Google Algorithm Updates - 2023 Ongoing Discussion
- Thread starter Ryuzaki
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
- Messages
- 252
- Likes
- 357
- Degree
- 1
Any ideas about what this update may be going after?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 493
- Likes
- 872
- Degree
- 2
In YMYL they're almost always targeting the same thing - people with thin budgets and sites who give up when the algorithm hits them. Which makes it very hard for smaller builders like us without VC funding and a couple mill to burn through to get us past the latest 'dip'.
Most people here would have given up on that site in 2015 when it got hit. Then again in 2018 might have paused to 'see if it recovers' then again in 2019/20 when it's taking a pasting. It's in the highly lucrative drug treatment space, owned by one of the big players. The original owners sold out for life changing money during the second upswing, never stopping work on the site at any point.
As you can see below the new owners are similarly just growing the site constantly with new links even though the organic performance hasn't fully recovered and definitely never was going to if they just orphaned it and waited without spending (AHREFS doesn't go back fully as far as SEMRush above):
In YMYL niches unfortunately 75% drawdowns aren't even uncommon - huge sites with massive brands often see insane volatility. But the thing you always see is the deep pockets that can keep working often save sites - many of the competition in 2015 just binned sites off/stopped working on them - I don't remember the names of enough now to go back and find graphs but basically the ones who stopped didn't join in the 2016 boomtime.
It's one of those niches you really have to have the stomach for - if spending X and seeing Y growth consistently is your game it's going to be tough to make it to that mid 2010s exit the original owner had here. Some of what look like really small dips in these long range graphs now too were HUGE dips at the time in the short term graph - it just looks nice zoomed out.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2019
- Messages
- 164
- Likes
- 258
- Degree
- 1
bernard
BuSo Pro
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 2,586
- Likes
- 2,298
- Degree
- 6
Ok, they just put the subtweet in a tweet of its own.
Would be more fun if some intern had gotten cocky.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 493
- Likes
- 872
- Degree
- 2
One thing I'd be fairly sure of is if your linkbuilding agency is mainly shipping links on Dutka's blacklist - https://shanedutka.com/blacklist/ then they only have access to paid links that Google mostly knows about. Those are all the ones that float around on emails etc. Having the odd one on that list where it's a real natural site that has just got unlucky that some spammer got one link on them once and put them on their email list probably won't hurt but I've seen link reports from big players where 80%+ (one even was 100% for 3 months in a row) were on Dutka's list. Google definitely has more time to work on this than Shane...
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 76
- Likes
- 239
- Degree
- 0
Lol checked that list, I rank so much shit buying links on MANY of those sites. Have been for years. Not talking churn and burn either.
Scared money don't make money.
Carry on...
Edit: I meant to say, those sites are terrible, never place links on them, instant Google ban. Please be safe bros.
jstover77
King of Turd Mountain
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2015
- Messages
- 122
- Likes
- 179
- Degree
- 1
I didn't go through the list fully, but I saw a bunch of pubs I use as parasites (for rep repair) and they still rank incredibly well. Not sure how he qualifies these websites as "blacklisted".
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 493
- Likes
- 872
- Degree
- 2
They're just basically all the obvious paid links sites that if you collect all the publicly (or via spammy emails from cheap sellers) available paid links.
I agree with the above two comments that there are good sites caught up on there that I'd still build links on but 80% of them are garbage. Of course if you know what you're doing and selected the best sites from that list and built links from them you'd do great but that's not what happens when you use one of the crappy link vendors that sells whatever the cheapest thing they can find on lists like these that cost them $50 and sell them to you for $200+ without them having done any work finding the site or trying to get you the best ones. You get most of your links from the crappy 80% and that's when you don't see any performance.
But you're both absolutely right - I shouldn't talk in absolutes in SEO - nothing is as simple as this is bad and this is good.
I would be concerned about any link agency that ships most stuff from this list though - I've seen enough reports from supposedly big vendors at the 80-100% hit rate on their reports (and their client is sending me their report because they've had a year with crappy results) and they aren't selling the better ones often just $50 garbage anyone could just go and get - especially now lists like this are so public. You have to wonder about a link agency with such a small pool of links if they actually have any idea how to get new sites or if they just wait to see ones other people are buying and add them to their list - something you could all do for free and just go pay the webmaster $50 if you wanted to buy the lower end ones Shane has exposed here.
So if nothing else from a saving money/being efficient perspective if you see one on this list you want just write to it yourself and ask for the price, then negotiate HARD, save yourself money vs some agency that just has this list anyway (directly or by building it the same way Shane did) and is marking it up another $150 for the priviledge of building you that easy-to-get link. Outsource the links you can't get easily and it'll make your budget go further - a VA can do the job of most of the 100% Dutka list shipping agencies for you at 5% of the markup.
harrytwatter
just be nice ffs
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2017
- Messages
- 295
- Likes
- 210
- Degree
- 1
Had to lol a bit...
"And what's DA and PA? Are those good things?"
Big G laying it on a bit thick there.. sounding a lot like an undercover PC Principal trying to buy some dusty ass weed from a local small-time pot dealer...
"And what's DA and PA? Are those good things?"
Big G laying it on a bit thick there.. sounding a lot like an undercover PC Principal trying to buy some dusty ass weed from a local small-time pot dealer...
bernard
BuSo Pro
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 2,586
- Likes
- 2,298
- Degree
- 6
Some people on Twitter say it targeted parasitic SEO.
You know, the people buying advertorials on Outlookindia.com and ranking their offers there.
If it actually did target parasitic SEO then that would likely be good for niche bloggers, because the reason why outlookindia is ranking is because it gets a premium "EEAT" score.
Doesn't seem like the needle moved much though. I seem to have jumped up for some keywords, but it's bouncing and showing different results with different browsers and ranktrackers, so hard to tell.
Politico
Boot Camp
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
- Messages
- 140
- Likes
- 231
- Degree
- 1
It maybe kinda sorta targeted some parasite SEO, but if you check a couple serps parasites are still doing pretty well.
But it definitely targeted review sites!
Here's a fun chart of the average ranking position with all queries containing the word "review:"
But it definitely targeted review sites!
Here's a fun chart of the average ranking position with all queries containing the word "review:"
bernard
BuSo Pro
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 2,586
- Likes
- 2,298
- Degree
- 6
It maybe kinda sorta targeted some parasite SEO, but if you check a couple serps parasites are still doing pretty well.
But it definitely targeted review sites!
Here's a fun chart of the average ranking position with all queries containing the word "review:"
Ouch.
However, that isn't necessarily targeting review sites, but it could be targeting sites that are low quality in other ways, which many review sites are. I'm always surprised at how bad many review sites are, that are ranking decently.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 6,221
- Likes
- 13,095
- Degree
- 9
Core Updates aren't going to be targeting any specific one thing. They're generally a re-weighting of the "core" algorithmic variables and Google (while being silly) probably isn't silly enough to roll that out in addition to side algorithms (Penguin, Panda, HCU, Reviews Updates) because it would confound the data to the point they couldn't get useful readings on what they've done, in terms of isolating - if not variables - at least systems of variables.
The problem is that EEAT is what's been being focused on for at least 2 years which is a part of the core system even if it's a side algo only being updated in lock step with the core update. And this definitely does things like @Politico shared where it affects Review posts ("experience" in actually using and handling products).
In other news, now that the dust settled I'd say it whacked my case study site for a good 15%, and all this damage has dropped this site below $100k a year, which led to Mediavine saying they were booting it out of the Mediavine Pro program, which meant another 10% hit on top of everything else. What a world!
The problem is that EEAT is what's been being focused on for at least 2 years which is a part of the core system even if it's a side algo only being updated in lock step with the core update. And this definitely does things like @Politico shared where it affects Review posts ("experience" in actually using and handling products).
In other news, now that the dust settled I'd say it whacked my case study site for a good 15%, and all this damage has dropped this site below $100k a year, which led to Mediavine saying they were booting it out of the Mediavine Pro program, which meant another 10% hit on top of everything else. What a world!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2023
- Messages
- 76
- Likes
- 103
- Degree
- 0
The product reviews update Google launched in Feb, 2022, seemed to heavily hit sites that were only focusing on review articles instead of actually providing value to the readers/audience, which I'm sure could be translated as not having enough informational posts to supplicate the affiliate posts, thus leading to the 70/30 or 80/20 affiliate-to-informational ratio some SEOs/Marketers developed.
My guess is that Google still seems to be doubling down on that. Because, I don't "get" how Google understands whether or not the person has used/handled the product themselves. Like, how do we prove that? On YouTube, it's easy to weed out because you can actually see the person with the product, narrating over it, etc. But on a blog post, unless Google has some super high-tech spy gear I don't understand how they figure out whether or not a person has actually used the product.
Personally, I felt that the difference between people who've written about something they've bought and used than the ones who didn't seems to show on its own. But, if you have EEAT in a certain niche, regardless of whether or not you used the product, you can write a relevant product review post.
Like, I know quite a lot about graphic design, but I haven't used anything other than Adobe for designing. I have experience in the niche so I could get an idea of what Affinity Design, another graphic design software suite like Adobe, is like in the sense that I could write a proper review on it and help customers make a decision on that - despite not using the software myself and just doing some extra research (viewing other reviews, looking at other articles, analyzing product demos and manufacturer sites etc.)
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 6,221
- Likes
- 13,095
- Degree
- 9
September 2023 Helpful Content System Update
Source: https://searchengineland.com/google-september-2023-helpful-content-system-update-rolling-out-431978
The last Helpful Content update was December 2022. This current one should take "about 2 weeks to roll out". It's said to be ushing out an improved classifier.
Two new things added to the documentation is that if you host 3rd-party content (syndication or sponsored posts) and you let them get indexed, they will be considered in this calculation, so noindex is appropriate where needed.
Another item to help you decide if you're producing search-engine-first content (which is a bad thing) is "Are you changing the date of pages to make them seem fresh when the content has not substantially changed?"
Source: https://searchengineland.com/google-september-2023-helpful-content-system-update-rolling-out-431978
The last Helpful Content update was December 2022. This current one should take "about 2 weeks to roll out". It's said to be ushing out an improved classifier.
Two new things added to the documentation is that if you host 3rd-party content (syndication or sponsored posts) and you let them get indexed, they will be considered in this calculation, so noindex is appropriate where needed.
Another item to help you decide if you're producing search-engine-first content (which is a bad thing) is "Are you changing the date of pages to make them seem fresh when the content has not substantially changed?"
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
- Messages
- 80
- Likes
- 64
- Degree
- 0
My issue with this is that every time I add a new post, I go back to other posts and interlink.
When I do this, the date of the post automatically gets updated, which I'm sure is how the majority of us have things set up.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 6,221
- Likes
- 13,095
- Degree
- 9
Same. I have schema set up that shows the original publish date and the last updated date. It'd be nice if Google clarified which they meant. You would think that they're talking about people changing the original publish dates. Because even if you were to review an article for accuracy and completion, find it's good... isn't that technically enough cause to update the last updated date? Or last "quality assurance" date except we don't have one of those. Who knows. Google not being clear is a tale as old as time.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
- Messages
- 252
- Likes
- 357
- Degree
- 1
These onslaughts of algorithm updates really make it difficult for people to be making a permanent livelihood out of this.
It is still my belief that everyone needs to diversify away from site building as soon as possible...
You need to divert a percentage of your monthly earnings towards other types of income generating assets (stocks, real estate, etc).
I'm not saying to get out of the game. Stay in it but use it to build something else.
It is still my belief that everyone needs to diversify away from site building as soon as possible...
You need to divert a percentage of your monthly earnings towards other types of income generating assets (stocks, real estate, etc).
I'm not saying to get out of the game. Stay in it but use it to build something else.
bernard
BuSo Pro
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 2,586
- Likes
- 2,298
- Degree
- 6
It would probably be best to invest and diversify in areas where you can use your experience in online marketing.
I'll repeat myself, but we had our guy here, who got banned who were a partner in a real estate and made some good bank doing SEO. Of course in that case he got screwed for some legal stuff, but consider that.
If you can muster the sociability to network with local business owners over a longer period, then these deals are there for the taking. Rank and rent is dead, because a lot of it is local, and that's against google guidelines, but if you have trust, then you can convince a talented local biz, who doesn't have good online presence, to handle all their online marketing in return for a cut of all business. Think leads.
It's easier said than done, but I know it can be done for sure, as I've done it myself. It's MUCH easier than trying to rank and rent and many tradespeople are happy with such a setup, because they often understand the value of a customer, but don't want to deal with monthly hourly billing and being hounded by this and that. And now you have PPC and that's also profitable in most cases. Just tell them, ok Joe, your new client is going to cost $100, I'll take care of everything else.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
- Messages
- 31
- Likes
- 52
- Degree
- 0
That ratio is a myth. You can rank a site with nearly all review content, white-hat, with caveats:
- You'll probably need some good info content for linkbuilding purposes, and you'll need to be successful at linkbuilding
- Your reviews have to actually be good
As you mentioned you can verify product use if you publish a YouTube video. It's possible to do the same with images. But on a higher level, if your review video is tanking in the algorithm and isn't sending traffic to your post, chances are you haven't touched the product.
I never understood why people believed this ratio thing. Focus on what you're good at. If you add 100k words of mid info content it's going to make your site look worse, not better.
I think they're talking about sites like Future's changing their date published every few days.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
- Messages
- 252
- Likes
- 357
- Degree
- 1
In regards to changing the publishing dates...
My thoughts are:
Now the question is probably, "How much of an alteration do you need to make if you don't want to get dinged?"
I believe it should be fine as long as an actual change was made regardless of how small it is.
Acceptable changes:
By definition it is an alteration and thus it is an update.
Where I think they'll penalize you is if you simply change the date without any edits. I mean that's pretty easy to implement and easy to spot...
If A = B and if date A =/= date B
My thoughts are:
- Changing the published date is probably bad.
- Changing the last updated date is probably okay.
- However, that is only if you make an actual alteration.
- If you do not make any changes, changing the last updated date is probably bad.
Now the question is probably, "How much of an alteration do you need to make if you don't want to get dinged?"
I believe it should be fine as long as an actual change was made regardless of how small it is.
Acceptable changes:
- Correcting spelling errors.
- Adding an internal link.
- Moving container sections around.
- Rewording a sentence.
By definition it is an alteration and thus it is an update.
Where I think they'll penalize you is if you simply change the date without any edits. I mean that's pretty easy to implement and easy to spot...
If A = B and if date A =/= date B
- Status