Google Algorithm Updates - 2024 Ongoing Discussion

[BakerStreet]

What they want? They want you to straight up quit SEO and delete your website (s) from the internet. It saves them infrastructure/crawling/indexing costs and also resources spent in building complex systems to understand and combat content spam.

Our websites & free traffic they send to us is of no benefit to them and their future. Infact, I dare say that a "Perfect SERP" will do more harm to them than good. The more chaotic the SERPS (like in the last 1 year), the more money they make. The proof is here:

I saw this earlier today and i couldn't agree more (Tweet from Joe youngblood):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1825016953766818010

I don't believe the "rewarding helpful content" HCU bullshit. How does great content/SERPS make them more money? IT DOESN'T!.

The HCU was just a smoke screen for a much bigger agenda. Its why it was suddenly merged in to the core algo after the September carnage. Damage done, goodbye!:

Google is releasing the March 2024 core update and a number of spam updates (aka March 2024 spam update). Also, Google’s helpful content system has been incorporated into its overall core ranking system. - https://searchengineland.com/google...-core-update-and-multiple-spam-updates-438144

I definitely agree with your statement. I talked to a major Google Ads buyer today. He said the google rep says that they know their product is a policy violation but turn the other way about it, since they buy a few millions in ads a month. He said they're just too big to fail now, so google won't kick them out.

Its obvious Google is profit maximising right now and it's making their product a worst product. They've became what they hated. Cool. "dont be evil" my ass.

 

[CCarter]

Some thing to consider for those that aren't seeing similar improvements is @GeorgeG did the disavow method around the beginning of May.

If @Ryuzaki's theory on Googling taking one or two cycles for a core updates for the disavow to be considered and domains removed then this is right at the timing.

So ultimately people had nothing to lose in doing the disavow and potential a lot of recovery to gain.

Another example of a turn around after doing the disavow without doing the re-indexing of bad domains/URLs:

 

[tziahs]

I definitely agree with your statement. I talked to a major Google Ads buyer today. He said the google rep says that they know their product is a policy violation but turn the other way about it, since they buy a few millions in ads a month. He said they're just too big to fail now, so google won't kick them out.

Its obvious Google is profit maximising right now and it's making their product a worst product. They've became what they hated. Cool. "dont be evil" my ass.

We are essentially seeing the enshitification of Google. And with the antitrust lawsuits, we might see it get broken up, just like they did to Rockefeller's Standard Oil.

 

[GeorgeG]

Some thing to consider for those that aren't seeing similar improvements is @GeorgeG did the disavow method around the beginning of May.

If @Ryuzaki's theory on Googling taking one or two cycles for a core updates for the disavow to be considered and domains removed then this is right at the timing.

So ultimately people had nothing to lose in doing the disavow and potential a lot of recovery to gain.

Another example of a turn around after doing the disavow without doing the re-indexing of bad domains/URLs:

Yes, I did only two things:

1. changed my site structure (removed all my best articles from the menus and the footer and added them at the same level as my other articles in the hub, so it's not the typical SEO silo structure that boosts the 'best' articles)

2. I did the disawol method and recrawled all the links; my disawol file has around 32k spam domains now, lol. But I can't be sure if it is this or if Google did something internally that decided my site is not spam anymore. Who knows?

I'm not sure if this helped, but it certainly did not hurt.

 

[CCarter]

I'm not sure if this helped, but it certainly did not hurt.

It was positive momentum IMO. I posted a client that did the disavow but not the re-indexing and they just happened to see the same bump you saw at the same time. And then I notice no one else is posting similar results that didn't do the disavow method.

"Correlation isn't bla bla bla" - but we operating in a black box scenario where we can only view inputs and see the resulting outputs. If someone is seeing results without doing the disavow, please prove me wrong. It help everyone, that's the purpose of a community.

I just know there were a lot of people creating conspiracy theories on our motives for disavowing - and now they are ALL silent, either they were completely destroyed and gave up or are scurrying to start the disavow and re-indexing processing. Makes no sense is not using a tool that Google gives you to clean up your domains, but that's just my thinking. Really nothing to lose.

 

[Ryuzaki]

If @Ryuzaki's theory on Googling taking one or two cycles for a core updates for the disavow to be considered and domains removed then this is right at the timing.

To clarify, what Google says (and seems true) is that as soon as they recrawl a page you've disavowed, they apply an internal nofollow tag to the link. What I'm saying is, while that might be real time, all of that link information isn't applied until a link-related core update rolls out (and much of the link-related calculations are not real time, despite what they say).

If you don't spend the effort and money sending a ton of spam to get the URLs recrawled, you can expect Google to eventually recrawl them somewhere between 6 months and 12 months (or even a tad longer) since most will be low page-rank pages that don't get high crawling priority unless otherwise prodded by including them as links in new/updated pages.

Disavowing can't hurt. But if it was down to disavow as a singular variable / magic bullet solution, we'd be seeing endless recoveries from it and everyone would be doing it (and the desperate majority are already). I think the only true HCU recoveries we've seen can be counted on a single hand, and two of those were from big sites creating a public relations problem for Google.

We've gone over all of the zillion reasons Google would be doing this:

1. Reducing searcher satisfaction to create more searches per user (metrics up, satisfaction down, shareholders told a narrative and leave meeting happy)
2. Nuke nearly every content site unless they belong to a giant corporation, which increases their search visibility drastically (see image below), increases their revenue, which increases ad budgets, which increases Adwords revenue, all at the expense of advertisers (once again). This works because search volumes are still being supplied, and Adwords is most of the fill for most publisher-side exchanges and for direct advertisers.
3. Prepare and train users that they should be dissatisfied with search, making them more accepting of the transition from "search engine" to "answer engine."
4. Google cashing out as much as they reasonably can since they're clearly significantly behind in the AI race. Even their market-supremacy may not save them from someone else (or several someone else's) reaching the new market well before they do.
5. Using this transition period to "not be evil" and continue the asymmetric war against SEO's and affiliates that they've taken so personally over the decades.

Example from point 2, the site that came to mind which shows exactly what I'm illustrating in point 2:

Better Homes & Gardens

​

What we're seeing in terms of recoveries on Twitter and all that are people showing "300% traffic gains" which means they went from 1% of their total pre-HCU traffic to 3% of their total pre-HCU traffic. They're showing zoomed in "one month timeframe" graphs and celebrating nonsense, and getting called out.

I think the real way out of this is to get reclassified (and I've not seen this happen, it likely requires a new site) as anything other than a "content site". Anything that's not a content site survived, whether that be e-commerce or a local business. So either create one of those, turn your site into one of those, or latch on to one and offer to build them out a blog section.

And what causes the correct classification? Probably CMS footprints, the existence of carts, product pages, Google My Business profiles being actively used and checked into and reviewed, and all of this having a much more prominent placement on the website than the blog.

The reason we know this isn't even about SEO at this point is there's ALWAYS a gray area when it comes to updates. You see sites popping in and out of the "penalty" (for lack of a better word) because the algorithm can't figure out which side of the line they belong on. You don't see any of that since the HCU, because it's not about SEO and there's not an SEO solution.

It's been years now, with tens of millions of SEO's globally and nobody has figured it out. It's like trying to find the one red M&M in the jar of all blue M&M's. The joke's on us, because there's no red M&M in the jar.

 

[CCarter]

and the desperate majority are already

I don't know about that TBH. There were tons of gurus telling SEOs not to do nothing and knowing SEOs they take the lazy route and wait for a roll-back - which didn't happen. I think Google's method is simply to turn up the spam indicator dial up more and more while pretending they are doing "updates".

The problem is people are getting caught by spammers and that's not even talking about the negative SEO attacks with click-thru, that is almost never talked about, that is hurting SEOs. And there is no way to even combat that part. So at least the disavow stops "some" of the spammer's attack methods.

Here is my analogy: the beach is eroding and we got waterfront property. Now the beach eroding means over time there will be less and less traffic to our site (Google taking more percentage of the organic traffic), however in this scenario by doing the disavow we've put up Revetment Rip Rap, rocks that stop/slow down erosion. And we've gotten some of our organic traffic back because there really was spammy backlinks going to our site.

If you saw drops in traffic and has no spammy site then I can say Google got too greedy. But I haven't seen anyone post they have zero spam and got hit.

So there is erosion going on long term, but the disavow and re-indexing method helped get some of our beach back.

Will it be like it was? Absolutely not, we are never going back to the 10 blue links from 2007. But if people haven't realized and adapted to other traffic and marketing methods that have been preached since at least 2010 - they built a sandcastle and that ocean has come to take it away.

In my scenarios I tell and show clients how to increase their exposure to attention on other platforms to at least start getting additional traffic, but realistically YouTube alone is 20 years old. If people are still using a 2007 playbook and expecting 2007 results at this late date no one can help them.

 

[secretagentdad]

The scale of the neg seo and neg platform control stuff is a puzzle piece.
The fact that the dealer pocketed most of the red jelly beans and hands them out is another puzzle piece.

Face it, organic on any platform is rigged. Paid is rigged to.
AND... Not just by the platform owners, but by every 2 bit black hat that cares to be an asshole.
I don't care what kinda headline optimizing ad copy god you are.
You can't win an auction vs someone who gets 100% rebate on spend that you don't have.
You can't win an organic ranking vs a residential bot net.
You can't beat insiders that are both hooked up and allowed to play dirty.

That doesn't mean you can't slip through the cracks or just out try everyone and win anyway, but its gotten hella harder.

One thing that I'm really hung up on that isn't really related to this thread but is kinda upstream topical from a lot of recent posts; is that retargetting makes customer acquisition easier and customer retention harder. The investment community hasn't really caught onto this trend for what ever reason and there is more crapital looking to get in than ever right now. Bill by the hour for profesional services has never been a better model, even if we're technically in a biz school reccession. Getting funding or benifitting from somebody else having funding is easier than maintaining or trying to grow sales and margins.

 

[eliquid]

I definitely agree with your statement. I talked to a major Google Ads buyer today. He said the google rep says that they know their product is a policy violation but turn the other way about it, since they buy a few millions in ads a month. He said they're just too big to fail now, so google won't kick them out.

Its obvious Google is profit maximising right now and it's making their product a worst product. They've became what they hated. Cool. "dont be evil" my ass.

I just wanna add to this, so there is some light thrown on it.

Google is not purposely allowing them to have a policy violation. Google the company.

The reps are turning a blind eye to it.

Why?

The reps are people too, with jobs, families, mortgages, dreams, hopes, and careers. They get graded and evaluated on things clients do, not "don't do".

Q3 agenda might be, push them into Performance Max. Rep talks all q2 and q3 about it, puts all their time and resources into it with the client. Clients goes to pMax... rep keeps their job and maybe gets an advancement.

Client does NOT to go to pMax? That rep and the account manager ( generally you have at least 2 reps, if not 5 unless you are super small in spend ) get booted off that account and 2 new ones take over the next quarter.

With that in mind, if your rep KNOWS you are in violation and they have told you about it... but you do nothing about it. It's end up being "not their business" and at some point you WILL BE CAUGHT by the algo, manual review, or a competitor snitching on you.

I've seen this exact scenario play out about 2,418 times in my career.

The reps aren't going to run to their managers, snitch on you, and then lose a $50m+ revenue client on purpose. Their career is at stake here.

But the reps will let the algo find you, they can't and won't stop it.

The reps will let a competitor snitch on you, they can't over turn it.

They will let a manual review, triggered by a bot, find you and most times they can't stop it either.

Sure, they can push on the ad review team or another team to "speed up" an exception or approval, but if it's gross violations. It ain't gonna happen.

Yes, Ive had ads get turned off that I have been able to get my reps to turn back on, but they weren't gross violations. More like gray areas.

But gross violations I know we did? Reps can't help.

There is a difference in a rep ( or 4 ) looking the other way to not hurt their career, and the Google company looking the other way.

I managed ( and currently manage ) accounts too big to fail, like John Deere, Alibaba, Virgin, Notre Dame, MalwareBytes, TeamViewer, Onnit, etc and this is the way it is/has been on all of them.

The reps will let you know, but they aren't gonna snitch on their own client that keeps them in a job.

They know the algo, competitor, or manual review will catch up to you.. even if its 14 months later.

 

[Marelli]

What we're seeing in terms of recoveries on Twitter and all that are people showing "300% traffic gains" which means they went from 1% of their total pre-HCU traffic to 3% of their total pre-HCU traffic. They're showing zoomed in "one month timeframe" graphs and celebrating nonsense, and getting called out.

I put a lot of effort into reclassifying my site, but it didn't make any difference so far.

I think the real way out of this is to get reclassified (and I've not seen this happen, it likely requires a new site) as anything other than a "content site". Anything that's not a content site survived, whether that be e-commerce or a local business. So either create one of those, turn your site into one of those, or latch on to one and offer to build them out a blog section.

This is working very well for me. I have five new sites based on the content of the original site (eCommerce with blog section).

All these new sites are performing much better than my old site ever did, but one site with the application (using APIs) is killing it.

And what causes the correct classification? Probably CMS footprints, the existence of carts, product pages, Google My Business profiles being actively used and checked into and reviewed, and all of this having a much more prominent placement on the website than the blog.

When I was going through analytics setup for each site, the eCommerce was automatically recognized, so I guess any eComm platform is enough.

 

[illmasterj]

I put a lot of effort into reclassifying my site, but it didn't make any difference so far.
...
This is working very well for me. I have five new sites based on the content of the original site (eCommerce with blog section).

Have you redirected the content/links from your old site to relevant content on a new ecommerce site?

It would be great to learn if the "penalty" is carried over, of if the different site classification helps in this situation.

 

[BakerStreet]

I put a lot of effort into reclassifying my site, but it didn't make any difference so far.


This is working very well for me. I have five new sites based on the content of the original site (eCommerce with blog section).

All these new sites are performing much better than my old site ever did, but one site with the application (using APIs) is killing it.


When I was going through analytics setup for each site, the eCommerce was automatically recognized, so I guess any eComm platform is enough.

Great to hear. I plan on re launching a blog but instead of using wordpress I’ll use an open sourced question and answer platform. If it gets classified as UGC I’ll be thrilled.

Also, along the line of this, I can say that single page applications are ranking just fine. The above the fold part is the application and it is rendered server side. Below the fold is the main content. Keywords it targets are keywords where the search intent is looking for a platform like ours.

I’ve gotta say that ranking shit based upon platform type is fucking stupid. I feel angry that I gotta test our QA software and learn it now. I’m also upset that my Wordpress based commerce site might got demoted just because it’s on word press. Fuckers.

 

[Marelli]

Have you redirected the content/links from your old site to relevant content on a new ecommerce site?

It would be great to learn if the "penalty" is carried over, of if the different site classification helps in this situation.

No, I was thinking about it, but was afraid of the penalty carried over.

Great to hear. I plan on re launching a blog but instead of using wordpress I’ll use an open sourced question and answer platform. If it gets classified as UGC I’ll be thrilled.

That should work well if done right.

Also, along the line of this, I can say that single page applications are ranking just fine. The above the fold part is the application and it is rendered server side. Below the fold is the main content. Keywords it targets are keywords where the search intent is looking for a platform like ours.

My site is just one single application on the homepage and a blog section with standard articles. These articles are performing way above my expectations and I'm quite sure it's because of the app. How long it will last? Who knows.

I’ve gotta say that ranking shit based upon platform type is fucking stupid. I feel angry that I gotta test our QA software and learn it now. I’m also upset that my Wordpress based commerce site might got demoted just because it’s on word press. Fuckers.

I'm pretty sure that WordPress as a platform doesn't play any role here. For now, SEO is still viable for eCommerce, SaaS, or local businesses regardless of the platform used, but even that may not last forever. And as for the UGC, that may also not last forever.

 

[Trump]

It feels like the SERP is getting worse and more spammy by the day now.

Right now, my SERPs are full of general review-sites. They review anything from strollers, to supplements and VPNs. The niche specific sites, who actually tested the products, are nowhere to be seen.

I can also see it in my portfolio of sites: my general sites gained traffic, while the niche ones lost.

Most #1 positions are held by a parasite site, which have never been the case in my country before.

Have anyone tried starting over by redirecting a HCU-hit site to a new domain? I see that some of my competitors have done, and for the past 2 months they have gained a lot of their traffic back.

 

[bernard]

I barely use Google anymore, now that I don't have an active niche site.

I just ask Claude 3.5 unless I need to find a specific source.

It's not just that Claude is very good, it's also that Google is the worst I can ever remember it to be. Google simply does not give you what you want anymore, regardless if it is a commercial query or an information search. Google is trash.

 

[br4in]

You guys read this article by Moz ?
The Helpful Content Update Was Not What You Think

Thoughts ?

 

[Ryuzaki]

You guys read this article by Moz ?
The Helpful Content Update Was Not What You Think

Thoughts ?

Checked it out earlier today when I caught wind of it from YouTube.

Glad to see more people are realizing that Google names their updates like Congress names their bills. "This update is 1% about promoting helpful content and 99% about serving our own backroom insider desires... let's call it the Helpful Content Update!"

For those without the time, the conclusion is that Moz came up with another metric called Brand Authority™ and they're taking a ratio of their Domain Authority to their Brand Authority. Scores closer to 1.00 are better, meaning their backlink profile is supported by the amount of branded searches and navigational searches they receive.

If your DA:BA score is getting upwards to 2.00, that means you've got a killer backlink profile but people aren't going directly to your site (through Google... you can already see one problem with this theory - it can't take into account direct type-in, bookmark, personal shares, email, or social media traffic). That doesn't mean Google wouldn't use some data like this (they do) because they understand correlation, which is my next point.

A second problem with this theory is that correlation doesn't equal causation, not that the author doesn't realize this or point it out. The classic example is that when ice cream sales increase, so does the murder rate, therefore ice cream sales cause murder. Obviously that's not the case. Both are related to the summer time when people are more active and interactive, experiencing more social and interpersonal strife.

Brands with a lot of navigational and brand searches have massive budgets and generally spending this online and have been spending it for decades out in meatspace, with magazines, TV and radio spots, newspapers, food labeling sponsorships, and even have storefronts. You'd think that this isn't the expectation we're all meant to strive for, yet the data does appear to bear this out, even if it's correlational.

But then again, I know that blackhat SEO's try and test everything. If there's a hole in the algorithm, they will find it (if and only if the algorithm and the people behind it are being honest, which they are not right now). I can guarantee you there's been a bazajillion attempts at using microworkers, botting, social media spamming, and so forth to push branded searches since these updates the past two years. I know it because I know people that were doing it 15 years ago.

If it was the case that this was some silver bullet solution, we'd know by now, because the one thing we know about the SEO community is people can't keep their mouths shut (ego aggrandizement) and word travels fast (clout chasing).

I'd say Moz is right that branded traffic through Google correlates to doing a bunch of other things that classically make you rank well. Even if we assumed this was the factor, it might as well not be a boost and is a penalty on anyone who doesn't have it. Otherwise you can't explain 97% traffic drops for 97% of websites.

What we know for sure is that all of Google's hemming and hawing about EEAT turned out to be a waste. I'm sure they meant it and included it in the algorithm. But whatever this HCU shit is overrode all of it, and whatever it is isn't on the level. It's dishonest, whatever it is, and I don't think there's an SEO solution for it.

I've been saying it for almost 2 years now. This isn't an SEO problem. It's a "something behind the curtains is going on" problem that we aren't privvy to, though we've shared some solid theories up till now relating to AI content panic, transitioning user expectations to accept a future AI Answer Engine, looting the coffers before the whole shithouse goes down in flames by improving the biggest content-based advertisers budgets so they can kick that right back, etc. Notice which sectors of the industry this is NOT affecting and it's pretty clear there is an agenda behind it.

Anyways, the summary is that Moz read the same leaked list of algorithm factors we did, got excited about the NavBoost one the XEO's were tweeting about, made a new metric called Brand Authority™, and are promoting the metric with this blog post.

"Big sites with big budgets with big metrics also score high on our new metric, while others don't." Another correlation != causation is assuming we're still playing a fair game, let alone playing the game we think we're playing, while the guys that owned the stadium have already moved on.

 

[secretagentdad]

Are brand new domains getting a boost?

Am I smoking crack or is ranking brand new partials a thing now......

 

[bernard]

Google fired their search guy, the indian dude who ran Yahoo into the ground.

https://www.searchenginejournal.com...ew-boss-prabhakar-raghavan-steps-down/530361/

New search boss is Nick Fox, supposedly a long timer.

I think this is a good move and possibly the first warning shot against Sundar Pichai, since Pichai brought him on board, but he's been nothing but enshittification.

 

[Politico]

Google fired their search guy, the indian dude who ran Yahoo into the ground.

https://www.searchenginejournal.com...ew-boss-prabhakar-raghavan-steps-down/530361/

Lol "stepping into the newly created role of Chief Technologist" - sounds like they can't get rid of him outright, but want to limit the damage by giving him the unplugged game controller to play with.

 

[bernard]

Lol "stepping into the newly created role of Chief Technologist" - sounds like they can't get rid of him outright, but want to limit the damage by giving him the unplugged game controller to play with.

He's a direct pick from Sundar Pichai, so it makes sense, to fire him outright would make Sundar look bad.

 

[harrytwatter]

He's a direct pick from Sundar Pichai, so it makes sense, to fire him outright would make Sundar look bad.

Yeah I think this here encapsulates Google's woes perfectly; whack internal politics. Yes, every large corporation has will have some level of ego fuckery but it's usually balanced with just enough actual realist productivity to offset. The vibe coming out of Google is everyone wants to be "the man" and there aren't enough people left or in high enough positions of power to strategize and execute the work required to actually improve the product, in this instance, search itself. Wonder how long Sundar can play musical chairs before the music stops and he finds himself without a chair?

 

[secretagentdad]

The debate kids with 4.0s wanna feel smart and feed their egos.
Not work a job. lol.

What was the point of jumping through all the groomers hoops if you gotta office to slave like the rest of us,

 

[CCarter]

The debate kids with 4.0s wanna feel smart and feed their egos.
Not work a job. lol.

What was the point of jumping through all the groomers hoops if you gotta office to slave like the rest of us,

This is an interesting topic. Essentially this isn't even about Google or search engines. It's literally Eric stating that Google's done - in not so many words. They have to pivot but how can they pivot if they are worried about work life balance, hence why he is investing any and every where else.

But why would anyone even need a search engine anymore TBH? All my questions get answered mostly by ChatGPT. If I want a programming focused one i got to CoPilot, like I said a long time ago, there is going to be a point where "searching" is a thing of the past.

Even this next generation is Tiktoking stuff that previous generations Googled. They don't give a fucking about the old guard - they want answered from a source they understand - short term video.

Remember when I said video was one of the most dominate avenues of information - yet some of yall STILL are creating 2000 word blog posts instead of posting videos. It's 2024 buddy. No one is visiting your site to figure out if the answer to their question is on there - and having to waddle through pop-up ADs, display ADs, interstitial ADs, and even more.

If websites are to go forward they have to have functionality to them - they have to be unique in terms of usages like tools, instead of just a ton of words. Even something as simple as a web directory is more useful since it has unique data. eCommerce sites will last, but even then you have to be on Amazon.com at the end of the day for more brands. You have to be at places that make the consumer buying your stuff easier. But there is unique functionality behind eCommerce - selling a particular brand's products/services.

5 more years of SEO? I doubt it. Sounds like there isn't even 5 more months of this left. Things are moving extremely fast in terms of tech - I'm blow away everyday on some of the stuff that's being worked on in my building.

I think a whole lot of overseas programming farms are about to get wiped out. It'll just be senior programmers going forward for a while.

 

[bernard]

The debate kids with 4.0s wanna feel smart and feed their egos.
Not work a job. lol.

What was the point of jumping through all the groomers hoops if you gotta office to slave like the rest of us,

Eric Schmidt is a spook though, has some deep CIA connections, Julian Assange has written about it. Eric Schmidt is in many ways probably the reason Google is in its current predicament. It's more than suggested by Assange that he sold out to intelligence agencies and allowed them to use Google for their purposes.

But why would anyone even need a search engine anymore TBH? All my questions get answered mostly by ChatGPT. If I want a programming focused one i got to CoPilot, like I said a long time ago, there is going to be a point where "searching" is a thing of the past.

What I use Google now for is when I want to fact-check what ChatGPT is saying, because the AIs are trained on a lot of reddit data and similar and are all some degree of politically correct.

I also use Google when I want to find an actual opinion, not aggregate and averaged opinions. Recommendations still are something I search for, but again, I want human opinions, I don't need information. I need to see a person, decide on that person's credibility and then weigh their recommendation.

That's where I see the future of search, to find people, not websites, but Google is doing a very bad job of this, showing me Forbes instead, which I don't need at all anymore after ChatGPT.