SL London 2022 - Algorithm Updates Method and Madness
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•10 views
Often individual updates seem random or arbitrary, or just reverse the fates of the previous update. But is there a general direction over time? What kind of sites have trended upwards, and was it algorithm updates that did that for them? Google likes to say that if you make good sites and content, updates will reward you. But this isn't really true. Clearly, in the optimisation and experimentation of the Google algorithm, good sites cannot only move upwards. Sometimes they will be tested in a higher position than makes sense given their relevance, after which they must come down. In recent times, we've also assumed that changes in rankings result quickly from changes in sites. And yet, SEOs will often say that algorithm updates are rewarding them for long-past changes. Which of these narratives are true? Are they compatible?
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to SL London 2022 - Algorithm Updates Method and Madness
Similar to SL London 2022 - Algorithm Updates Method and Madness (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
SL London 2022 - Algorithm Updates Method and Madness
- 2. @THCapper Chen Wu from Shanghai, China. CC BY 2.0 Vs.
- 3. @THCapper
- 8. @THCapper
- 13. @THCapper Just make good content KC Green
- 15. @THCapper
- 19. @THCapper 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 +20 +40 +60 +80 +100 www.wsj.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19
- 20. @THCapper 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 +20 +40 +60 +80 +100 www.wsj.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20
- 21. @THCapper 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 +20 +40 +60 +80 +100 www.wsj.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20
- 22. @THCapper 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 +20 +40 +60 +80 +100 www.wsj.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20
- 23. @THCapper 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 +20 +40 +60 +80 +100 www.wsj.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21
- 24. @THCapper 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 +20 +40 +60 +80 +100 www.wsj.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21
- 25. @THCapper 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 +20 +40 +60 +80 +100 www.wsj.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21 Nov ‘21
- 26. @THCapper 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 +20 +40 +60 +80 +100 www.wsj.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21 Nov ‘21 May ‘22
- 27. @THCapper 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 +20 +40 +60 +80 +100 www.cnbc.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21 Nov ‘21 May ‘22
- 28. @THCapper -50 -100 -150 -200 0 +50 +100 +150 www.reuters.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21 Nov ‘21
- 30. @THCapper 0 -500 -1000 +500 +1000 +1500 +2000 www.nhs.uk Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21 Nov ‘21 May ‘22
- 33. @THCapper @THCapper Agenda How can this be? What actually is a core update? Who should care? Where are we (random) walking?
- 34. @THCapper @THCapper How can this be Aka the myth of winning every time
- 37. @THCapper
- 40. @THCapper Google has its own KPIs
- 41. @THCapper Google has its own KPIs https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/g oogle-tests-changes-to-its-search- algorithm-how-search-works.html
- 42. @THCapper Google has its own KPIs https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2019/08/core-updates
- 43. @THCapper Google has its own KPIs https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2019/08/core-updates
- 45. @THCapper @THCapper Deliberate confusion X Google KPIs Return of the refresh
- 46. @THCapper @THCapper The return of the refresh
- 48. @THCapper The return of the refresh https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2019/08/core-updates “Content that was impacted by one might not recover—assuming improvements have been made—until the next broad core update is released.”
- 49. @THCapper @THCapper Implications of refresh Competing sites make gradual improvements, but see no gains
- 50. @THCapper @THCapper Implications of refresh Competing sites make gradual improvements, but see no gains Core update arrives, they are suddenly rewarded
- 51. @THCapper @THCapper Implications of refresh Competing sites make gradual improvements, but see no gains Core update arrives, they are suddenly rewarded It’s a zero sum game: if they go up, you come down
- 54. @THCapper You Them Improve depth & accuracy of content
- 58. @THCapper @THCapper Deliberate confusion X Google KPIs Return of the refresh
- 59. @THCapper @THCapper Agenda How can this be? What actually is a core update? Who should care? Where are we (random) walking?
- 60. @THCapper @THCapper What is a core update?
- 62. @THCapper Specific E.g. CWV, Mobilegeddon Google is trying to change our behaviour. “X is now a ranking factor.” Often slow / non-event rollout.
- 69. @THCapper Specific E.g. CWV, Mobilegeddon Google is trying to change our behaviour. “X is now a ranking factor.” Often slow / non-event rollout.
- 70. @THCapper Vague E.g. Core updates Google is telling us to expect flux. “Just make good content.” “EAT” Specific E.g. CWV, Mobilegeddon Google is trying to change our behaviour. “X is now a ranking factor.” Often slow / non-event rollout.
- 71. @THCapper @THCapper What is a HCU?
- 72. @THCapper A splash of vagaries - like a Core update https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2022/08/helpful-content-update “How can you ensure you're creating content that will be successful with our new update? By following our long-standing advice and guidelines to create content for people, not for search engines.”
- 73. @THCapper A splash of specifics - like Page Experience https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2022/08/helpful-content-update • Are you using extensive automation to produce content on many topics? … • Does your content promise to answer a question that actually has no answer…” “
- 74. @THCapper Some food for the tinfoil hats “Does your content leave readers feeling like they need to search again to get better information from other sources?” https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2022/08/helpful-content-update https://moz.com/blog/click- based-seo-engagement- signals
- 75. @THCapper Some slight overcooking https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2022/08/helpful-content-update “Any content — not just unhelpful content — on sites determined to have relatively high amounts of unhelpful content overall is less likely to perform well in Search.”
- 76. @THCapper Some slight overcooking https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2022/08/helpful-content-update (What is a site? Google has historically denied any domain-level factors…) “Any content — not just unhelpful content — on sites determined to have relatively high amounts of unhelpful content overall is less likely to perform well in Search.”
- 77. @THCapper @THCapper So what kind of update is this?
- 79. @THCapper
- 80. @THCapper
- 81. @THCapper
- 85. @THCapper @THCapper Q: Is HCU a Core Update? A: No
- 86. @THCapper @THCapper Q: Can I safely ignore it? A: Also no
- 87. @THCapper @THCapper Agenda How can this be? What actually is a core update? Who should care? Where are we (random) walking?
- 89. @THCapper @THCapper About 90% of sites
- 90. @THCapper Sites impacted N times 0% 12% 6% 2% 4% 8% 10% 14% 16% 0 8 4 6 2 1 3 5 7 9 10 11
- 91. @THCapper Sites impacted N times 0% 12% 6% 2% 4% 8% 10% 14% 16% 0 8 4 6 2 1 3 5 7 9 10 11
- 92. @THCapper Sites impacted N times 0% 12% 6% 2% 4% 8% 10% 14% 16% 0 8 4 6 2 1 3 5 7 9 10 11
- 93. @THCapper Sites impacted N times 0% 12% 6% 2% 4% 8% 10% 14% 16% 0 8 4 6 2 1 3 5 7 9 10 11
- 94. @THCapper Sites impacted N times 0% 12% 6% 2% 4% 8% 10% 14% 16% 0 8 4 6 2 1 3 5 7 9 10 11
- 95. @THCapper Sites impacted N times 0% 12% 6% 2% 4% 8% 10% 14% 16% 0 8 4 6 2 1 3 5 7 9 10 11
- 96. @THCapper Sites impacted N times 0% 12% 6% 2% 4% 8% 10% 14% 16% 0 8 4 6 2 1 3 5 7 9 10 11 ~20%
- 97. @THCapper @THCapper About 90% of sites Not only YMYL
- 99. @THCapper @THCapper About 90% of sites Not only YMYL Most sites see both gains & losses
- 100. @THCapper Sites affected by 4+ Core Updates All positive All negative Mixed 41 37 1,520
- 101. @THCapper @THCapper Agenda How can this be? What actually is a core update? Who should care? Where are we (random) walking?
- 103. @THCapper @THCapper Remember to zoom out
- 104. @THCapper -50 -100 -150 -200 0 +50 +100 +150 www.reuters.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21 Nov ‘21
- 105. @THCapper 0 -500 -1000 +500 +1000 +1500 +2000 www.nhs.uk Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21 Nov ‘21 May ‘22
- 106. @THCapper 0 +500 +1000 +1500 +2000 www.nhs.uk Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21 Nov ‘21 May ‘22
- 108. @THCapper @THCapper WTF am I supposed to do then?
- 110. @THCapper @THCapper Don’t time the market
- 111. @THCapper @THCapper
- 112. @THCapper @THCapper Agenda How can this be? What actually is a core update? Who should care? Where are we (random) walking?
- 113. @THCapper @THCapper Agenda The return of the refresh
- 114. @THCapper -50 -100 -150 -200 0 +50 +100 +150 www.reuters.com Aug ‘18 Mar ‘19 Jun ‘19 Sep ‘19 Jan ‘20 May ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jun ‘21 Jul ‘21 Nov ‘21
- 115. @THCapper @THCapper Agenda The return of the refresh This is about Google, not about you
- 116. @THCapper Google has its own KPIs https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/g oogle-tests-changes-to-its-search- algorithm-how-search-works.html
- 117. @THCapper @THCapper Agenda The return of the refresh This is about Google, not about you Everyone hurts, sooner or later
- 118. @THCapper Sites affected by 4+ Core Updates All positive All negative Mixed 41 37 1,520
- 119. @THCapper @THCapper Agenda The return of the refresh This is about Google, not about you Everyone hurts, sooner or later You should probably make some good content
- 120. @THCapper Chen Wu from Shanghai, China. CC BY 2.0 Vs.
- 121. @THCapper Want data like this?
Editor's Notes
- This talk picks up just where Lily Ray left off at the end of yesterday’s sessions Lily talked about the September Google Algorithm updates, and what we can learn from them I want to talk about how they fit into the bigger picture of Google updates over the last several years, with some stories from the mountain of data I have access to I’d like to start by asking an important question
- Who would win in a fight? What I mean to ask, of course, is which, do you think, was bigger - Panda or Medic?
- This is the last 8 years in Moz data I think there’s a ton of fascinating stories in this chart alone, but I will highlight just a few
- You’ll note the relative quiet of the Panda and Penguin era
- The incredible amount of flux in the run up to mobile first - not during, but before. It turns out, the real mobilegeddon was the one we met along the way
- Medic, and the surprising period of quiet that followed in 2019
- Then the flux of early covid That’s just a few of the stories here Now, it can be quite hard on the heatmap to see the size of 1-day spikes, so personally I find it useful to add a line chart over the top
- Something you can see, drawn like this…
- Is that for example, in August 2022, we had a Panda 4 scale fluctuation roughly once per week. Indeed, when Mozcast was first conceived, the idea was that 70 degrees would be a typical day. {click} There were zero 70 degree days in the last two years.
- There were zero 70 degree days in the last two years.
- (This talk is primarily about) 11 core updates (including Medic)
- So that’s 11 core updates, from August 2018 to May 2022, visualised here as a timeline, from Medic to now At the time of the SearchLove slide deadline the dust had not quite settled for the September update, but it does fit into the same overall picture
- But we all know the answer to Core updates, of course - "just make good content", right?
- Well, I’ll show you the story of the Wall Street Journall - whatever your politics, this is a site that basically only publishes original, long form content, from authoritative authors
- Now I should caveat that these charts I’m about to share are using the Mozcast keyword set - so it may not be representative of every keyword the site ranked for. In fact almost certainly it isn’t, because that would heavily index on their branded terms. But it’s still representative of how it did within these keywords, which are around 10k head terms in the US. And of course I’m only looking at sites which rank for a fair chunk of those keywords, for the sake of fair comparison.
- But still - after this first Core update, which the industry called Medic, you can imagine them not feeling so well
- Here’s the second update, not so bad.
- Looking better, SEO department perhaps lauding themselves internally right now
- Oh dear
- Okay
- Okay
- Nice
- Nice
- Very nice
- Whoops
- Right So this is a very turbulent ride, for this site, with all of its good content
- Here’s another - CNBC
- And here’s ROYTERS So again - this is not general performance, it’s just within the Mozcast corpus. But the point remains, these are real keywords, 10,000 of them, for which these sites had a very rocky ride. These are original reporting news sites. Some of the most credible in the world. Almost nobody makes more “good content” than these guys.
- So, you might be thinking, well it’s not just good content, it’s EAT Perhaps there were topics that the WSJ or Royters, were not really qualified to comment on, especially during a pandemic
- Try explaining that to the British National Health Service, any time before May this year Maybe Google felt a British site was not appropriate in the US admidst a pandemic, but there’s not much up as there is down. And, they’re still valid answers to the questions being asked. So the point remains. It feels like these sites are on a random walk
- This is what I mean by a random walk This is a term more commonly found in finance, referring to a series that just randomly moves up or down every day, and it can be the best way to model things like currency exchange. This is also sometimes called Brownian noise, hence the title of this deck. Not to be confused with Brown noise, which you might have been thinking of. This is what the sites that we just looked at appear to be doing, right? But it’s not very satisfying as SEOs to think that algorithm updates are just a random movement each time
- So are algorithm updates genuinely random? That’s what I’m going to spend the rest of this talk exploring
- Via these 4 questions Firstly, how can it be that authoritative sites such as the ones I just showed you, are having such a rocky time I want to consider a few possible explanations
- Also known as, the myth of winning every time So I’d like to show you a few possible explanations
- Firstly, perhaps Google is doing this on purpose It’s attractive sometimes to think that Google is just fucking with us
- Google have good reason not to do this
- And besides, if Google wanted to fuck with us, they have many better ways of doing that than randomly deflating authoritative sites (quote)
- This is similar to what I was saying earlier about how Google can’t afford to present bad results
- Google isn’t changing its results to punish or reward you, they’re doing it to hit their own KPIs
- This is from those famous non purveyors of good content, we saw earlier, CNBC I’ve referenced this interview from 2018 before because it’s an interesting insight into how Google engineers are thinking about algorithm updates They’re testing against certain searcher satisfaction metrics But they key bit there is *testing*, so there is likely to be some back and forth
- Indeed Google kind of say this themselves
- Indeed Google kind of say this themselves
- So, that feels like it could be part of the story at least
- The other big component here is something that Google admits to, but that has kind of fallen out of discussion among SEOs
- The notion of an algorithm refresh
- So this is a terminology that most would say is no longer relevant to how Google works - if you search for google data refreshes, you’ll find mostly stuff from 2012 and earlier
- This could be in a scenario where you make no changes at all, or one in which you make many. Point remains.
- Remember that you never have any idea whether a result in position 2 is just behind, or miles behind, position 1
- So that could be another component
- Okay, so maybe we’ve got some theories there for how the fluctuation might work
- In my view, algorithm updates come in two flavours
- Most obvious examples are HTTPS, mobilegeddon, page experience update Google is communicating very clearly what they want us to change
- Incidentally, these updates are a bluff. I talked about this with the page experience update - they can’t actually roll it out if the industry doesn’t react in time.
- On their original rollout day of May 2021, they delayed, I’d suggest, simply because they’d end up punishing too many sites Initially, very few sites had CruX data
- By the actual rollout, that had improved dramatically - from 29 to 38%
- As had the performance of those pages - from 30 to 36%
- When you multiply out these two increases - from 29 to 38%, and from 31 to 36%, it’s a big increase in how many URLs would be eligible for a boost So basically it was a bluff - they waited until websites were ready for it
- Meanwhile having said initially that they’d punish URLs which failed any threshold, they ended up punishing only those that failed all 3, further easing the blow
- So that’s what specific updates tend to be like these days. Obviously, it wasn’t necessarily so back with Panda and Penguin, but then again, they weren’t generally announced wit so much warning and literature.
- Core updates on the other hand, are much vaguer
- So, that leaves us with an obvious question about this new flavour of update from the start of September A Helpful Content Update
- It has some features of a Core update - such as this incredibly banal advice
- But also mentions some specific targeted behaviours, like the Page Experience update
- There’s also this curious allusion to a popularly believed user signal ranking factor
- And this bold claim, a bit like the page experience update saying it’d punish sites which failed any threshold It’s hard to see how following this through wouldn’t represent an act of self sabotage, I’d say this is a bluff
- And then also, more food for the increasingly sensible looking conspiracists
- It’s attractive sometimes to think that Google is just fucking with us This is unlikely, as Danny points out here If they wanted to do that, there’s better ways
- It’s attractive sometimes to think that Google is just fucking with us This is unlikely, as Danny points out here If they wanted to do that, there’s better ways
- It’s attractive sometimes to think that Google is just fucking with us This is unlikely, as Danny points out here If they wanted to do that, there’s better ways
- Tis is a bit like how people react to certain other updates (But the lack of pre-announcement doesn’t) So it’s a bit of both
- This is before and after the Helpful Content update - after is the darker blue bars Now, I’m sure some sites were affected, but broadly speaking, it was not enough to move the needle Most examples we could find turned out to be false positives
- For example WhiteHouse.gov, on the day they published the student loan relief plan This is really important to keep in mind with any kind of algorithm update winners and losers analysis - normally it’s full of people who have better explanations for why they went up or down Site migrations, sudden virality, that kind of thing
- But this brings us onto - if Core Updates are vague, and the Helpful Content update did nothing in particular, who should care about all this?
- Well, about 20% of sites should expect to be firmly in the crosshairs for Core Updates.
- What I mean by that is that only 10% of sites were impacted by none of the 11 updates
- This chart shows, of the 11 core updates before this month, how many updates had affected how many sites
- This chart shows, of the 11 core updates before this month, how many updates had affected how many sites
- This chart shows, of the 11 core updates before this month, how many updates had affected how many sites
- This chart shows, of the 11 core updates before this month, how many updates had affected how many sites
- But for sites that are affected by *most* updates, you’re only looking at about 20%. Of course, you can take that stat either way.
- But for sites that are affected by *most* updates, you’re only looking at about 20%. Of course, you can take that stat either way. And, incredibly, 0 were hit by all updates
- The second point you quickly notice is that Core updates are not only about YMYL, or only about medical verticals
- These are the most affected sites in the Mozcast dataset, by the 11 core updates on aggregate You’ll notice, I think, that this is not a list of medical sites
- This sort of analysis of single updates can really miss the whole story
- This sort of analysis of single updates can really miss the whole story
- This sort of analysis of single updates can really miss the whole story
- Even a bluff is short term
- This is from those famous non purveyors of good content, we saw earlier, CNBC I’ve referenced this interview from 2018 before because it’s an interesting insight into how Google engineers are thinking about algorithm updates They’re testing against certain searcher satisfaction metrics But they key bit there is *testing*, so there is likely to be some back and forth
- A medic would easily take out a Panda
- If you’re interested in some of the share of voice charts I’ve been sharing today, come down to the STAT booth and talk to myself or Duncan about it later