard, unless they start paying to play.

[OldFaces]

One thing I'd like to share in response to Samsam's original post.

It's very obvious that Google has focussed the majority of their efforts on profits by creating margins from previously free tools they've offered. Think the 'forever free' email we had for years that's now only available at a fee (for which they recently lifted the charges), that Universal was replaced by GA4 which is something that legitimately requires the use of BigQuery to get the same features. Think also what they have done with AdWords (Google Ads now) where longtail queries would be pennies and now cost a dollar, the quality of search results based on profit, etc. etc. The list goes on and on...

Anyhow, what I couldn't figure out is this: Why would Google risk their reputation as being synonymous with the internet for just a bit more profit? Yes, we are talking billions upon billions of profit..but wouldn't you want to keep the brand where someone thinks of the internet and they think Google?

The best I can figure is that Alphabet knows that they are going to eventually, and potentially sooner versus later, be forced to split due to US political views on monopolies. And if you know the end is coming, then this is the time to SQUEEZE as much profit as you can. Just a thought...but maybe this also explains all of these rapid release changes the last 30 days?

Another random share: I initially was focusing on all the ways that Google has been increasing profit margin through increased costs. I hadn't considered the other end of increasing margins which are lowering costs.

It costs money to index the internet based on quantity of pages. It also costs money to sort results for queries. Perhaps this is why some of us struggle with getting our content indexed. If the search volume is low, Google just doesn't bother to cater to those searches. I know there is some proof to this line of thinking...the person who introduced 'suggested searches' or type-ahead suggestions as you type your query is brilliant for many reasons - one of which is directing people to cached filtered results. Lower costs.

Anyhow, if it's true that the company is forced apart, then it could result in a big relief for webmasters.

[Juniya]

Interesting take @OldFaces. I think that is what is happening as we type.

But how would the split of Google be a big relief for webmasters?

[RedBar]

Good post OldFaces however there is a position that we webmasters tend to overlook and that is do we hear Joe Public complaining about the quality of G's results? Of course we do hear lots of complaints amongst us lot ... but the general public?

If the public really were that pi$$ed off with G's results wouldn't they try something else?

[mhansen]

If the public really were that pi$$ed off with G's results wouldn't they try something else?

It's anecdotal since it's just one website/business, but running week over comparisons on data before/after the HCU, I'm seeing +15-20% increases in visitor traffic from DDG, Bing and a few other engines since HCU rolled out. -45% referrals from Google is the normal range site wide.

[EditorialGuy]

Content created by AI can be good but it can be recognised as such by most people - at present. Result: a loss of confidence in the site and a fast bounce out.

I don't think the "fast bounce out" is necessarily a problem: If someone just wants to know the capital of North Dakota or the cost of a local bus ride in Widgetberg, it doesn't matter if the result at the top of the page is a Google answer box, a Google SGE result, or a traditional blue link to a third-party site. What matters is whether the information is accurate and easy to find. And from what I've seen so far, the information in Google's SGE results may be easy to find quickly, but it's sometimes factually incorrect. (Take something like the aforementioned cost of a local bus ride: If the bus fare goes up and Google's SGE is trained on outdated pages, the SGE result is going to be wrong.)

Your reference to "a loss of confidence in the site" brings up an interesting question, though: Does Google want to accept the blame for bad SGE "facts" from incorrect source material? With a traditional blue link, the linked site is responsible for errors. With SGE, Google is taking on that responsibility. Even if Google doesn't face liability for delivering bad results (as in the recent case where a guy died because of a Google Maps error), serving up bad information under Google's own name can't be good for the brand.

[mhansen]

@EditorialGuy

Great answer and point! Another big question has to be: What happens when millions of websites stop providing Google the content it uses to train it's AI, by means of going offline? What happens when the billions of pages on the web are no longer updated at all, due to the lack of reward (ie: financial gain from search visitors) for keeping the information up to date and accurate?

It seems to be that if Google keeps narrowing it's slim margin of referral traffic to websites down to none, the ecosystem it relies on to survive will eventually disappear.

[Juniya]

@Mhansen - Exactly.

[OldFaces]

@Juniya - I think a potential relief because once the iron grip of a monopoly google has on search is somehow manipulated (e.g. the company is split) then this change opens a number of possibilities. For example, google as a search engine would focus JUST on search quality. Another example, the multi billion dollar search industry would have the biggest player at a disadvantageous position for which it's never been which gives opportunities for others - new relationships like Bing & Apple actually happening, or search engine alternatives that follow what Google did, etc.

It's all hypothetical and my examples are not good - but we know what's happening now isn't working for webmasters. And any change at least offers possibility of relief from what we are seeing today.

@RedBar - 100% about Joe Public not complaining. That is exactly my line of thinking pre about 18 or so months ago. I always thought, well its just us webmasters that are complaining. For me at least, that has changed. Individuals are complaining. And I'm one of them. One of my many roles is a developer. Finding potential solutions has never been harder. Another non-webmaster role? I run a small business and have had a moderately successful career. This forces me to be exceptional with finances. I CANNOT use Google for answers to very specific targeted queries. E.g. if I'm searching for the impact of a 401k change to the employee versus to the employer, I'll always end up with the same canned results. As Google takes my previous queries into consideration it will often default incorrectly. Besides previous results, go incognito and I'll query multiple times different ways and still get the same sources giving me the same 'written for seo' content. Looking for an answer? Well lets discuss all the basics about what it is that you are asking, then go into a history, ask the same question ten different ways, then oh here is the canned result of an answer you already knew. The nuanced answers...the answers with perspective are all missing - either not indexed or hidden so low in results you'll never find them.

Being a webmaster has definitely changed. It's challenging getting into someone's normal daily life. Removing our role as webmaster think about how we and your friends and family interact with the internet. Chances are it's email, google, and a couple applications (not websites) like facebook, reddit, instagram, tiktok (which I still can't believe isn't banned around the world), and youtube.

The new game is create content that lives on these platforms. It's incredibly difficult to create a destination that people want to go to on the web. Sure we can build those small communities of folks who will fit you into their weekly or monthly life (visiting once or twice a month...ring a bell fellas? I think webmasterworld is one of them!), but to reach them everyday it's building content on OTHER people's platforms.

And that's what Google is doing. They are taking all of our content and putting it on their platforms. That's why I don't 'do SEO' anymore. It's a fools errand. I did it for 17 years. The game has changed where the people who have the audience are not incentivized AT ALL to send them to you.

The only answer I have is build an addictive product - one that drives the person to physically type that url into their browser. The problem? I'm coming to find that it's very hard for a small team of a handful of people to do that. You have to build a POLISHED and engaging product, you have to deal with the nature of the business (technologies that need to be updated and patched, systems operations), and you need to be an expert in Branding - everything from storytelling to boots on the ground spreading the message through all the platforms and in the physical world.

I've been working on the same product for over two decades. It requires a lot more folks to run and operate this product today then it did yesterday.

[Beachboy]

Break up Google via anti-trust action. And AI can create, I suspect, new search engines. This Google monopoly has gone on long enough.

[not2easy]

Google is currently in court over antitrust issues - read more here: [webmasterworld.com...]

As for other search engines, there are several ready for business: [webmasterworld.com...]

[OldFaces]

I have Google labs enabled and just ran into this: A search within my niche results with our domain as top SERPs, but above it is an AI text result that gives some information and then cites the second SERP for more information. Above all the SERPs is a bunch of "People also ask" which when selected gives text snippet results stolen from other websites. The Zero click search is the new name of the game. Why? Because everyone's roles are now as content creators for other platforms.

I wonder when Google will change it's description from a Search Engine to an Answer Engine? I'd seriously consider ponying up some real cash if others were serious to go legally after them for stealing content, but the legal angles when considered are intense.

On another note...what a flex move to disallow google from crawling your content in robots.txt. If we have success building our url into a destination...boy would I love to do this :)