The Internet Marketing Driver

  • GSQi Home
  • About Glenn Gabe
  • SEO Services
    • Algorithm Update Recovery
    • Technical SEO Audits
    • Website Redesigns and Site Migrations
    • SEO Training
  • Blog
    • Web Stories
  • Contact GSQi

Archives for May 2018

The March 7 and April 16 2018 Google Algorithm Updates – Relevance, quality, reverse-Panda, and clues from the past [Part 1]

May 16, 2018 By Glenn Gabe Leave a Comment

The April 16, 2018 Google Algorithm Update

Update: This is part one of two in my series about the March 7 and April 16, 2018 Google algorithm updates. I published part two and that post can be found here.

On March 7, 2018 Google rolled out one of the biggest algorithm updates I’ve seen in a long time, which I called The Brackets Update. It reminded me of Phantom 2 from May of 2015 on several levels. That’s when I uncovered a massive update that was ultimately confirmed by Google (after I was interviewed by CNBC). Google explained that they implemented a change with how they assess quality. And that statement was incredibly important, since Google is always trying to surface the highest-quality content for users. It was the first of many quality updates that had a significant impact globally.

Now with the March 7, 2018 update, Google also confirmed the rollout. And it was a big update. Many sites were impacted globally (across categories and countries). There was a lot of volatility when the update first rolled out, and then more with subsequent tremors. For example, there was a boatload of movement on March 14 with some sites reversing and others seeing more impact in the same direction (continuing to surge or drop). It was one of the most volatile few weeks I’ve ever seen.

Well, only a few weeks after the 3/14 tremor, we had yet another broad core ranking update that rolled out. It was on April 16, and there was significant movement across sites, categories, and countries. In this two-part series, I’ll first cover what we know about the algorithm update, Google’s comments about relevancy, a history of Panda and why that could be important, The Celebrity Update from December of 2017, and more. And in part two I cover what I’ve seen with the April 16 update, including examples of surges and drops, the connection to the March 7 update, and my thoughts about what you can do as a site owner or SEO.

A quick disclaimer:
I do not work for Google. I do not have access to Google’s core ranking algorithm, bamboo, Panda, or scary Phantoms. I’m just explaining what I’ve seen after analyzing many sites impacted by algorithm updates over time, and how that compares with what I’m seeing with the latest Google updates. I have access to a lot of data across sites, categories, and countries, while also having many sites reach out to me for help after seeing movement from these updates. Nobody knows exactly what Google is refining, other than the search engineers themselves.

Examples of Movement – Big swings.
First, I’ll provide some examples of the movement I saw when the April 16 update rolled out. I have access to a large dataset of sites, and many have had quality issues in the past, so I can often see a lot of movement when big updates roll out. In addition, there are always a number of companies that reach out to me for help after seeing impact from a new update. And I also track certain niche categories very closely. Based on that data, here are some examples of impact:

Gains:

Surge During April 16 2018 Google Update

Increase During April 16 2018 Update

Surge During April 2018 Google Update

Drops:

Drop During April 16 2018 Google Algorithm Update

Drop during April 16 2018 Google update

Drop During April 2018 Google Update

Connection to the March 7, 2018 Update
With the April 16, 2018 update, I saw several connections to the March 7, 2018 update. For example, there were some sites that initially dropped on 3/7 that either dropped more, or they reversed. I also saw websites that initially surged on 3/7, that surged more, or reversed and dropped back down. Danny Sullivan confirmed the update by explaining it was the same type of broad update released on March 7 which was benefiting sites that were previously under-rewarded. More about that point soon.

Google confirms April 16 2018 update.

Based on Danny’s comment about the update benefiting pages that were being under-rewarded, it was interesting to see some sites reverse quickly with the 4/16 update (after seeing initial impact on 3/7). I guess they were only being rewarded for a few weeks, right? :) We know Google’s algorithms aren’t perfect, and there were clearly adjustments made after the March 7 rollout. I’ve seen this before with other major algorithm updates by the way. More about reversals later in the post.

It’s also interesting that Danny said “pages” when these updates clearly look like site-level adjustments. For example, many sites dropped or surged significantly. That’s not the effect of just certain pages being rewarded… that sure looks like a site-level adjustment. I’ll cover this when I explain John Mueller’s comments in the next section.

Relevance and site-level impact:
In a webmaster hangout video, John Mueller was asked a question about the March 7 update. He didn’t say too much about the algorithm update (which is normal), but he did explain that the update was more about relevance. When commenting about why certain sites dropped, John said, “maybe the sites aren’t seen as relevant in the overall picture of the web anymore”. And that sure backs a site-level adjustment. For example, that’s basically Google explaining that your site is not as relevant anymore for the queries at hand.

Here is the video of John explaining this (at 11:33 in the video):

Now, I don’t believe the entire update was about relevance (on both 3/7 and 4/16). Actually, it almost can’t be based on the data I have access to and some of the hits and surges I have analyzed. You can read my post about the March 7 update to learn more about all of the quality problems I saw across sites negatively impacted. I also cover sites that surged and the work they have been doing from a quality standpoint. So, there were either multiple updates pushed at once, or both algorithm updates focused on more than just relevance. That’s a good segue to my next section.

Reverse-Panda? Relevance, and the difference between “Medieval Panda” and “Current Panda”
First, when Google says anything about relevance, my Panda ears perk up. I’ve covered medieval Panda versus the core ranking Panda many times in my posts about algorithm updates. It’s an important point that I think many people miss.

Medieval Panda (pre-Panda 4.2) ate everything in its path. If your site was deemed low-quality, you better run for the hills and hope you don’t end up stuck in a bamboo forest. It wasn’t uncommon for sites to see a drop of 60%+ after medieval Panda rolled through. And the worst hit I saw was from a site that dropped 91% overnight. Yes, 91%.

Here’s an example of a severe medieval Panda hit:

Medieval Panda Hit

But that was medieval Panda. Over the years, Panda went through a transformation and we saw the last old-school update on 10/24/14, which I picked up after Panda 4.1 rolled out. Then we saw nothing until July of 2015 with Panda 4.2. And it didn’t take long to see something was very different with our cute, black and white furry friend. For example, Google explained it was now rolling out slowly and would continually roam the web. That’s very different from rolling out on one day and having massive impact in a very short period of time.

Then in January of 2016, we found out that Panda became part of Google’s core ranking algorithm. For anyone tracking Panda closely, you could clearly see the changes. Sites weren’t getting hammered anymore, there were slight changes over time and Panda seemed to focus more on relevance than hammering sites that were low-quality. And yes, read that bolded word again. I said relevance.

Actually, Google’s Gary Illyes confirmed some of what we were seeing. During an interview with Bruce Clay, Gary explained that Panda wasn’t viewed internally as a “penalty”. It was merely trying to adjust sites that were overly-prominent for queries they shouldn’t rank for. Therefore, the days of dropping by 60% due to Panda were gone (replaced by what we called “quality updates”), and Panda became more of a relevance adjuster.

Here is a video of Gary explaining Panda adjustments:

The reason I took you through that Panda history lesson was because we might want to think of the new updates as “reverse-Panda”. Sites are benefitting since they are more relevant than other sites (which of course means that sites that are being leapfrogged are deemed less relevant).

And by the way, since Panda is part of Google core ranking algorithm, the changes that rolled out on March 7 (and now April 16) could have been a mixture of changes, which could have included Panda tweaks. We haven’t received any updates about Panda in a long time, yet we know it went through a major transformation when it became part of Google’s core ranking algorithm.

It’s hard to say for sure what exactly is going on, but don’t forget about Panda when Google talks about “relevance”. It may not be as nasty as medieval Panda, but it’s still there… and could very well be multiple versions ahead of the last Panda we knew.

Testing Celebrities: Remember The Celebrity Update on December 15, 2017?
On December 15, 2017, many official celebrity websites tanked. I wrote a post detailing my findings soon after the update rolled out. You could see those sites drop for queries directly related to the celebrity. The search visibility changes were significant, as you can see below.

The official site for Tom Cruise plummets:

Charlie Sheen Drops During Celebrity Update
Ditto for Charlie Sheen’s official site:

Tom Cruise Drops During Celebrity Update

After sharing my post and what happened, Google’s Danny Sullivan said he would pass that on to the search engineers (or search quality team). And that he did…

SEO Inception – A swarm of quality raters to my site?
After Danny shared my post internally, I had a flurry of visits from what looked like quality raters to my blog post. There were 26 visits from raterlabs.com all to my celebrity post. That’s the first time I’ve seen that happen and it was a surreal moment. I’ve mentioned the Quality Rater Guidelines (QRG) many times in the past, but I’ve never been involved in any way. Now my blog post was being read by quality raters after the celebrity update rolled out. Cool, but very Inception-like. :)

Quality raters visit GSQi.com.

But guess what happened after that? Nothing changed. The sites that were impacted remained impacted. Therefore, the engineers were basically saying the update worked the way they wanted it to.

As I mentioned in my post about the update, many of those official celebrity sites were terrible. They were thin, didn’t contain updated information, and were basically placeholders for the celebrity on the web. On the flip side, there were other sites providing much more in-depth information, like IMDB, Wikipedia, and more. Those sites jumped up in rankings while the official celebrity sites tanked.

When asked about the update, Google’s John Mueller explained that just because those were the official celebrity websites didn’t mean that’s what users always wanted. For example, users may be searching for more in-depth information that other sites could provide. He was basically saying that the celeb sites weren’t as relevant for certain queries (which is true). So, we had a relevance sighting with that update.

Here’s the video of John explaining this (at 13:55 in the video):

Looking back now, I’m wondering if that was the start of these newer updates like we saw on March 7 and April 16. Maybe Google started by testing this new approach with specific categories. I don’t know if that’s the case, but that update looked like a smaller version of what we are seeing now. It’s just an interesting side note.

Celebrity Recovery:
If you’re wondering if any celebrity websites recovered, they did. For example, Justin Timberlake redesigned his site in late December and bounced back in January. The new site contained much stronger content and included information about his new tour. Since Justin’s tour was coming up, and his site seemed to focus on that, it could have been seen by Google’s algos as more relevant for those queries now. And if that update was like the broader updates we are seeing now, it could provide some clues as to what you can do to bounce back.

Justin Timberlake Recovers From The Celebrity Update:
Justin Timberlake recovers from Celebrity Update.

But Hold On! There Were Quality Problems Too…
We know the March 7 and April 16 updates looked like site-level updates. Both updates did not seem like they were adjusting one url on a site that was deemed more relevant now. We saw adjustments that had some websites surging and others falling significantly.

When I was analyzing sites that saw both positive and negative movement due to the 3/7 and 4/16 updates, you could clearly see a number of the sites dropping WERE RELEVANT. Not only relevant, they were some of the most relevant sites on the web for the subject matter. And when checking them out in greater detail, there were a number of quality issues present. Again, you can read my post about the 3/7 update to learn about all of the quality issues I surfaced when analyzing sites that were negatively impacted.

Now, I know John said relevance, but the quality problems were hard to ignore. And if quality issues were a factor, then the updates wouldn’t be focused entirely on relevance, but about quality as well. And “quality” can mean several things, which I’ve covered heavily in my previous posts about major algorithm updates.

For example, I’ve covered the usual suspects many times when writing about quality updates. From thin content to low quality content to low quality user engagement to UX barriers to aggressive and disruptive advertising, these are the problems I overwhelmingly saw while analyzing sites negatively impacted by quality updates in the past. The following slide is from my SMX West presentation about major algorithm updates.

The Usual Suspects - Low Quality

And the March 7 and April 16 updates were no different. Sure, there were some sites being leapfrogged where the content wasn’t as relevant as other sites that were rising, but I also saw the most powerful sites in a niche drop. And you cannot tell me they aren’t relevant to the subject matter. That’s crazy.

For example, there were some behemoths in health, nutrition, ecommerce, entertainment, news, recipes, automotive, and more that were leapfrogged by others in the niche. It’s an important point I wanted to make to ensure that site owners focus on the big picture, which includes quality.

A quick note about links:
I know some people thought that links could be a significant part of the April 16 update. That’s always hard to tell, but after analyzing many sites impacted by the March and April updates, I don’t believe this was the case. Some of the most powerful sites link-wise were leapfrogged during the March 7 and April 16 updates. For example, key players in each niche with millions of links (including extremely powerful links from trusted sites), were impacted. So in my opinion, I don’t believe that links had a major role here.

Example of a site with a powerful link profile negatively impacted by the April 16 update:

Link profile of site hit by April 16 update.

Relevance Reversals – A number of reversals from March 7 – How’s that for a change in “relevance”?
While analyzing the 4/16 update, I found a number of sites that reversed (or partially reversed) from the 3/7 update. Danny tweeted that the April 16 update was another broad update just like the March 7 update and you could clearly see the connection with the sites that reversed.

Now, tremors are nothing new. Google’s John Mueller explained this to me back during medieval Panda days. That’s when Google can follow larger updates with smaller tweaks to ensure the results are as strong as possible. That means the 4/16 update could have been adjustments to the algorithm update rolled out on 3/7. For example, check out the screenshots below:

Reversal from the March 8 update.

Reversal on April 16 2018

Reversal on April 16 2018

And regarding “relevance”, I guess those sites that surged back were less relevant for just a few weeks, and then became relevant again? Or sites that surged and then dropped back down had their “15 minutes of relevance fame” and then lost it? :) Again, I believe these updates were NOT just about relevance. As you’ll see in part two of my series covering examples of impact, I saw many of the usual suspects rear their ugly heads, including low-quality content, low quality user experience, aggressive and deceptive ads, UX barriers, and more.

But Glenn, Danny says to do nothing…
No, that’s not what he said. He explained there’s no quick fix you can implement to jump back up. That’s different than doing nothing. He also explained to “remain focused on building great content” and “over time it may be that your content rises relevant to others”. So don’t sit there and do nothing if you’ve seen a drop in rankings and you’ve been leapfrogged. IMPROVE YOUR SITE, CONTENT, UX, etc.  I cover more about what I think you can do in part two of this series.

Google's recommendation after March and April 2018 updates.

Summary: An important algorithm change that caused significant impact:
Whenever Google makes a key change to its core ranking algorithm, you can see significant impact globally. And that’s clearly what happened with the March 7 and April 16 updates. And just like with other big updates, we’ve seen some sites reverse course. Since Google’s core ranking algorithm is a black box, it’s hard to tell exactly what changed, but it sure seemed like we had clues leading up to initial rollout (which I covered in my post above).

One thing is for sure, you don’t want to be on the wrong side of these updates. Whether it’s relevance, quality, or a mixture of both, the impact to rankings and traffic is clear. In part two of my series, I take a closer look at the impact from the April 16 update, including what I think site owners and SEOs can do if their sites have been leapfrogged. You should read that post to learn more. Good luck.

GG

 

Filed Under: algorithm-updates, google, seo

More hreflang magic tricks revealed: Google can select one country hreflang url to index from across multiple urls in the same language

May 7, 2018 By Glenn Gabe Leave a Comment

hreflang magic tricks revealed

In my last post, I explained a fascinating hreflang situation where Google could surface urls that were canonicalized (and not indexed) in the SERPs by country. For example, if you had multiple urls in the same language targeting different countries, and those urls were all canonicalized to one url (let’s say the /us/ version), then Google could still surface the other urls in the SERPs for users by country. So, a user in the UK could still see the UK url, even if it wasn’t indexed. You can read my post to learn more, but it was an interesting scenario (that I saw happening with a large-scale client of mine).

A slightly different take – Multiple hreflang tags in the same language across countries (with self-referencing canonicals):
Well, the magic show isn’t done yet. In this post, I’ll cover yet another interesting hreflang situation that might be causing headaches out in the field. This trick involves multiple hreflang urls all in the same language again, but this time they properly contain self-referencing canonical tags.

For example, let’s say you had multiple Arabic urls targeting various countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. Each page contains a cluster of hreflang tags, one for each language and country combination. And they are each self-canonicalized so they can surface in the SERPs for the right country.

Based on that setup, you would think Google would index each url and then surface the correct one by language and country combination. But that doesn’t always happen. Actually, there are times that you can see the wrong country urls surfaced. It can be frustrating for site owners when traffic is being driven to the wrong country pages, especially when hreflang is properly set up. And if you read my last post, then you know this goes against what Google is doing there! In that situation, the urls were all canonicalized (and not indexed), yet Google was still surfacing them in the right country. Confusing, to say the least.

In my example from above, people searching from Egypt or Saudi Arabia might be seeing the url from Lebanon instead, and then they would visit the wrong section of the site. I’ve seen this situation several times, and I’ve heard from other SEOs seeing the same. And when this happens on a large-scale site, it can impact thousands or users per day (or more).

URLs in the same language targeting different countries.

Clarity from Google’s John Mueller – another magic trick up Google’s sleeve
Once again, John Mueller to the rescue. In a recent webmaster hangout video, John explained that this can happen. When Google sees the same content in the same language across different hreflang urls, it can choose to index just one. To clarify, it would be an exact duplicate of the content. And then it would just show that one url in the SERPs for users (even if those users were from a different country).

To be honest, that doesn’t make much sense to me. I think it would make much more sense to take the canonical hint, index each url, and then surface the right one in the SERPs based on language and country combination. But that’s not always how it works. Again, I have seen this in action.

The solution:
In the video, John explained that you can handle the situation in a few ways. First, John said it’s smart to provide some type of banner on the page for users that are from another country (or if you can detect they speak another language). You could detect their location and then provide a helpful banner that gets them to the right country page. Again, I think Google should take the canonical hint and do this for us, but that’s clearly not happening right now all the time.

Second, John recommended that each page should be as unique as possible. By doing that, then Google might index each of the urls in the cluster, even when they are in the same language. So, if it’s a complete duplicate page by language (but targeting another country), Google could pick one url to index. But if there’s unique content on each page, then Google could still index those other urls and then surface the right one based on language and country combination.

Here is video of John explaining this:

How to check if Google is folding urls together (and which is the canonical url):
John also expalind that you if you want to check to see which url is being selected as the canonical, then you can run a quick info command. For example, entering info:https://www.domain.com/some-url.html would reveal which url Google has selected as the canonical. In addition, you can check the new index coverage reporting in GSC and check the excluded category. You might see many urls listed in the “Submitted url not selected as canonical” report.

Excluded hreflang urls in GSC.

Summary – The hreflang magic show, coming to a SERP near you.
I’ll be honest, I had no idea Google had so many hreflang magic tricks. Targeting multiple language and country combinations via hreflang can definitely be a confusing topic for site owners and SEOs. But adding special cases like this can make it even more complex. I know the two cases I’ve written about were confusing for everyone involved. But I’m glad John was able to clear up each situation via video. In closing, if you have multiple urls in the same language, but they are targeting different countries, just be aware of the various hreflang tricks that Google has up its sleeve.

Now you see it, now you don’t. Poof.

GG

 

Filed Under: google, seo

Connect with Glenn Gabe today!

Latest Blog Posts

  • How to compare hourly sessions in Google Analytics 4 to track the impact from major Google algorithm updates (like broad core updates)
  • It’s all in the (site) name: 9 tips for troubleshooting why your site name isn’t showing up properly in the Google search results
  • Google Explore – The sneaky mobile content feed that’s displacing rankings in mobile search and could be eating clicks and impressions
  • Bing Chat in the Edge Sidebar – An AI companion that can summarize articles, provide additional information, and even generate new content as you browse the web
  • The Google “Code Red” That Triggered Thousands of “Code Reds” at Publishers: Bard, Bing Chat, And The Potential Impact of AI in the Search Results
  • Continuous Scroll And The GSC Void: Did The Launch Of Continuous Scroll In Google’s Desktop Search Results Impact Impressions And Clicks? [Study]
  • How to analyze the impact of continuous scroll in Google’s desktop search results using Analytics Edge and the GSC API
  • Percent Human: A list of tools for detecting lower-quality AI content
  • True Destination – Demystifying the confusing, but often accurate, true destination url for redirects in Google Search Console’s coverage reporting
  • Google’s September 2022 Broad Core Product Reviews Update (BCPRU) – The complexity and confusion when major algorithm updates overlap

Web Stories

  • Google’s December 2021 Product Reviews Update – Key Findings
  • Google’s April 2021 Product Reviews Update – Key Points For Site Owners and Affiliate Marketers
  • Google’s New Page Experience Signal
  • Google’s Disqus Indexing Bug
  • Learn more about Web Stories developed by Glenn Gabe

Archives

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • GSQi Home
  • About Glenn Gabe
  • SEO Services
  • Blog
  • Contact GSQi
Copyright © 2023 G-Squared Interactive LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. Are you ok with the site using cookies? You can opt-out at a later time if you wish. Cookie settings ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. You can read our privacy policy for more information.
Cookie Consent