the next hard-hitting update?...Named the Helpful Content Update.........

[chaumi]

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-...ate-33949.html


I think this is key if true, and could have far reaching impact if there are false positives.

Rick
Universal4

And within that...'unsatisfying or unhelpful'.

Yes, it would seem there's a likely very high chance of false positives or negatives

It's a robot deciding (in the vast majority of cases) whether either of those applies. There are obvious cases where one or both will, but there are many many millions of questionable cases, and logic says plenty of 'grey' pages could get tarred that don't actually deserve it (or even get a medal when they don't).

And we have plenty of historical evidence that - while the robot is clever - it's also heavily flawed at times.

The question might be, 'has it been improved to be ready to do whatever deeds are to be done, and do those appropriately and effectively?'

Common sense says most likely not, but as usual, no one will know what's been going on in the background, and how many of the last few year's worth of updates were leading to this point.

[simon]

Have in mind that the quality content will never be replaced by AI, it can be just writted by AI ) I think the AI will just make the copywrites work 3x much easyer, I see this as natural process that will push the really good authors ahead!

Good lucky to everyone!

[casionmark]

The update is rolling out from today:

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-...ive-33988.html

[pokeraussie]

Not seeing any changes yet. It will be a nervous 24 hours.

[universal4]

Not seeing any changes yet. It will be a nervous 24 hours.

This sounds like the kind of update that will shake things up for far longer then 24 hours, with many "adjustments" over the course of time.

Those that are affected by it at first may get shifted back into position, and those not affected at first may get shifted around later.

Rick
Universal4

[Jdamise]

I think the update is going to be run over the course of a couple of weeks, most likely starting with US, UK and Australia. The thing I have found critical reading in the update intent is how this update relates to websites not just webpages. Although they are not using the word penalty in any of their wording; by the looks of things websites with AI content, or SEO based not content - not human engagement content - will suffer ranking displacements.
I am guessing that G will hammer some of the spammy display sites - just my opinion.

Either way, going to be a rocky couple of weeks for many. How many times have you logged into Search Console already

[xecutable]

This sounds like the kind of update that will shake things up for far longer then 24 hours, with many "adjustments" over the course of time.

Those that are affected by it at first may get shifted back into position, and those not affected at first may get shifted around later.

Rick
Universal4

Yup, up to 14 days. Even if you go up during this period, after the completion and application of all sorts of filters and whatnot, you can go back to where you were or worse. Seeing the feedback on previous updates from various webmasters on seroundtable, that's like always the case.

[wonderpunter]

usually the first 24-48 hours is when you see the biggets impact.. but so far nothing at all, at least in our industry

[chaumi]

It's worth remembering here as well...

Assuming something does actually happen in the way they are implying...

Then it's not just about what may happen to already-published sites/pages...

But will apply to everything published from this point on.

In theory...

New site with weak pages/not in fully operational state....bin/not even indexed (and I think that's partially true already)
Weak pages added to existing site...bin/not even indexed, and potentially whole site goes down too

If it happens, the 'modus operandi' from now on for anything added is pretty obvious ( depending on the results/extent of the shakeout, it may even ultimately stop the churn and burn brigades).

And, I'd suggest, even if nothing happens this time around, the ground rules have been laid. Publish any sort of weak rubbish, and it's asking for trouble.

[newcustomeroffer]

How many times have you logged into Search Console already

Noticed quite a bit of volatility on impressions over the past few days on GSC - Weds 24th circa 80% above average then back down the following day

[econfox]

Hopefully this reduces the amount of "authority" sites being able to throw up rubbish listicle articles and ranking for top terms (telegraph.co.uk in the UK for example).

There are several newspapers in the US selling "sponsored content" articles. That are just spam articles that rank high because Google has newspapers as highly ranked content.

I just don't understand why it is OK to buy "sponsored content" but it is wrong to buy backlinks?

[chaumi]

There are several newspapers in the US selling "sponsored content" articles. That are just spam articles that rank high because Google has newspapers as highly ranked content.

I just don't understand why it is OK to buy "sponsored content" but it is wrong to buy backlinks?

Because content is content, and backlinks (when bought with the intent of improving rankings) are manipulations. Until now, there was not even a sniff that pretty much any form of 'unique' content was 'wrong'.

But the 'newspapers' might get hit, since one of the 'targets' mentioned is something along the lines of 'webpages with content that doesn't relate to the publishers core business.' With the argument being that a page titled 'best online casinos' is not news.

It's hard to see it actually happening, though. For that to happen, you'd have to be thinking Forbes and Bloomberg would be on the list, and that's near inconceivable.

But when your judger is the law and is above the law, they can do anything they want. Right!?

[econfox]

Because content is content, and backlinks (when bought with the intent of improving rankings) are manipulations. Until now, there was not even a sniff that pretty much any form of 'unique' content was 'wrong'.

But the 'newspapers' might get hit, since one of the 'targets' mentioned is something along the lines of 'webpages with content that doesn't relate to the publishers core business.' With the argument being that a page titled 'best online casinos' is not news.

It's hard to see it actually happening, though. For that to happen, you'd have to be thinking Forbes and Bloomberg would be on the list, and that's near inconceivable.

But when your judger is the law and is above the law, they can do anything they want. Right!?

Both are dependent on using another domains authority to rank content higher. If the "sponsored content" was of high enough quality to be on page one of SERPs then there would be no need to pay a newspaper to post it.

[PROFRBcom]

Both are dependent on using another domains authority to rank content higher. If the "sponsored content" was of high enough quality to be on page one of SERPs then there would be no need to pay a newspaper to post it.

There are several newspapers in the US selling "sponsored content" articles. That are just spam articles that rank high because Google has newspapers as highly ranked content.

I just don't understand why it is OK to buy "sponsored content" but it is wrong to buy backlinks?

Indeed, I have seen a lot more "newspapers" with gambling related crap-articles ranking top 3 lately. The PR type websites have faded but there are still many in the top 10. Not dominating like before but slowly being replaced by these "newspaper" articles. In other words they were using parasitical marketing techniques last year, early 2022, on PR News sites, and now they've swapped to newspapers.

It is the same type of abuse however.

And I guarantee, they are making tens of millions of dollars doing this shyte. Some of the KW they have gotten top 3 rankings for are things we could only dream of ranking for, and they got there, with one well placed, bought and paid for, crappy content article.

I have gone through some of these ranking articles, and they contain out of date information as well. So it's even worse than it seems on the surface.

I hope they all get nuked.

But ofc, that is unlikely to happen.

[wonderpunter]

I doubt the algo will ignore previous posted garbage, doesn't make sense for a crawl then mesaure the site using different dates

It's worth remembering here as well...

Assuming something does actually happen in the way they are implying...

Then it's not just about what may happen to already-published sites/pages...

But will apply to everything published from this point on.

In theory...

New site with weak pages/not in fully operational state....bin/not even indexed (and I think that's partially true already)
Weak pages added to existing site...bin/not even indexed, and potentially whole site goes down too

If it happens, the 'modus operandi' from now on for anything added is pretty obvious ( depending on the results/extent of the shakeout, it may even ultimately stop the churn and burn brigades).

And, I'd suggest, even if nothing happens this time around, the ground rules have been laid. Publish any sort of weak rubbish, and it's asking for trouble.

[PaulEchere]

I'm also noticing quite a bit of volatility, not with clicks tho, but with impressions. Impressions seem to be making daily + / - 10K (or even more) jumps.

[chaumi]

If you do get hit (or think you did)....

Feedback on Google's recent helpful content update


As you'd expect, it does state that no direct action will be taken.

But if enough of these went in, you'd have to think some sort of notice might be taken. And it may be the only recourse other than some form of drastic content review exercise.

************

Edit PS As far as I'm aware, there are no reports so far of any drastic changes anywhere. I'd suggest the few reports and experiences of fluctuations in impressions may not be related.

But note...the very fact that this feedback form has been released suggests that Google fully expect there to be notable impacts. The timing of its release may be a pointer.

[xecutable]

If you do get hit (or think you did)....

Feedback on Google's recent helpful content update


As you'd expect, it does state that no direct action will be taken.

But if enough of these went in, you'd have to think some sort of notice might be taken. And it may be the only recourse other than some form of drastic content review exercise.

************

Edit PS As far as I'm aware, there are no reports so far of any drastic changes anywhere. I'd suggest the few reports and experiences of fluctuations in impressions may not be related.

But note...the very fact that this feedback form has been released suggests that Google fully expect there to be notable impacts. The timing of its release may be a pointer.

Can't happen, I'll tell you why. Imagine there are 20 of us here who are the best of the best in terms of being webmasters and we have superb websites. We are all ranked 1-20, naturally those from 11-20 won't be happy they report there's a problem with the algo. We are all biased after all we either think we deserve a higher place, or want a higher place.

So 50% of your webmasters aren't happy and Google starts investigating. No matter how they tweak it 50% of the webmasters will be unhappy because there are only 10 spots on page 1. No spread this on a wider scale where only 10 webmasters will ever be happy, in some cases less with companies owning few page 1 websites.

Every niche will have 99% reports of a flaw in the algo. Feedback won't do anything. Google won't do anything, they are a business that cares about their company not yours mine or anyones.

And while I may not approve those who cheat the algo, I certainly understand them, because at the end of the day, I'm not in their shoes and I have no idea who they have to support and what kind of lifestyle they have to keep up.

As for this update, nothing BIG has been noticed by anyone anywhere.

[chaumi]

All true. But.....

You could say that if they didn't want feedback, they wouldn't have given a way to provide it (unless it's just a warped form of PR exercise, but when have they ever needed to care about that)

My take is they are genuinely interested in getting feedback that'll help them improve longer term (maybe even shorter - medium, who knows). At a very wild guess, it'll be some form of AI that scans all of the feedback and highlights common threads for deeper (maybe manual) investigation.

But clearly, that's right. Individual cases will most likely largely be ignored, for the reasons stated and more.

I'd like to think that the majority of those that do get hit (and genuinely know what they're doing) are not delusional and will know (or heavily suspect) the reason why, and not go searching for reasons other than knowing they have to improve what they have.

Hopefully, it will be the many likely grey areas that'll get flagged from form submissions and hence become the subject of some critical analysis and ultimate review.

Wishful thinking? Yes, likely.

[baldidiot]

I suspect they're more interested in where it's made the search results either spammy or not answer the query, rather than individual webmasters who are upset because they've lot rankings.

For example, if the search for "Main Street doctors surgery" brings up a load of listings sites and spam but not the actual doctors, they want to know about that.