The Internet Marketing Driver

Analysis of Google’s Perspectives Filter and Carousel – A New Mobile SERP Feature Aiming To Surface Personal Experiences

By Leave a Comment

Google Perspectives mobile search feature

On June 10, 2023 Google rolled out the much-anticipated Perspectives feature in the mobile search results. This was teased at Google I/O in May and aims to bring more personal experiences to the SERPs. For example, many people append “Reddit” to their searches to find personal recommendations and advice. Google basically knew that was a fail on their end and crafted Perspectives to address the situation.

With Perspectives, Google explained it would provide a filter that users can tap to access content from forums, social networks, short-form video platforms, and more. Here is a quick example of what the Perspectives filter looks like:

Example of Google Perspectives in action

But that’s not it. Google also announced that there would be a sister search feature that would also contain perspectives. That hasn’t officially rolled out yet, but I have been in a number of tests where that carousel shows up. Here is a tweet where I provide some screenshots of the carousel:

So, how powerful is the new Perspectives feature? Like many other things in SEO, there’s a nuanced answer. I will attempt to address that below, along with my observations based on testing Perspectives, and the new Perspectives carousel. Let’s jump in.

First, some definitions. It’s confusing…
I know there is a lot of confusion about the various Perspectives features Google has rolled out recently, so I’ll quickly list them below.

The Perspectives Filter:
This is the official Perspectives filter that Google rolled out officially on June 23, 2023. It sits at the top of the SERPs with the rest of the filters and can show up first, or not.

The Perspectives Filter in the mobile search results

The Perspectives Carousel (still in testing):
This is the sister SERP feature to the Perspectives filter that I mentioned earlier. I’ll cover more about the carousel later in this post. I have seen this in several tests over the past few weeks and I expect it to roll out soon. Notice how there is both the filter and carousel below.

The Perspectives carousel being tested by Google

The Perspectives News feature:
Google also announced a Perspectives news feature that works with Top Stories. This rolled out before the Perspectives filter, and yep, it’s also labeled “Perspectives”. Confused yet? It’s meant to provide different perspectives about a specific news story.

Featured Snippets Containing Multiple Sources (formerly called “Perspectives”):
Well before the latest Perspectives filter rolled out, we saw a test of featured snippets containing multiple sources. That feature was initially labeled “Perspectives”, but then Google dropped the label. You can still find this feature in the wild containing multiple sources in gray bubbles (but without a Perspectives label). Again, it’s a bit confusing based on the use of “Perspectives” for various features.

The Perspectives featured snippet showing multiple sources

For the rest of this post, I’ll be referring to the Perspectives filter and its sister carousel feature. I won’t be focusing on the news feature or featured snippets containing multiple sources.

What Types Of Content Are Surfacing Via The Perspectives Filter?
The content being surfaced in Perspectives is heavily sourced from forums, social media platforms, video platforms, etc. Based on my testing, there is a ton of content from sites like Reddit and Quora, but you can also see niche forums there as well. From a video standpoint, there is a lot of YouTube video being surfaced in Perspectives. And to a lesser extent, TikTok videos are surfacing as well. And as you can guess, there are often tweets being surfaced in Perspectives as well.  

So, just like Google explained in its blog post about Perspectives:

“Tap the filter, and you’ll exclusively see long- and short-form videos, images and written posts that people have shared on discussion boards, Q&A sites and social media platforms. We’ll also show more details about the creators of this content, such as their name, profile photo or information about the popularity of their content.”

Content surfacing in Google Perspectives

Meet The Perspectives *Carousel* – The Sister SERP Feature To The Filter
I mentioned the sister SERP feature to the filter earlier and it’s another mechanism for surfacing Perspectives in the search results (and in a more visible way). I have been in several tests where the Perspectives filter shows up at the top of the SERP, but there’s also a Perspectives carousel containing several cards leading downstream to forums, social media sites, video platforms, etc. The content in the carousel seems to be extremely forum-heavy at this stage, but it can contain links to social networks, video, and more.

So, if Google really believes you want to find various perspectives on a topic, you might see both the filter and the carousel. Again, that jumps the visibility of Perspectives greatly.

Visibility Challenges for Perspectives – Needing to swipe heavily to view the filter.
Although the Perspectives filter triggers an interesting SERP containing forum threads, videos, social media posts, and more, you need to find it first in order for it to be helpful. The filter’s position is fluid, meaning it sometimes shows up as the first filter in the list, but it can show up much farther in. And when it’s located farther in, I question how many people will see it, tap it, etc. You basically have to swipe through many filters to see it…

For example, I had to swipe through nine filters to see the Perspective filter for this query. I’m not sure anyone is seeing the filter when searching for this topic:

Swiping to see the Perspectives filter

Tracking Challenges – Google Needs To Bring A Perspectives Filter To GSC!
Now, you might be thinking that tracking the feature in Google Search Console (GSC) will enable you to view how the filter’s placement impacts impressions, clicks, and click through rate. But, that’s not an easy thing to accomplish. As of now, you can’t isolate Perspectives in GSC.

It’s also important to note that tapping the filter does not trigger a new query with a fresh SERP, so tracking Perspectives is going to be incredibly challenging. For example, if I search for “X”, there is the initial SERP containing the default search listings. Those initial listings gain impressions based on the search. But if I trigger the Perspectives filter, a fresh list of content surfaces, but the query doesn’t change. Then the new Perspectives listings technically receive impressions (but for the same query as earlier). And if I tap one result to visit the forum, video, etc., then that listing receives the click. But… site owners won’t know if someone clicked through the original SERP or the Perspectives SERP. Confusing, right?

To me, a Perspectives filter in GSC is absolutely necessary. Then you would be able to filter by Perspectives and view impressions, clicks, click-through rate, and position for the content that ranked in the feature. Without the filter in GSC, good luck.

Here is a mockup of what the filter could look like in Search Console:

A Perspectives filter in Google Search Console (mockup)

YMYL – It’s a sensitive situation.
For many “Your Money or Your Life” queries, the Perspectives filter doesn’t trigger at all. Google is clearly being very cautious with YMYL topics for now… This could change since there are many forums focused on health and medical topics, financial topics, etc., but Google does not want to drive users to risky information when searching for sensitive topics. Time will tell, but it’s worth noting that the filter is not present for many queries focused on YMYL topics.

“Best” Queries – A Big Heads-up For Affiliate Marketers
For affiliate marketers out there, this is a giant heads-up that the Perspectives shows up often for “best” queries. And when it does, it’s often showing up first in the list. When you tap the filter, the affiliate content on page one could disappear and the user is presented with forum content, short videos, social media posts, etc. This could obviously impact affiliate revenue heavily. If you provide reviews content, then I would keep a close eye on this. And again, a GSC filter would be amazing for tracking this… If not, it will be hard to identify what’s going on with the Perspectives filter and carousel. You might see clicks and click-through rate drop if people are heavily using the Perspectives filter for “best” queries impacting your site. I haven’t seen that situation yet in GSC… but it could happen based on the Perspectives filter.

Google Perspectives for best product queries

Filtering the Filter: Google Can Control When The Perspectives Filter Shows Up Based On Referring Source or Surface
After searching for product recommendations, you can often see a “More products” card show up in Discover. When tapping that button, Google drives you to a fresh SERP with a search for that product (or product category). I noticed that when that happens, you don’t see a Perspectives filter show up at all. But if you visit Google directly and search for that query, the filter does show up. So Google is basically filtering the Perspectives filter when you are visiting from that Discover card. Just an interesting note that the filter can be filtered based on referring Google surface.

First, here is a “More products” card in Discover driving me to Google Search:

More products button in Google Discover

But when I visit Google Search, the Perspectives feature doesn’t show up at all. But it does show up if I visit a fresh SERP and search for that query. Here is the SERP without the Perspectives filter after tapping the “More products” card in Discover:

Perspectives filter not showing up when visiting from Discover

The Perspectives To Explore Connection – Understanding Google Explore just got more important.
I have covered Google Explore heavily since it started being tested in the spring of 2022. It’s a Discover-like SERP feature containing large visuals and links to publishers, video content, etc. You can often see Explore show up at the end of a mobile SERP.

Well, a funny thing is happening with Perspectives… The Perspectives SERP rolls right into Google Explore! If you scroll down in Perspectives, you will eventually see Explore show up. And that’s why I dubbed this scenario the “Perspectives to Explore Connection”. It’s just another angle to Perspectives that I would review if you are publishing a lot of content.

And by the way, you can’t track this easily in GSC either.

You can see a video below of the transition in action where I scroll through Perspectives revealing Google Explore at the end:

Summary – Will Perspectives Drive Change In the SERPs?
After heavily testing Perspectives, I think it’s an interesting feature containing a range of content. But, it’s sometimes unfortunately buried in the filter list. And the content is questionable for certain queries (with dated content surfacing or content that’s not relevant to my current situation). The addition of the Perspectives carousel could help with visibility and usage, but that hasn’t fully rolled out yet. And the lack of tracking in Search Console will make it very difficult for site owners to understand when users are engaging with Perspectives content. Time will tell how Perspectives evolves, but for now there are some challenges for adoption, usage, etc. I’ll update this post if Google implements bigger changes on this front. Stay tuned.

GG

People Also Search For, Or Do They Always? How Google Might Use A Trained Generative Model To Generate Query Variants For Search Features Like PASF, PAA and more [Patent]

By Leave a Comment

Google using a generative model to generate query variants for people also search for and people also ask

I was checking out some patents from Google the other day and surfaced an interesting one that was granted and published on May 30, 2023. It was titled “Generating Query Variants Using A Trained Generative Model” and it definitely piqued my curiosity. It was originally filed in 2018, but was granted in late May. And since I’m always interested in important SERP features like People Also Ask (PAA) and People Also Search For (PASF), I had to dig in.

Also, this is something I would have pinged the brilliant Bill Slawski about in the past. Unfortunately, Bill is not with us anymore. Going through the patent made me realize how much I miss Bill’s posts about patents and being able to DM him questions about his analysis. Losing Bill was definitely a massive loss for our industry. Anyway, without Bill to dig in the way he always would, I decided to start digging in myself. And I’m glad I did. It was super-interesting.

Leveraging Generative Models Using Neural Networks For SERP Features
Below I’ll cover how the patent describes using a trained generative model to generate query variants for SERP features like “People Also Search For”, “People Also Ask”, and maybe more. The patent mentions “People Also Search For”, but it’s not a stretch to believe the process could be used for PAA as well. I cover that in my analysis below.

It was fascinating to learn more about what Google is doing on this front (at least based on the patent). Like with any patent, we don’t know if Google has implemented this yet, or if they will, but it sure made sense based on what I was reading.

In addition, and I found this fascinating, the patent explained how Google could even generate query variants for novel queries (brand new), and long-tail queries where there isn’t much data available yet. And with 15% of all queries never seen by Google before, it would make sense to use an approach like for generating query variants. I’ll cover more about this soon.

Key points from the patent:
I think the best way to cover the patent is to bullet out some of the highlights. Below, I’ll cover several key points from the patent, which I hope you find interesting as well.

Generating Query Variants Using A Trained Generative Model
US 11663201 B2
Date Granted: May 30, 2023
Date Filed: April 27, 2018
Assignee Name: Google LLC

Diagram from a Google patent about using a generative model to generate query variants for PASF and PAA

1. Query variants can be generated at run-time utilizing a trained generative model based on tokens from the original queries and additional input features. I’ll cover more about the additional input features soon.

2. The system can generate query variants even when the model is not trained on that query. So it can generate variants for novel queries (brand new) or what Google calls “tail” queries where there isn’t a lot of data yet. I found that very interesting, especially since Google says 15% of queries have never been seen before. So the generative model can predict which query variants to generate even for low-threshold queries by using a neural network (with memory layers).

Google's generative model working for novel queries and long-tail queries.

3. The generative model can be trained based on submissions of previous queries by users. But the patent also explains that the query variant training data can also be based on query pairs that have clicks on the same documents. That makes sense and shows how user engagement can play a factor in what is generated by the model.

Google's generative model trained on query pairs that have clicks on the same document.

4. The patent also explains that the model can be trained as a multitask model to enable the generation of multiple types of query variants. So it’s a sophisticated system that can generate different types of query variants, including follow-up queries, generalization queries, canonicalization queries, language translation queries, entailment queries, and more.

Google's generative model can be trained as a multitask model to generate multiple types of query variants.

5. After the query variants are generated, they are scored by the model. The system provides response scores for each variant. And the system can grade those variants by checking for answers to those query variants. That can help the system detect “potentially fake” query variants. Very interesting…

Google's generative model scoring query variants to determine quality.

6. The patent goes on to explain that the system can return answers in addition to just query variants. For example, the system can return a search result (PAA anyone?), a knowledge graph entity, a null response (no answer), or even a prompt for clarification (with clarifying user interface input). That could be in the form of disambiguation chips we see when Google is looking for help from users when trying to understand what the user is looking for. Again, interesting.

Google's patent explains that the system can return answers in addition to just query variants.

7. The patent goes on to explain that the model can take more than just tokens from the query, including “additional input features”. Those input features could include location, a task the user is interested in or performing (like cooking, repairing a car, travel planning, etc.). It can also take into account weather and more. And the task could be based on stored calendar entries for the user, chat messages or other communications, past queries submitted by the user, etc. So the query variants could be based on personalization or current context.

Google's patent explains the model can take more than just tokens from the query, including “additional input features”.

8. The model can also generate variants of a query and advertisements or other content. So the model can not only generate query variants, but it can generate (or maybe retrieve) ads or other content that can be displayed in the SERPs. I think I have to go back through that section again, but that was interesting… :)

Google's generative model can generate variants of a query and advertisements or other content.

9. The patent also explains that there can be a number of generative models based on different attributes or tasks. So there can be specific models for various tasks like shopping, traveling to a location, etc.

Google's patent explains that there can be a number of generative models based on different attributes or tasks.

Summary: Generating variants for PASF and PAA can be more complicated and nuanced than some think.
I hope breaking down this patent a bit helped you understand how Google could use a trained generative model to generate query variants, or other content, that can be displayed in various SERP features. And this can happen for novel queries (new) and long-tail queries where there isn’t much data yet. In addition, there could be multiple models being used that focus on a specific discipline. And the results can be personalized as well (based on additional input features).

So, the next time you view “People Also Search For” or “People Also Ask” in the SERPs, know that a generative model might have been used to provide those query variants. And if personalized, then maybe those queries are specific to your case. Again, Google’s systems are much more sophisticated than some people think.

GG

Disavowing The Disavow Tool [Case Study] – How a site owner finally removed a disavow file with 15K+ domains, stopped continually disavowing links, and then surged back from the dead

By Leave a Comment

Google Disavow Case Study

There aren’t many topics in SEO as controversial as disavowing links. Ever since Google introduced the ability to disavow links, there has been a ton of confusion about how to use the disavow tool, what types of links should be disavowed, when to ignore the disavow tool altogether, and more. Then add third-party tools that evaluate links for site owners and flag some as “toxic”, and you have a dangerous recipe of confusion and fear. And that fear makes it easy for some site owners to spend a lot of time continually disavowing links, spinning their wheels, and without any way to know if it was actually helping them.

I cannot tell you how many companies have contacted me over the years explaining they take time every week or month to review their latest links via third-party tools and determine what to disavow. They are deathly afraid of some type of negative algorithmic action Google will take based on random, spammy links showing up in their link profiles. The fact of the matter is that every site builds random, junky, spammy links over time. It’s not unusual to see those random links show up in a link profile. Google has explained this as well.

Here is just one of John Mueller’s tweets where he explains this. I’ll cover more about Googler comments about the disavow tool soon.

It’s also important to note that many of those companies reaching out to me have never bought links, participated in any link schemes, etc. After I explain more about the disavow tool to those site owners, why it was created, when Google actually recommends to use it (hint, not often), my calls with those site owners often go eerily silent.

Note, I am NOT referring to sites that have set up unnatural links in the past, had manual actions for unnatural links, participated in link schemes, etc. If you have, then you should take care of that situation, which could involve using the disavow tool. For example, you should have those links removed, nofollowed, and if you can’t do that, then you can use the disavow tool. But the reason you would be doing this is to avoid a manual action based on setting up unnatural links and not because of some boogeyman algorithm that’s going to downgrade your site.

I have also been extremely vocal that I believe Google could remove the disavow tool from Search Console altogether, and maybe even this year. With SpamBrain now neutralizing unnatural links (as of the December 2022 Link Spam Update), I can’t imagine Google will need to provide a disavow tool for long (at least one that’s available to use any time you want). That’s just my opinion, but it does make a lot of sense. Here’s a video I recorded with Barry Schwartz where we cover the disavow tool and how it could eventually go away (at 11:46 in the video):

Nuking A (Large) Disavow File: A Case Study
I am writing this post because I have a great case study to share. And this case follows a number of other companies I have helped that have decided to nuke their disavow files after understanding how the tool is supposed to be used. Those companies haven’t seen any negative impact from nuking their disavow files. And for the case study I’m going to share today, you’ll see how a site completely removed a large disavow file with 15K+ domains in it and actually surged back from the dead after being down based on a terrible migration.

And I’m not saying the site surged back due to removing the disavow file. I’m simply saying the file didn’t matter at all. They surged back AFTER removing that giant disavow file filled with random, junky, spammy domains.

Note, this is a blinded case study, since everyone and their mother would over-analyze the situation if I revealed the site. But it’s too good of an example to sit in the G-Squared Interactive archives, locked away for only me to see. Everyone in the SEO community should read the case, speak with their clients about disavowing, and determine the best way forward. And for most sites (99.99%), that’s probably removing their disavow file and stopping the continual disavowing of links that don’t need to be disavowed. Again, that’s unless the site actively built unnatural links, participated in link schemes, had a manual action in the past, or think they could get one based on their own unnatural link building.

The Disavow Tool Is Buried In GSC:
I have been saying for a long time that most site owners never need to touch the disavow tool. From Google’s move to devalue unnatural links with Penguin 4 to SpamBrain now neutralizing unnatural links, Google is not penalizing random, junky, spammy links. Instead, it’s just ignoring them. Manual actions for unnatural links have dropped off a cliff over the past several years, which makes complete sense based on Google neutralizing random spammy links like I just mentioned.

Unless you actively set up unnatural links to try and game Google’s algorithms, then you should never, ever have to touch the disavow tool. That is one reason it’s literally buried in the GSC user interface. Seriously, try and go find it. It will probably take you a few minutes since you can’t access the disavow tool from any of the menus in GSC.

And think about it, if Google really wanted you to use the disavow tool all the time, why in the world would they bury it in Search Console? You can’t even search the help documentation from GSC anymore to quickly find it. You have to go the help docs, search for the disavow tool, and then scroll way down the page to find the text link to the tool. Again, it’s buried.

Disavow Tool in Google's help documentation

Googler Comments About The Disavow Tool:
In addition, there have been some great quotes from Googlers about the disavow tool over the years. From Gary Illyes explaining many sites end up hurting their efforts by using the disavow tool to John Mueller’s continuous communications that most site owners should never use the tool, it’s a surprise that some site owners still disavow links on a regular basis.

Here are some of Gary’s comments about the disavow tool (@methode is Gary’s Twitter handle). These are people quoting Gary based on Pubcon presentations, Q&A sessions Gary has done, etc.

And here is a great quote that always stood out to me. Gary even said that if it was up to him, he would remove the tool. Yes, a Googler saying he would remove the disavow tool…

And here is a quote from Gary about not being afraid of sites you don’t know and how he trusts the Google filters:

Gary Illyes on using the disavow tool.

Moving on, here are several tweets from Google’s John Mueller (there are more, but I can’t provide all of them here):

Even the disavow tool itself explains you should not use the tool unless you have a manual action, or you think you could get one. Google’s messaging there is pretty aggressive and scary. Let’s face it, they don’t want site owners using the tool for random, spammy links that show up in a link profile.

Disavow Tool messaging

But not everybody thinks that messaging is clear, including the site owner I helped. So, I asked the site owner if he wanted to provide a quote about the confusion he initially had about disavowing based on Google’s messaging in the tool and in the documentation. Like many site owners, he would like to see clearer messaging from Google about when to use the tool and when it’s necessary.

So here we go, in the site owner’s own words:

“Google documents about how, and when, to use the disavow tool are too open to interpretation, especially in situations after an (algorithm) update or when your rankings rapidly decline out of the blue. I hope others that read this case study will not interpret Google’s messaging like I did, and instead look for all other possible outlets before deciding to use the disavow tool. I very much hope this tool gets nuked!”

With that out of the way, I’ll cover the case study.

The Case: Down And Out, And Disavowing In Circles:
In the fall of 2022 I received a dire email from a site owner. The site changed domain names and it went very, very wrong. It really wasn’t their fault in my opinion… they were an edge case (which can happen with any migration). I’ve seen this a number of times over the years unfortunately, which is why I tell most site owners to NEVER change domain names unless it’s absolutely necessary. They were down about 70-80% and not coming back.

Here is trending when blending GSC click data from both domains via Looker Studio:

Google Search Console clicks trending after a botched domain name change.

After digging in a bit, I noticed they were disavowing links. Many of them. So I asked if they ever set up unnatural links, if they ever had a manual action in the past, if they participated in any link schemes, etc. The site owner emphatically explained they NEVER set up any unnatural links. They just noticed many random, junky links in their link profile and they were scared those links would negatively impact rankings.

So, I explained that most sites end up with random and junky links like that and there was really nothing to worry about on that front. But the site owner had read many posts explaining how dangerous those links were, how it could drag your site down over time, and that actively disavowing links was the way to go. When they contacted me, they had over 15K+ domains in their disavow file.

A huge disavow file with 15K+ domains.

After sending the site owner quote after quote from Googlers about the disavow file, they started to come around. They believed me, but were deathly afraid to nuke their disavow file. So they removed it for a bit. Nothing changed at all, but again, they were down about 70-80% from the domain name change that went sideways. So when nothing changed, they added the disavow back out of fear it would keep them down.

See how that works? The fear of some “boogeyman” algorithmic action led them to continually include a disavow file filled with random, junky domains. And they continued to spend time analyzing their link profile on a regular basis, and adding more and more domains to the disavow file over time. It was a maddening spiral of disavowing links. And I was determined to get the site owner out of the death spiral.

By the way, checking a number of the domains and links revealed some weren’t even indexed. And if the pages aren’t indexed, the links can’t hurt you anyway. I sent this information to the site owner as well.

Unnatural link not even indexed.

Business-wise, the site owner had to lay off most of his employees based on the domain name situation. It was sad to see… especially since if they would have contacted me before the domain name change, I would have told them to NOT change domain names unless absolutely needed. For their situation, it wasn’t absolutely needed. It was a nice-to-have thing they wanted to do. Bad move and they were paying a heavy price.

After analyzing the situation, and having seen edge case migrations like this before, I truly believed they needed a major algorithm update to roll out, which could bring a site quality re-evaluation. For example, a broad core update or reviews update could possibly help them surge back from the dead.

The December 2022 helpful content update (HCU) and product reviews update (PRU) rolled out and the site didn’t surge back, but I still had hope. I told them to sit tight and let’s see if another update could help them out… Then the March 2023 broad core update rolled out, and they still didn’t recover… But again, as of that time, the disavow file with 15K+ domains was still being used…

Pulling The Band-Aid Off. FINALLY Nuking The Disavow File:
The site owner was strong throughout this entire situation. He listened to my guidance, continued to improve the site the best he could with reduced staff, and had faith things could come back at some point. And as a last-ditch effort, they decided to completely remove the disavow file in late March. I was thrilled they made this decision. It was a long time coming…

So the disavow file was removed that contained 15K+ domains. Poof, it was gone. Now the site owner needed to continue to drive forward with the site, forget about disavowing, and just focus on improving the site as much as possible quality-wise.

Disavow file removed from Search Console.

And Along Came The April 2023 Reviews Update (With A BIG Tremor):
On April 12, 2023 Google rolled out the reviews update (RU), a major algorithm update that could impact any site with reviews or recommendations content. Google’s product reviews update (PRU) evolved to just the reviews update and it now evaluated more than just product reviews. It made the earth shake for many sites… and it came packed with a powerful tremor on 4/19. With that tremor, it looked to me like Google refreshed a site-level quality algorithm (or several).

Well, a funny thing happened with the site I’m covering in this case study. It began to surge with that tremor. And I mean REALLY surge. Rankings started coming back big-time for the site. And it was their most powerful queries returning from the dead. The site jumped 5, 10, and 20+ rankings for key terms. It was amazing to see.

The site is now up 140% based on the April reviews update, and that’s without a single disavowed link. And that’s down from 15K+ disavowed domains in the past. It’s a great example of why I believe a disavow file is NOT necessary for 99.99% of sites. They clearly didn’t need to be disavowing those links…

Surge in clicks based on the April reviews update tremor.

Here is search visibility surging for the site based on that tremor (Sistrix data):

Surge in visibility based on the April reviews update tremor.

And here is a snapshot of the site’s rankings surging with the April reviews update tremor. Over 31K keywords increased in position that now rank in the top 10. Some of those keywords weren’t even ranking in the top 100 before the April reviews update tremor:

Surge in rankings based on the April reviews update tremor.

And again, I’m not saying they surged back due to removing the disavow file. I’m just making the point that the disavow file wasn’t doing anything (in my opinion). They surged back from the dead without the file in place.

The site owner has been through so much with the drop based on the domain name change debacle, weird volatility over time that never turned out well in the long-term, etc., that they are still fearful this won’t last. We are now almost two full months out from the surge, and they still don’t feel comfortable. And I get it. When you’re an edge case, the battle scars remain. That said, it’s great to see the site back doing so well. Let’s hope things continue that way.

Key Points About Disavowing Links For Site Owners:
I’ll end this post with some key points for site owners that are actively disavowing links or thinking about disavowing. This is based on my experience helping many companies over time:

  • In my opinion most sites, and I mean 99.99%, don’t ever need to use the disavow tool.
  • The disavow tool is buried in the GSC UI for a reason. As Google would explain, that’s by design.
  • Several Googlers have explained that most site owners never need to use the disavow file. And that it should only be used if you have a manual action, or think you could get one based on buying links, participating in link schemes, etc. It’s not for random, spammy links that show up in your link profile.
  • Do not just start disavowing random, junky, spammy links that show up. Most sites have those types of links and Google is very good at ignoring them.
  • Do not simply look at third-party tools that flag links as “toxic” and think you need to move quickly to disavow those links. Google has addressed that as well, and said it’s a terrible idea to disavow links purely based on what some third-party tool claims is “toxic”. Sure, you can go analyze those links, but if you haven’t set up unnatural links in the past, then there’s no reason to worry about that.
  • When to use the disavow file: Now, if you did buy links, or participate in some type of link scheme, then you should look to remove those links or nofollow them. And if you can’t for some reason, then it’s fine to disavow them. Again, do not just start disavowing random, junky, spammy links you see showing up in a link profile. If you truly weren’t involved in setting those up, just ignore them and move on.

Summary – For this site owner, nuking a giant disavow file and stopping the disavow madness was the way forward.
I hope this case study helped you learn more about the disavow tool, Google’s advice about using it, and why most site owners never need to use it. Google has gotten very, very good at simply ignoring random, spammy links on the web and there’s no reason to start disavowing those links. So, if you haven’t set up unnatural links, paid for links, or participated in some type of link scheme, then you should step away from the disavow tool. Just continue to improve your site the best you can and avoid over-analyzing links. For the site owner I covered in this case study, that was the path forward.

GG

Google’s April 2023 Reviews Update – Exploring its evolution from PRU to RU, a powerful tremor on 4/19, and how its “Review Radar” found larger publishers

By Leave a Comment

Google launched the first Product Reviews Update in April of 2021 and it’s been fascinating to watch the evolution of the system over time. With each successive update, you can see Google fine-tuning the system, expanding to other languages, and more. And now we have the next step in its evolution, and it was a big step. The Product Reviews Update is now just the Reviews Update, and that change has significant ramifications for publishers across the web. The update started rolling out on April 12, 2023 and took 13 days to fully roll out.

With the change to the Reviews System (notice “Product” has been dropped), the system now evaluates any content that can be considered a review or recommendation. For example, Google explains in its updated documentation that the system is “designed to evaluate articles, blog posts, pages, or similar first-party standalone content with the purpose of providing a recommendation, giving an opinion, or providing analysis.” That’s a big jump from focusing on just product reviews. And it also explains why so many sites were impacted by the April 2023 Reviews Update.

The change has been confusing for many site owners. For example, I’ve heard from many site owners about negative impact when they don’t believe their content contains reviews. The problem is that they are thinking more about product or service reviews and not about recommendations or advice. A lot of content can fall under the latter and that’s what could be evaluated with the new system.

For example, here’s a site focused on restaurant reviews (and even types of food) that I’ve been tracking since early in the rollout. I shared about this on Twitter several times and you can see major impact from the April Reviews Update. They don’t provide product reviews.

Evolving from the PRU to a broader RU – An important step in the evolution of the Reviews Update:
Beyond just expanding to any type of content that provides recommendations or opinions on something, this latest update marks an important milestone in my opinion. And it signals that the Reviews System is one step closer to being baked into Google’s core ranking algorithm.

As a reminder, Google’s John Mueller once explained that he could see the Reviews System incorporated into Google’s core ranking algorithm at some point. Here is Joh explaining that in a Search Central Office Hours video from 2021:

The reason I have always believed the Reviews System needs to be part of Google’s core ranking algorithm is because of what I’ve called “dueling machine learning systems”. I have covered that topic many times in my posts about Product Reviews Updates and broad core updates and it’s when a site is impacted one way with a major algorithm update (like a broad core update) and then in the opposite way with another major algorithm update (like a Product Reviews Update). That can be maddening for site owners and SEOs, and it really doesn’t make a lot of sense when you think about it. In other words, is the site high quality, or not?

For example, here are three sites impacted heavily by previous core updates or product reviews updates and then reverse direction with the April Reviews Update.

I know site owners are super-confused when a site experiences surges with one update and drops with another (or vice versa). Google is clearly sending mixed signals when this happens, and it underscores the importance of baking the Reviews System into Google’s core ranking algorithm. Time will tell whether that happens, but I think the latest changes with the April Reviews Update signals it’s one step closer to that happening.

Powerful Tremor on 4/19 – A really big one.
As the April Reviews Update started rolling out, I was documenting the volatility on Twitter. Although there was volatility, little did I know what was coming on 4/18 into 4/19… That’s when there was SERIOUS VOLATILITY based on Google pushing a tremor with the update.

I have covered what I call “tremors” many times in my posts about major algorithm updates and they are important to understand. Back in medieval Panda days, Google’s John Mueller explained that Google can make tweaks and adjustments during a rollout based on what they are seeing in the SERPs. And based on analyzing tremors over time, those smaller tweaks can have a big impact across the web. For example, sites reversing course based on early impact.

For the Reviews Update, there was massive volatility starting on 4/19, which was seven days into the rollout. And when I say massive, I’m not kidding. For example, here were several sites heavily impacted on that date:

But, as often happens with major algorithm updates, the devil is in the details. There seemed to be several things going on impact-wise with that tremor. For example, it looked like Google could have refreshed a site-level quality algorithm (or something similar) based on what I was seeing across a number of sites impacted. And then I also saw impact on larger publishers where Google seemed to get better at finding reviews content on those sites. i.e. Google’s “Reviews Radar” seemed to improve with the tremor. I’ll cover more about these two situations below.

Google’s site-level quality algorithms:
First, we know that Google has site-level quality algorithms that can have a big impact on sites during major algorithm updates. For example, when Google refreshes those site-level algorithms based evaluating a lot of data over time, sites can surge or drop heavily. You can often see the impact of those site-level algorithms during broad core updates, Reviews Updates, etc.

In addition, we know Google can always decouple algorithms from broad core updates and run them separately (which could also be site-level quality algorithms depending on what Google is looking to achieve). And that can also have a big impact on sites, and outside of major algorithm updates because they are run separately. We saw that happen a few weeks after the September 2022 broad core update rolled out when some of the largest news publishers surged back in visibility after dropping heavily with the broad core update. There was clearly something off with that update that needed to be rectified. It took a few weeks, but Google did fix the issue.

Here are some tweets of mine where I covered what was happening:

And here is a super-interesting example of what I’m referring to with the April Reviews Update tremor and site-level quality algorithms (or something broader that impacted sites). It’s a site that went through a terrible migration in the fall of 2022 and lost a majority of its search visibility. The site owner reached out to me after the site tanked and it’s been a very bumpy ride for them since the initial drop. Based on analyzing the situation, I have always felt like the site would need a major algorithm update to roll out, which could bring a quality reevaluation. And maybe that quality reevaluation could help turn things around.

Well, that’s exactly what happened with the 4/19 tremor. The site is up 135% since then. Note, they don’t focus on reviews, although the niche has been impacted by previous Product Reviews Updates.

Here is GSC data:

And here is search visibility via arhefs:

Google’s ‘Reviews Radar’ improves for larger publishers:
Regarding Google getting better at finding reviews on larger publishers, a number of larger publishers were impacted heavily when the update first started rolling out. I’m referring to large sites with a lot of content (mostly not reviews content, but they do have reviews and recommendations content mixed in). And then with the 4/19 tremor, there was some type of correction pushed that reversed some of the impact on larger publishers. But then other larger publishers saw their first impact from the update.

When this was going on, my inbox lit up with emails from larger publishers, I received a number of messages across social media about that, and I saw it across some publishers I’ve helped in the past. Based on digging into the situation, it really looked like Google was evaluating and impacting reviews mixed into larger sites more with the April Reviews Update than previous updates (and then tweaking something related to this with the 4/19 tremor).

For example, when running a delta report to identify queries and landing pages that dropped at that time, while also filtering by content type, there were lower-quality reviews content that dropped heavily. I saw this across a number of publishers.

For example, here are some drops when filtering by reviews content:

And here are several larger publishers that reversed on 4/19 after initially being impacted when the update started rolling out:

And here are some reversals now that we are further out time-wise:

So in my opinion, I think this updated involved Google’s “Reviews Radar” possibly getting better at finding and evaluating reviews content across larger sites that contain a wide mix of content. And then there was some type of adjustment with the 4/19 tremor that reversed some of the impact (for certain publishers). I don’t work for Google, and obviously I can’t say for sure, but the 4/19 tremor sure looked like a mix of a site-level quality algorithm being refreshed (or something similar), and then this enhanced “Reviews Radar” for larger publishers.

A reminder that DURING AN UPDATE IS NOT the time to start improving lower-quality reviews content:
What I covered above is a good example of why site owners should continually be analyzing what I call “quality indexing”. That’s making sure your indexable content is high quality, insightful, etc., and making sure any lower-quality or thin content is not indexable. If you don’t, you can be in a situation where that baggage comes back to bite you during major algorithm updates. And if that happens, you have to start addressing those lower-quality areas over time (and hope you can bounce back during subsequent updates).

For the Reviews Update, any type of content providing reviews and recommendations should provide unique, insightful, and helpful information. In addition, if you are reviewing something, then proving you have first-hand experience with the products, services, etc., is extremely important. Remember, there’s double E-A-T now (E-E-A-T) with an extra E for Experience. Google has plenty of documentation about publishing great reviews content, and you can read my previous posts about Product Reviews Updates where I cover the anatomy of excellent reviews content.

As I cover in my posts about previous PRUs, aim to become the Wirecutter for your niche. It’s not easy to do, but that’s the level of quality and thoroughness you should be aiming for.

A quick note about product review sites with wild volatility over time… And I mean wild.
I’ll end this post with a word of caution if you focus heavily on reviews content. Know that there has been crazy volatility over time for some review sites. I have covered this on Twitter a number of times, but I’ll provide two examples below. These are sites that continually surge or drop heavily over time (and both during and outside official Reviews Updates). I cannot explain what’s going on here, but Google clearly has had some issues with the Reviews system. No site owner should have to go through what these sites owners have gone through. This is also why you don’t want to be in the gray area with Google’s algorithms. Get out of the gray and into the clear. That’s the safest way to go in my opinion. Check out the madness below:

Summary – Google’s Reviews System Continues To Evolve. Evolve with it.
With the April Reviews Update, Google is now evaluating all types of reviews and recommendations content (beyond just product reviews). In my opinion, this marks an important step for Google’s Reviews system and could signal it’s one step closer to being baked into Google’s core ranking algorithm. Time will tell if that happens, and when, but I do think that’s inevitable. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how the next Reviews update impacts publishers across the web, including the larger publishers I mentioned in this post. As usual, I’ll be covering what I’m seeing across Twitter so make sure to follow me there to see those updates.

GG

Google’s Video Thumbnail Apocalypse Is Causing A Huge Drop In Video Snippets In The Search Results (But Traffic Could Remain Stable)

By Leave a Comment

Google video thumbnail apocalypse.

On April 13, Google announced a change to how video thumbnails would be presented in the search results. Until now, a listing could receive a video thumbnail even when that video content was not the main content on the page. Although that was a nice benefit for the sites receiving the video thumbnail, it was often confusing for users. For example, they might click through looking for a video, but the video might be way down the page (and might just be supporting content, and not cover the core point of the page).

Therefore, Google decided to remove video thumbnails for pages where the video is not the main content. And they weren’t kidding. I am now seeing massive drops in video thumbnails across a number of sites starting on 4/13. I’m not referring to small drops here and there. I mean near-complete drops in the number of video thumbnails being presented for those sites.

And I’m not saying this is a bug, or wrong. The video content for those pages isn’t the main content, so the system is working as intended.

Here are three examples of what I’m seeing. Again, huge drops in GSC for clicks from pages that used to receive video thumbnails. Note, this doesn’t mean traffic is down… more on that soon:

Video snippets dropping heavily in Google Search Console.
An example of video snippets dropping heavily in Google Search Console.
Another example of video snippets dropping heavily in Google Search Console (GSC).

Important: A drop in video snippets doesn’t mean a drop in traffic:
Now, just because a video thumbnail is removed doesn’t mean traffic will drop. Sure, video thumbnails can definitely impact click through rate from the SERPs, but rankings aren’t impacted at all with this change. It’s just about the SERP treatment. Traffic for these sites has remained stable, although I still need to dig into the CTR data to see what the impact is there.

Of course, that’s tricky since some of the content I’m reviewing is news-oriented (where CTR will be much higher at certain times than others). Anyway, I’ll post more about the impact to CTR and clicks after digging in more.

Also, Google is sometimes replacing the video thumbnails with image thumbnails. When that happens, CTR could even go up… There is still special SERP treatment with the image being displayed, but it doesn’t have the play arrow overlaid on the image thumbnail. Again, I’ll need to dig into the data to see if there are any significant changes in CTR based on these changes.

Here is an example of two listings in the SERPs that used to have video thumbnails that now have image thumbnails. For this example, I wouldn’t expect CTR to change much. The SERP treatment is still strong:

An example of search listings losing video thumbnails, but they were replaced by image thumbnails.

Video thumbnails in Top Stories, spared or overlooked?
I also wanted to mention that Top Stories seems to be treated differently based on this change from Google. I am still seeing video thumbnails show up in Top Stories when the video is NOT the main content on the page. So this is either by design, or it was overlooked by Google when implementing the video thumbnail changes. Time will tell if the video thumbnails remain. I’ll post an update if anything changes on that front.

For example, here are video thumbnails showing up when the video isn’t the main content:

Top Stories in Google still showing video thumbnails for pages where the video isn't the main content.

And here is the page that ranked with a video thumbnail. You can see the video is not the main content:

An example of a page where the video isn't the main content, but it is receiving video thumbnails in Top Stories.

Summary – Check your stats based on the video thumbnail apocalypse (but don’t freak out).
SERP features and rich snippets can definitely impact click through rate from the search results, so big changes like removing video thumbnails can cause issues for some sites. I wanted to document the huge drops I’m seeing in video thumbnails in the SERPs to make sure site owners and SEOs knew this is happening (so they could check their stats to analyze the impact). And remember, this might not impact clicks at all… especially if video thumbnails are replaced by image thumbnails. I’ll continue to analyze the situation and will post updates here. Stay tuned.

GG