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

[chaumi]

Thanks to a member here for sending this to me before it went mainstream (and it has, pretty quickly)...

https://blog.google/products/search/...ple-in-search/


If what they say here is really the intent...and it works...it's possible that this could have some very interesting impacts. Not necessarily positive ones in some cases - some should probably be afraid, maybe very very afraid. We will see.

[connd]

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).

[newcustomeroffer]

Interesting, sounds like one that will need a few iterations and refinements - hold onto your hats!

[newcustomeroffer]

The comments on the GSC twitter announcement are mainly focussed on AI generated content it would seem: https://twitter.com/googlesearchc/st...96241212301312

[chaumi]

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).

The Telegraph's (BetterCollective's????) 'best online casino sites uk' page is weak...


But I bet it's making a ton of money. And the 'problem' is...everyday UK punters will trust it, so G trust it. And, it answers the searcher's query, all be it in pretty much the most basic form possible. But if 'basic' satisfies search intent, then whoever is using basic is playing at the 'right' level.

Yes, maybe this update will reward others that do it 'better'. And as a result, push some of those we know only too well down a bit.

[chaumi]

The comments on the GSC twitter announcement are mainly focussed on AI generated content it would seem: https://twitter.com/googlesearchc/st...96241212301312

Yeah, you could interpret it that way. But I'm not aware of anything purely AI-generated ranking in SERPs, so don't see that as a problem they needed to solve (ofc, it may just be that good no one - except a robot - can tell).

(unedited/uncorrected) AI is (often, but not exclusively) used mainly for spam links and building authority and other associations. I'd suggest that once a piece of (good) AI content is edited/enhanced by a human editor, then it's not really AI anymore. If anyone uses AI to generate, and it ends up being valuable to readers, why would G want to remove it. They use AI themselves.

"more original, helpful content written by people, for people, rather than content made primarily for search engine traffic."

This quote paints a different picture to me. It definitely isn't just AI content that falls into the bracket of 'made primarily for search engine traffic'. (unless G really doesn't understand what's been going on for years, but that's heavily doubtable)

It's possible that if they now have improved ability, it's over-optimized content that could get pushed down. And optimal-level content up.

[PaulEchere]

Going by the wording here, it does seem to perhaps be beneficial especially for content that is truly helpful and informative rather that one made only to please the search engine.
Although you would still need to keep in mind where the road paved with good intentions may actually lead to.

[universal4]

I took a quick scan through the twitter feed posted about. The comment I saw so far that gave me the best laugh was

So before, there was no concern whether content was helpful or not?

That feed is full of a lot of speculation that clearly no one knows much about, and you can tell how many seowannabe's are commenting as if they have authority on a subject that has yet to be truly defined LOL.

Rick
Universal4

[Lee1]

I'm looking forward to the update. Should be fun.

[baldidiot]

If it does what it says it's going to do, then this could be a good thing. But this is google so who knows what'll actually happen...

[xecutable]

Ironic that an AI will decide what's AI generated content is. It's even more ironic that this shouldn't impact many but will have a huge impact, and it's not a Panda but will have the Panda effect. Wish we lived in a world where there are 5-10-20 search engines equally competitive, so nobody's business depends on what this one might do or screw up. Cause at the end of the day make no mistake, every online business is at the mercy of Google.

[chaumi]

Ironic that an AI will decide what's AI generated content is.

Perceptive quote of the month!!

However...and I don't know how true this is...I've seen a few indications recently that the manual reviewers might have been busier than usual. If that is true, then logically it would need to have been a highly targeted exercise. Maybe specific niches, first couple of pages for specific tier keywords, higher level keyword/topic/subject groupings, etc.

Also, if true, it doesn't take a leap of the imagination to conclude that there's some relation.

Doable?? Don't know. But would seem so with careful planning and appropriate manpower. Costly, though.

Remember what this is all ultimately about...keep the searcher on Google for as long as possible so they click on an ad and make G money. They will know what the trade-off is between spending to 'improve' and the potential resulting returns.

With that in mind, watch out for things happening that edge further towards that goal.

[chaumi]

Game on...maybe....

https://developers.google.com/search...content-update

[universal4]

I have scanned quite a few threads discussing this update.
Searchenginewatch, SEOroundtable, searchenginejournal, theverge, searchengineland and all of them are full of debate centered around how AI will be used to determine whether content is written by AI.

Danny Sullivan and a few others have suggested that a lot of manual human input has gone into trying to make the AI more perceptive, and how at the beginning there may well be a continued effort by humans to try and improve it.

I think many of us will agree, if it does do a good job of determining what is AI generated content and flags it, then it might be a good update. If it flags a lot of false positives, then that would be a bad thing.

Also, best I could tell, this is already on the works for many weeks, and had been compiling the stats and data they planned on using, they just had not yet turned the switch on implementing it...yet.

There are a number of people shouting from the rooftops about how bad something like this is, and how machine generated content is so much better etc etc... and most of them are seo;s and content writers that do not write their own content.

I am on the fence a bit, and like anything google, only time will tell.

Rick
Universal4

[pokeraussie]

Hopefully this update will promote pages with helpful content instead of ranking pages purely on authority. It frustrates me that sites like Wikipedia always obtain good rankings for desirable keywords when it's not the best page for the search query.

[Randy Ray]

As Hyman Roth said, this is the business we've chosen.

Good luck to everyone during the update over the next couple of weeks.

[TopLiveCasinos]

Yes, hopefully this stops UK news sites from allowing gambling companies to use Go links in their articles and then suddenly ranking at the top for competitive gambling KWs...

[wonderpunter]

Yes, hopefully this stops UK news sites from allowing gambling companies to use Go links in their articles and then suddenly ranking at the top for competitive gambling KWs...

I would hope so but i doubt it as it's helpful even though unrelated, junk cookie cutter text but hand written? would be good if they used the same algo at youtube to get rid of all the bot clickbait vidoes that just throw up repated text with funky music

[chaumi]

Yes, hopefully this stops UK news sites from allowing gambling companies to use Go links in their articles and then suddenly ranking at the top for competitive gambling KWs...

It's not just UK, go search 'best online casinos' from a US IP. Almost unbelievable! Only OUSC and maybe one other that I can see can even make a dent right now.

[universal4]

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

Sitewide Algorithm
This is a sitewide algorithm, meaning if the machine learning algorithm determines that a relatively high amount of your content is unsatisfying or unhelpful content, that may lead to a site being flagged by this classifier and thus your whole site will be impacted.

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

Rick
Universal4