I was able to speak with Google about the Helpful Content Update, which introduces a new site-wide ranking signal that’s targeting “unhelpful content” (which is content primarily created to rank in search engines versus help users). Keep your arms and legs in the vehicle at all times, the next few weeks in Google Land are going to be interesting.

Updated August 25, 2022
The rollout has begun! Google posted in its ranking updates documentation that the Helpful Content Update started rolling out on 8/25/22.

Updated August 24, 2022
Included information about how the Helpful Content Update will impact multilingual sites.

Updated: August 22, 2022
I included new information about noindexing content and how subdomains could be treated when the Helpful Content Update rolls out.

—————————–

Big news in the SEO world. Google is releasing a new, site-wide ranking signal that targets “unhelpful content”. I was able to speak with Google’s Danny Sullivan about the ranking signal and will provide that information, including my thoughts about the update, below. Note, Google also announced that a new Product Reviews Update will be rolling out in the coming weeks. I’ll cover more about that separately (soon).

Here’s a quick table of contents if you want to jump around to different sections:

• The Helpful Content Update (HCU) – An introduction.
• Site-wide ranking signal that’s always running.
• The signal is weighted.
• How to recover from the Helpful Content Update.
• More bullets and guidance from Google.
• Machine learning and MUM.
• AI-generated content.
• Dueling machine learning systems.
• Types of content targeted by the Helpful Content Update.
• Multilingual sites and English searches only.

The Helpful Content Update (HCU) – An Introduction
First, the name of the update is the “Helpful Content Update”, which I’ll refer to as the HCU for short, and it will start rolling out next week. It will initially focus on English content globally (like the Product Reviews Update). Like broad core updates and the Product Reviews Update, the Helpful Content Update can take up two weeks to fully roll out. Naming-wise, I was personally hoping for a black and white animal like Orca, Zebra, or Dalmatian, to follow in Panda and Penguin’s footsteps, but that’s clearly not the direction Google wanted to go. Also, Google told Search Engine Land that the update will only impact Search for now (and not Discover or other surfaces).

Update: The Helpful Content Update started rolling out on August 25, 2022. Google posted in its ranking updates documentation explaining the HCU started rolling out on 8/25/22 and that it can take up to two weeks to fully roll out. If it’s like broad core updates and the Product Reviews Update, we should start seeing impact within a few days (like within the first 48 hours).

The new, site-wide ranking signal targets content that’s created for search engines first and not users. Google is looking to tackle what it considers “unhelpful content” versus content that’s created to truly help users. Their post talks about “search engine-first” content creation versus “people-first”. For example, pages that simply aggregate content from other sources without providing some unique value or insights.

Google said it wants to “reward content where visitors feel they’ve had a satisfying experience, while content that doesn’t meet a visitor’s expectations won’t perform as well”. In one of its two posts about the update, Google provided an example of someone searching for movie information and finding a page ranking well that just aggregated reviews from other sites without providing unique perspectives. With the new site-wide signal at play, you should find more content with unique information.

Google explained that this new signal is joining the Product Reviews Update in a broader effort to reduce low quality content from the search results. And if this reminds you of medieval Panda after reading about the new signal, you’re definitely not alone. It’s one of the first things I thought of after hearing about it. But it’s different… read on.

A site-wide ranking signal that’s always running:
Yes, you heard that correctly. It’s a site-wide signal. Over the years, I have heavily covered that Google has site-level quality algorithms that can impact an entire site (versus the notion that every url fends for itself rankings-wise). Panda and Penguin of the past were site-level algorithms. And there are other site-level algorithms currently at play with broad core updates.

Here are just a few tweets of mine with links to videos from Google’s John Mueller about this (there were many tweets to choose from):

Google on the importance of overall site quality -> Via @johnmu: For some things, we look at site quality *overall*. So, if you have significant portions that are low quality, then that can drag down your original, higher quality content too: https://t.co/MHrZN1P56Q pic.twitter.com/BrkGTMdCIX

— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) January 2, 2022

Site-level: Have one url that's high quality, but the site overall isn't? Via @johnmu There are some signals we can't reliably collect on a page-per-page basis. We need to have a better understanding of the *site overall*. Quality falls into that category: https://t.co/tkTRxmFupG pic.twitter.com/YnNG3ip5jl

— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) June 12, 2021

During our call, Google’s Danny Sullivan explained to me that the new ranking signal is a classifier. If your site is deemed to have a lot of what Google considers “unhelpful content”, then the site will be classified that way (and that can negatively impact your rankings at a site-level).

In Google’s post about the signal it explains, “Our systems automatically identify content that seems to have little value, low-added value or is otherwise not particularly helpful to those doing searches.”

Also, and this is super important to understand, Google explains that “ANY CONTENT – not just unhelpful content – on sites determined to have relatively high amounts of search engine-first content is less likely to perform well in Search (assuming there is other content on the web that’s better to display)”. So this site-wide ranking signal can impact rankings across your entire site, including higher quality content. That’s why  Google recommends removing unhelpful content in order to get your site reclassified (which can lead to recovery).

Update: Information about subdomains:
Google’s Danny Sullivan was asked about how subdomains would be treated and he explained that Google “tends to see subdomains apart from root domains, but it can also depend on many factors.” In other words, they tend to see subdomains as separate. It’s important to know that Google has algorithms that work on the hostname-level and the Helpful Content Update could be doing the same. For example, medieval Panda worked on a hostname-level. Google’s Gary Illyes explained that in the past. We’ll know much more once the update rolls out, but this is good to know.

Here is Danny’s tweet about subdomains:

We tend to see subdomains apart from root domains but it can also depend on many factors.

— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) August 18, 2022

The Signal Is Weighted: Impact Could Vary
I asked if the new site-wide ranking signal was binary (yes/no) or if there were grades of scoring. Google explained that the signal is weighted (and they explained that in their blog post as well). They explained that “sites with a lot of unhelpful content will find the signal stronger for them”. So, if you have a lot of unhelpful content on the site, like content created for search engines over humans, then you could see a stronger effect from the Helpful Content Update (HCU).

Recovery from the Helpful Content Update. How long does it take?
If your site is impacted by the new ranking signal, then you will need to work hard to improve your content over time. Google explained you cannot recover quickly. Instead, it can take months for the classification to change (as Google sees less “unhelpful content” on your site).

Google explained, “Sites identified by this update may find the signal applied to them over a period of months. Our classifier for this update runs continuously, allowing it to monitor newly-launched sites and existing ones. As it determines that the unhelpful content has not returned in the long-term, the classification will no longer apply.”

So, like I explain to clients about broad core updates, do not push short-term changes, only to revert back to old ways. Keep the right changes in place over the long-term. Don’t cherry pick changes… tackle “unhelpful content” aggressively. That’s how you can see recovery from the Helpful Content Update.

Update: Noindexing versus 404ing content:
Google’s John Mueller was asked on Twitter if noindexing “unhelpful content” is ok or if the urls need to be truly removed (404 or 410). John explained that noindexing content is fine (since the urls are removed from the index). But, and I agree, users can still find that content… and if the content is lower quality and “unhelpful”, then why even keep it? So you can noindex, but in my opinion, 404ing it is a better approach. You can also boost that content and improve it. But that could be a lot of work if there are many “search engine-first” pages on the site.

Here is John’s tweet about noindexing content:

noindex is fine. Consider if all we see are good signals for your site, that's a good sign. That said, as a user I'd feel kinda weird, you land on a good page, and the rest is bad? Why would you do that? Short-term noindex is a good way to start, but usually it's not a few pages.

— ⛰ johnmu of switzerland ⛰ (@JohnMu) August 18, 2022

Also, the site-wide ranking signal will be continuously running (similar to how the Page Experience Signal works). It will not require a periodic refresh. Instead, your site’s classification can change over time as Google detects more, or less, “unhelpful content” on your site (which again, is content created for search engines over people). It’s important to understand that sites won’t recover overnight, or even in a few weeks, but you can see recovery after several months (if you have removed enough unhelpful content).

Also, we have no idea how powerful the signal is. I asked Danny Sullivan about this during our call and he said if a site is impacted by the Helpful Content Update, then that impact should be visible (meaning the site should see an impact to rankings). Personally, I get the feeling the signal will be much more powerful than the Page Experience Signal (which is a lightweight ranking factor at best). I’ll be covering the impact heavily once the rollout is complete.

MY OPINION: Is this a foreshadowing of how more site-level signals will be handled in the future?
OK, so we know that Google could always decouple algorithms from broad core updates and run them separately. I have covered that in several posts about broad core updates. Well, this is just my opinion, but imagine if Google started decoupling algorithms from broad core updates and running them continually like this new signal.

That could be a big shift in how those algorithms impact sites (and throughout the year versus just during broad core updates). To clarify, Google did not say anything about this when I spoke with them (so it’s totally my point of view), but hearing about this new ranking signal targeting low quality content, and how it works, had me thinking about broad core updates and how they work. I guess time will tell if that starts happening.

More bullets points for site owners, More guidance from Google:
From medieval Panda to broad core updates to the Product Reviews Update, Google has provided a number of bullets to help site owners evaluate their own content (and sites overall). And in my opinion, those bullets are extremely important for site owners and SEOs to objectively review. Heck, I’ve even explained how to use those bullets to craft user studies through the lens of broad core updates.

Well, we now have a new set of bullets based on the new site-wide ranking signal. And, Google said the bullets shouldn’t surprise anyone.  

First, Google explained that if you answer “yes” to the following questions, then you’re probably on the right track with using a people-first approach to content creation:

• Do you have an existing or intended audience for your business or site that would find the content useful if they came directly to you? 
• Does your content clearly demonstrate first-hand expertise and a depth of knowledge (for example, expertise that comes from having actually used a product or service, or visiting a place)?
• Does your site have a primary purpose or focus?
• After reading your content, will someone leave feeling they’ve learned enough about a topic to help achieve their goal?
• Will someone reading your content leave feeling like they’ve had a satisfying experience?
• Are you keeping in mind our guidance for core updates and for product reviews?

And when addressing avoiding creating unhelpful content, Google provided additional bullets and explained that answering “yes” to some, or all, of the questions is a warning sign that you should reevaluate how you are creating content:

• Is the content primarily to attract people from search engines, rather than made for humans? 
• Are you producing lots of content on different topics in hopes that some of it might perform well in search results?
• Are you using extensive automation to produce content on many topics?
• Are you mainly summarizing what others have to say without adding much value? 
• Are you writing about things simply because they seem trendy and not because you’d write about them otherwise for your existing audience?
• Does your content leave readers feeling like they need to search again to get better information from other sources?
• Are you writing to a particular word count because you’ve heard or read that Google has a preferred word count? (No, we don’t).
• Did you decide to enter some niche topic area without any real expertise, but instead mainly because you thought you’d get search traffic?
• Does your content promise to answer a question that actually has no answer, such as suggesting there’s a release date for a product, movie, or TV show when one isn’t confirmed?

My take on the new bullets:
Google is clearly explaining that they want to reward content creators that focus heavily on a subject matter, have deep expertise in an area, and that can demonstrate first-hand expertise and a depth of knowledge. I have covered “staying in your lane” many times when discussing broad core updates, and I would reiterate that based on the bullets above. Don’t try to cover too many different topics if you can’t provide insightful information for each of them. In other words, stay in your lane.

I recommend focusing on what you truly have expertise in. Don’t follow search volume alone, provide top-notch, high quality content that can really help users. Don’t use automation to pump out a lot of lower quality content just to target queries with search volume. Don’t just summarize what others are saying. Provide unique insights. Don’t artificially increase word count thinking Google looks to reward that. They don’t and it can frustrate users. Don’t overpromise and underdeliver. As Google put it, don’t promise an answer to a question that has no answer… It’s worth noting that Google has a News and Discover policy that literally says the same thing. Just an interesting side note. See below.

Machine Learning and MUM: Is the new signal using MUM?
I asked Danny if machine learning, and more specifically if MUM (Multitask Unified Model), was being used for the new ranking signal. Danny explained that the classifier is entirely automated using a machine learning approach, but MUM is not being used.

So like I thought would be the case, Google is using machine learning to understand when a site has a lot of unhelpful content. We know that the Product Reviews Update also uses a machine learning model (and I believe Google’s broad core updates are using machine learning as well). So this wasn’t shocking, but it’s good to get confirmation.

AI-generated content:
I asked Google is the new ranking signal would be targeting content created via AI models like GPT-3 and others, or if the signal would just be targeting more egregious examples of content produced for search engines versus users. For example, there are definitely sites pumping out a lot of AI-driven content (and some of it isn’t great… to say the least). Some of that is ranking well right now.

Google explained, “we are looking to surface content that will be viewed as helping and adding value to the topics searched. Creators who are specifically creating content for search engines first, which include AI-based content, may be impacted.”

So if you are heavily using AI to create content, you should be aware that it can be targeted by the new ranking signal (if it’s deemed to be created for search engines first versus truly helping users). There’s clearly nuance there, so it should be interesting to see what gets impacted by the HCU.

Dueling Algorithms Can Still Be At Play:
With this latest release, broad core updates, Product Reviews Updates, and the new site-wide ranking signal will be at play now. Broad core updates and the Product Reviews Update require a periodic refresh, while the new ranking signal will be continually running.

I have covered what I call “dueling machine learning systems” in my posts about broad core updates and the Product Reviews Update. That’s when a site might surge with one update and drop with another (which can be awkward and confusing for site owners). In other words, is the site high quality, or not?

Here’s an example from my post about the March Product Reviews Update where a site is surging with one type of update and dropping with another:

I asked Danny if that could potentially happen with the new ranking signal, or if it would be closely aligned with what happens with broad core updates and the PRU. He explained that they are all separate systems, so it’s possible, but it should be rare since the algorithms are all trying to reward high quality content or reduce low quality content.

I’ll be tracking this closely as the new ranking signal rolls out. I hope it aligns well with broad core updates and the PRU. Again, it’s a confusing and awkward situation when you see dueling algorithms like that.

Types of content targeted and niche areas that will see more impact.
With the new site-wide ranking signal, Google explained that there are certain types of content that seem to be impacted more than others based on their testing (at least for now). That includes online educational materials, arts and entertainment, shopping, and tech-related content. I asked more about that, and Danny explained this is what Google saw after testing the signal versus what they targeted specifically. In other words, there just might be more low-quality “unhelpful content” that’s being impacted in those niche areas than other areas. It’s not that Google targeted those niche areas… it’s just those areas are seeing more impact.

It’s also important to reiterate that Google will be continually improving and refining that signal over time. So things can absolutely change on that front. And remember, the site-wide signal is always running. So there won’t be periodic refreshes like we see with broad core updates or Product Reviews Updates.

How will the Helpful Content Update impact multilingual sites?
There was a great question form Juan González Villa on Twitter about how the Helpful Content Update would impact sites with multilingual content. For example, we know the update only impacts English content globally, so what about sites that contain content in multiple languages? If the new classifier detects a site has a lot of “search engine-first” content, will the update impact the rankings of content in other languages?

Hi @dannysullivan @JohnMu 👋

Is the Helpful Content Update likely to have site-wide effect on multilingual sites?

Example, let's say https://t.co/WsFr0Uzp2A is impacted as the update rolls out for English content. Would this also have any effect on its Spanish pages? Thanks!

— Juan González Villa (@seostratega) August 22, 2022

We haven’t heard from Google yet about this, but I believe the answer lies right in their blog post about the update. Specifically, Google explains that English searches globally will be impacted. I bolded “searches” since it seems like Google will use the classifier for English queries (and not queries in other languages yet). That would make a lot of sense and it was one of the theories I explained on Twitter when I responded to Juan. Here is that part from the post:

So if you have content in other languages on a site that also has English content, then you have a head start for making sure those pages in other languages are truly high quality and insightful. For now, it sounds like the Helpful Content Update will only target English queries (and your site will not be impacted by the ranking signal when Google detects queries in other languages). But like the Product Reviews Update, Google wants to expand to other languages. Again, you have a head start.

Summary: A new site-wide ranking signal is rolling out targeting low quality, “search engine-first” content.
I hope this post shed some light on Google’s new Helpful Content Update, powered by a site-wide ranking signal targeting “search engine-first” content. The new signal is a classifier that’s always running, and it aims to reduce the amount of low-quality content in the SERPs. If you are impacted by the new site-wide signal, then work to remove unhelpful content from your site. Then focus on using a “people-first” approach to content creation (by providing helpful and insightful content for users). Over time (which Google explained can be months), your site’s classification can change, and you can recover. But you will not recover in days, or even weeks.

I’ll be tracking the rollout of the new ranking signal closely, so definitely follow me on Twitter for the latest updates. Like I explained earlier, it’s going to be an interesting next few weeks in Google Land. Good luck.

GG

Back to top>>

Almost four months since the last Product Reviews Update (PRU) rolled out, Google released the third in the PRU series on March 23, 2022. PRUs can cause a lot of volatility for sites with reviews content, and the first two were core update-like for some. With each PRU, Google is looking to continue its evolution with surfacing the highest quality and most insightful reviews content in the search results. And that means thinner, lower-quality posts should drop in rankings as more thorough content rises in the search results. More about that soon.

In this post, I’ll cover several important observations and findings based on the March 2022 Product Reviews Update. I am not going to cover the PRU overall, since I have done that heavily in my first two posts about the April 2021 and December 2021 Product Review updates. Instead, I’ll cover some interesting findings based on analyzing sites impacted by the March PRU (both surges and drops). That includes the types of content potentially helping sites win during the PRU, some lower-quality reviews content slipping through the cracks, more about dueling machine learning algorithms (broad core updates and PRU), the importance of review testing labs, the power of links (or not), and more. I’ll also revisit what I call the Wirecutter Standard with an interesting example of a site employing that strategy that missed the latest PRU cutoff.

Here’s a quick table of contents for those that want to jump around:

• Periodic refresh still necessary.
• Linking to multiple sellers.
• Multimedia (especially video) helping sites, even when not original?
• Content slipping through the cracks. A potential loophole.
• Interesting Case: Employing the Wirecutter Approach and missing the PRU cutoff.
• Watch for intent shifts. It could be Google, and not your content.
• Dueling machine learning algorithms (again), and surfing the gray area.
• Ignore user feedback at your own peril.
• Testing Labs: Follow the leader and how review testing labs will continue to expand.
• First-hand testing by reviewers. Is it necessary?
• The Power of Links: inconsistent findings (again).
• Key takeaways for site owners and affiliate marketers.

Reminder: PRUs Still Require A Periodic Refresh:
Regarding seeing changes over time, the PRU still requires a periodic refresh (as you can see via the massive swings in visibility during each rollout). So, Google still needs to “push a button” and roll out the update. So far, that’s been separated by a number of months (eight months in between the April and December PRUs and then almost four months in between the December and March PRUs). Just keep this in mind while working on remediation. You will need another PRU to roll out to see significant improvement (if you have been negatively impacted by a previous Product Reviews Update). I’ll cover more about dueling machine learning algorithms and the future of the PRU later in this post.

For example, I asked Google’s Danny Sullivan about the type of rollout when the first PRU launched in April of 2021:

At the moment, there's a periodic refresh. Unlike with core updates, we might not always post when a refresh happens given the more limited nature of content involved here. So overall, sites should consider the advice & keep working to it (true of core updates as well!).

— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) April 9, 2021

Linking to multiple sellers: Not included in the algorithm yet, but showing up more and more.
With the December Product Reviews update, Google explained that sites should consider providing links to more than one retailer to purchase products. That surprised many affiliate marketers since Amazon is the dominant e-commerce retailer benefiting from affiliate links (and it’s actually against Amazon’s TOS to link to other retailers when using data via its API.)  

Google explained it was just a recommendation and not being used algorithmically in the PRU (yet), but that definitely was a shot across the bow of Amazon. Well, the March PRU rolled out and I didn’t see any mention of that factor being enforced. So, I pinged Google’s Alan Kent to learn more. Alan explained that Google was still not enforcing that aspect at the moment.

Hi Glenn. The update is an improvement of current algorithms. There is no special support for multiple sellers in this update.

— Alan Kent (@akent99) March 23, 2022

That’s good to know, but my recommendation is to link to more than one seller, if possible (to future-proof your site), but it’s not a requirement as of now. While analyzing the March PRU, I noticed many more affiliate marketers are indeed linking to multiple sellers, when possible. In the past, I saw many reviews linking to just Amazon. That has definitely changed based on the sites I’ve been analyzing and I’m sure Amazon is watching closely. That type of change could dilute their affiliate revenue a bit (as affiliate sites start linking to other retailers from their reviews content). We’ll see how this plays out…

For example, a site linking to two sellers from reviews content:

Here is another review linking to multiple sellers (four in this example):

Video: A picture is worth a thousand words. And video can be worth ten thousand.
As part of Google’s best practices, they explained to “provide evidence such as visuals, audio, or other links of your own experience with the product, to support your expertise and reinforce the authenticity of your review.” And in my post about the April Product Reviews Update, I explained how original images, video, and gifs could help readers get a much better feel for a product.

Well, I’ve noticed an interesting trend while analyzing sites impacted by the PRU. I’m seeing much more video embedded in the articles. I think that’s great, but the devil is the in details. And this could be a weird loophole.

For example, if you produced an original video based on reviewing a product, that’s outstanding. But what if you didn’t shoot a video and simply embedded a video of the product from another creator, manufacturer, etc.? I’m seeing that technique used often while analyzing reviews and I think that could be a short-lived benefit.

If you are an affiliate marketer using video in your review articles, I would take a hard look at those videos and determine if they are truly helpful and if they reinforce your first-hand use of those products. Also, and this is just my opinion, but having original video is more powerful than leveraging someone else’s video. Actually, any site can embed the same exact video in their own review articles.

I know high quality video is not easy to produce, but it can really set your reviews apart from the competition. And if Google can figure out what’s truly original and insightful from a video standpoint, then having your own videos could only help (as long as they are high quality, insightful, and valuable for readers).

For example, here is an original video embedded in a review:

A PRU loophole? Low-quality lists of products ranking well for some queries.
With previous Product Reviews Updates, I noticed some loopholes. There were some sites ranking with a very basic format (no review content actually). Although that specific loophole seemed to be closed leading up to the March PRU, I came across other examples of sites ranking with thin or low-quality reviews content. Actually, they weren’t really reviews. Instead, there was basically just a list of “best products” with minimal content, and those pages are ranking well for various review queries.

I can’t imagine this will stay as-is. I’m sure Google will pick up on this, refine the Product Reviews algorithm and handle accordingly. Whether that requires another Product Reviews Update, or if it happens before then, I expect those pages to sink in the rankings over time. If I were running those sites, I would definitely look to improve the pages that are ranking well now. They are far from the Wirecutter Standard, which is what I recommended trying to achieve in my previous posts about the PRUs. That’s a good segue to an interesting case I’ve been working on, which I’ll cover next..

First, here are two examples of urls surging with the March PRU that contain low-quality review content. Actually, it’s not even review content, it’s more like a list of visuals and links. Notice how they surge out of nowhere during the March PRU.

Interesting Case: Employing a Wirecutter Approach but missing the cutoff:
Just like with broad core updates, sites should look to improve their reviews content significantly, and over the long-term. Google is using machine learning to evaluate sites and content over time, so quick and small changes will not suffice. Taking Google’s best practices to heart and implementing big changes across your reviews content is the way to get out of the gray area. That’s why I have recommended taking a Wirecutter approach to producing reviews content. You can read more about that in my previous posts, but publishing killer content, based on extensive first-hand testing and use, supported by original visuals and multimedia content, is a very strong approach to employ.

But… it’s not easy. It takes an enormous amount of time, energy, resources, money, etc.

Well, I’m helping a client that got hammered by the April PRU and then saw a partial recovery with the December PRU, that took my comments about employing a Wirecutter approach to heart. After analyzing the site, the content, user experience, etc., we spoke a lot about the Wirecutter Standard, and the site owner was all in. Over the past few months, they have mapped out their testing process, targeted certain categories for using a Wirecutter approach, and have already published a number of review articles based on that process.

And those are killer pieces of content.

Although produced by a small team, the new content is outstanding, provides a wealth of insightful and helpful information about the products being reviewed, provides their own rating system based on the areas being reviewed, they have original photos, gifs, and video that support the content, and more.

But for the March 2022, they missed the “cutoff”. The content was published right before the March Product Reviews Update rolled out. Therefore, those new killer articles weren’t going to help much when the March PRU rolled out.

On that note, Google is on record that recent changes aren’t reflected in major algorithm updates. Google needs to see significant changes over time, and over the long-term. The site just didn’t have the time…

Via @johnmu: Major impact from an algo update wouldn't be from *recent* changes. For larger sites, it can take Google's algorithms a longer time to adjust to site changes. It could take several months to recrawl, reindex, & reprocess the site changes: https://t.co/p0VbFtfOO7 pic.twitter.com/Nrpiety72k

— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) May 8, 2018

And here is Google’s John Mueller explaining a similar situation in a recent hangout video (when asked if a recent change could have led to a drop from a broad core update). John explained that the information used for broad core updates is collected over the long-term. And the same applies to an update like the Product Reviews Update (which is using machine learning when evaluating content and sites):

The timing was unfortunate for my client, but we are super-excited to see the next PRU roll out. I’ll post more information about how that goes after the next Product Reviews Update. If my client keeps on publishing Wirecutter-like content, then I would imagine they will see nice gains. We’ll see.  

Testing Labs: Follow the leader and how review testing labs will continue to expand.
Regarding “testing labs”, I’ve already covered Wirecutter heavily in my other posts about the PRU, but it’s worth mentioning that Good Housekeeping and Verywell also have their own testing labs. You can check out more information about those efforts by following the links below, but if you are producing reviews content, then I highly recommend trying to emulate what those companies are doing.

I know it’s not easy to do, but it can help future-proof your reviews content. The more you can map out a detailed review process, the more you will organically cover what Google’s algorithms are looking for. For example mapping out a ratings scale, providing pros and cons, actually testing out products (first-hand experience), producing visuals that support the testing (photos, videos, gifs, etc.), so on and so forth.

Wirecutter: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/anatomy-of-a-guide/
Good Housekeeping Institute: https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/institute/about-the-institute/a19748212/good-housekeeping-institute-product-reviews/
Verywell Testing Lab: https://www.verywellfit.com/commerce-guidelines-and-mission-4158702

The Good Housekeeping Institute:

Wirecutter: The New York Times

The Verywell Testing Lab:

Do you need to test each product you are reviewing? Is first-hand use and experience required?
Over the past several months, I’ve received questions from site owners about the importance of first-hand testing of products and how necessary that is moving forward (since some products are not easy to test or consume). For example, when the December 2021 Product Reviews Update rolled out, Google explained that “users have told us that they trust reviews with evidence of products actually being tested…” And they included a new best practice for site owners explaining just that.

But for some products or services, it’s not easy (or even possible sometimes) to actually test a product, consume a product, or use a service in order to gain first-hand knowledge of how they work. Given those challenges, what does Google say about the situation? Well, Google’s Alan Kent has provided more information via Twitter and I wanted to include that information below.

Alan explains that it’s not always necessary to test or consume a product in order to write a high quality review. But he does warn that site owners and affiliate marketers should not just spin a description from a manufacturer as the core review content.

He said don’t expect a big boost if you simply say you tested it yourself and basically paraphrase the manufacturer description. And in another tweet, Alan explained to think about how you can add to the current body of knowledge for a given product (while avoiding simply providing the specs for a product that’s supplied by the manufacturer).

Here are Alan’s tweets. The first was in response to a question about supplements (and if the people reviewing the supplements were required to have tried the actual products). Alan says no.

You can certainly create a useful review without eating the product. E.g. people know too much sugar is not good for you. But dont expect big boosts if the review only adds a few sentences saying "I tested it myself too" with the rest paraphrasing the original product description

— Alan Kent (@akent99) April 13, 2022

And the second tweet from Alan was in response to an observation that some sites are claiming to have a product testing lab, but a number of reviews don’t explain that the products were actually tested. Alan explained that contributing new information to the body of knowledge about a product would be smart, but just repeating specs from the manufacturer website doesn’t really add any value.

Another way to think about it is does the review contribute new information to the body of knowledge about the product? I could test a car tire using a machine instead of on my own car. But just repeating the specs from the tire website with different words adds nothing.

— Alan Kent (@akent99) May 5, 2022

My take on first-hand testing:
If you are going to thoroughly review a product, it’s a wise idea to actually test and use that product. Doing so can give you a much stronger understanding of how the actual product works, which can yield a much stronger review. It can also yield original photos and video of you testing the product, which can be extremely helpful for readers.

But for products or services you can’t easily test out yourself, then provide as much unique information as you can without simply spinning information that can be found elsewhere. Like Alan explained, see what you can add to the current body of knowledge for a product. Add as much value as you can for the reader.

A quick note about intent shifts. It’s not you, it’s Google.
In my post about the December Product Reviews Update, I mentioned that there were some intent shifts going on where e-commerce retailers started ranking for reviews content, and review sites dropped to page two or beyond. And on the flip side, sometimes when e-commerce retailers were ranking well, then an intent shift happened and reviews content started to rank higher (pushing the e-commerce retailers lower).

This was typically happening with head terms (so queries lacking “best”, “reviews” or “compare”). Well, we saw that again with the March PRU. The reason I bring this up is because sometimes it’s not your content that’s the problem. It could just be an intent shift, which you have no control over. I covered that in my post about the difference between relevancy adjustments, intent shifts, and overall site quality problems.

So, if you see a drop during the PRU, definitely run a delta report and determine the root cause of the drop. And if it’s an intent shift, you might not need to radically improve your content (if it’s already high quality, insightful, valuable, etc.)

Here is an example of an intent shift happening with the December Product Reviews Update and then reversing with the March PRU. The site had no control over this…

Google’s dueling machine learning algorithms are… still dueling: And this needs to be addressed (IMO).
In my post about the December Product Reviews Update, I mentioned dueling machine learning algorithms and how that’s a problem for Google. That’s where sites either surged or dropped during broad core updates, and then saw the opposite movement with a Product Reviews Update.

Well, I saw more of that with the March Product Reviews Update. Sites that were impacted in June, July or November with broad core updates saw the opposite movement with the March PRU.

With that happening, Google is sending serious mixed signals to site owners. For example, is the site’s content high quality, or not? Only Google’s machine learning systems know. Muahahaha. :)

It’s also a good time to reiterate that Google is using machine learning with both broad core updates and the Product Reviews Update, so it’s not like they are using 10, 20, or even 100 factors. Google could be sending many more signals to the machine learning system and then letting the system determine weighting (and ultimately rankings).

Again, welcome to SEO. Bing has explained more about that in the past. Here is Fabrice Canel on how Bing is using machine learning with its core ranking algorithm. They send “thousands of signals to the machine learning system and it determines the weighting”. This is ultra-important to understand. I linked to the video from my tweet below.

How much does a certain factor matter for SEO? Via Bing's @facan We simply don't know. Bing is heavily using machine learning. We don't set the weighting. It's about sending thousands of features to the ML system & the system figures it out: (at 35:02) https://t.co/EiTktEFqx7 pic.twitter.com/HTzu9wkA5m

— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) November 9, 2020

Also, I do believe the Product Reviews Update will be incorporated into Google’s core ranking algorithm at some point (and that will be a good thing). In my opinion, you can’t have a major algorithm update focused on quality impact a site one way and then another algorithm update focused on quality reviews impact the site in the opposite way. That’s maddening for site owners and makes no sense. But before that happens, Google needs to expand the PRU to other languages beyond English. That hasn’t happened yet, so I believe that will happen first and then maybe the PRU gets baked into Google’s core ranking algorithm. Again, we’ll see.

Keep your eyes peeled. Ignore user feedback at your own peril.
I’ve covered the power of user studies before (especially with regard to Google’s broad core updates). It can be incredibly powerful to hear directly from objective users as they browse your site, consume your content, etc. But sometimes you can gain some of that feedback without even running a user study.

For example, I was analyzing one site that was negatively impacted during the March PRU that had user comments on each review page. Well, the comments can be telling… I found several comments on articles hammering the quality of reviews or questioning the expertise of the authors.

For example, “the reviewer clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about”, “how about updating the article”, and more.

Here is an example of what that looked like. The image has been slightly edited to protect the innocent. :)

That is incredible feedback for the site owner and they should take it to heart. Most users will not spend the time to post a comment like that, so it must be really bad if they are leaving those comments. And I’m not saying Google is using those comments directly when evaluating reviews (although it could absolutely be one of the many signals that are being sent to the machine learning system). But if I was the site owner, I would take that feedback to heart and figure out what needs to be updated. Then move as quickly as possible to improve the content. And maybe running a full-blown user study would be a smart next step.

Links. Still not the end-all for the Product Reviews Update.
In my posts about the April and December 2021 Product Reviews Updates, I explained how links were not the end all. For example, some sites surging had weaker link profiles overall and some sites dropping had stronger link profiles. Basically, there was not a clear connection between the strength of the link profile and how the site performed with the Product Reviews Update. Again, that could be the impact of a machine learning system that takes many signals into account and determines weighting.

So has that changed with the March PRU?

Not really. I’m still not seeing a major connection between link profile strength and how review sites are performing during PRUs. Sure, some powerful sites are surging, but is it because of their link profile? There are plenty of examples of the opposite… For example, sites with much weaker link profiles surging as well. Anyway, it’s just worth noting since it’s clear that Google’s machine learning-based PRU algorithm is using many signals (and many of those signals seem more focused on the quality of content).

Here are two examples of sites surging during the March PRU with weaker link profiles:

And here are two sites dropping during the March PRU with stronger link profiles:

Key takeaways and tips for affiliate marketers and site owners:

• Internalize Google’s best practices: Read Google’s best practices and take them to heart. Internalize them and then form a plan of attack for improving your reviews content.
• Run a user study: User studies are absolute gold for SEO. Leverage Google’s best practices for product reviews and craft tasks and questions. Then use a strong platform for user testing (like usertesting.com). Gain feedback, watch video, and listen to users. The results can be enlightening.
• Strive to be the Wirecutter of your niche: As I mentioned in my previous posts about the Product Reviews Update, work to become the Wirecutter or Good Housekeeping Institute for your niche. Yes, it’s challenging to do that, but it can pay huge dividends down the line.
• Give readers multiple buying options: Link to multiple sellers for purchasing products (beyond just Amazon). It’s a best practice from Google… even if they say it’s not being enforced (yet). It’s a smart way to future-proof your reviews content (and protect from subsequent negative PRU impact).
• Invest in visuals: Provide original photography, video, and gifs supporting your reviews content. It’s a great way to provide users with a killer view of the products you are covering while also showing users how you actually tested the products. Google has explained it’s looking for these things (it’s a best practice), and it can set you apart from the crowd. You can also repurpose that multimedia content for use on social media (like YouTube, Tiktok, Instagram, etc.) It’s a win-win.

Summary: The PRU continues to evolve.
Google’s March 2022 Product Reviews Update was another powerful update for affiliate marketers. It was the third in the series, and we can expect more as the PRU continues to evolve. Like broad core updates, Product Reviews Updates roll out just a few times per year. Therefore, if you have been negatively impacted by the latest PRU, then I highly recommend forming a strong plan of attack. The more you can significantly improve your reviews content, and over the long-term, the better position you can be in when the next PRU rolls out. Good luck.

GG

Back to the top>>