Below are the most recent 30 comments. I try to keep it clean of comment spam, but some times things
get through and it takes me several hours to get to it. So please excuse any of that comment spam.
I did the work long before I made that comment. I'm still very much in favour of some form of communism, in fact I think it's inevitable but that's a topic probably best left for another day in a different forum.
I performed an analysis on Friday Feb 16th of 100 digital marketing related keywords that were all indicated as having local pack results. Only 24 had local pack results at the top of the page. Another 10% had local pack results after 5 or so organic results and other things. I'm guessing this is not a glitch, rather and A-B test of whether removing the local pack increases advertising revenue.
I performed an analysis of 100 Digital Marketing related keywords that were all identified in the tool used as having local pack results. I manually checked each of the keywords and only 24% actually had a local pack at the top of the page. Approximately another 10% were more than half way down the page after partial organic results. It's disappointing to see potentially inaccurate data combined with changes that Google continuously makes to its SERPs.
EEAT only applies in some niches. I have seen plenty where it does simply not correlate with rankings at all. Google is correct in saying that is it not a ranking factor. It only is in some cases.
But since lots of people here do reviews that influence buying decisions, it is generally going to matter.
In fairness to Google, people make a lot of assumptions about EEAT (specifically, in relation to author bios) that aren't supported by facts. This article (featuring an interview with John Mueller) may be a few years old, but there's no reason to believe that it's outdated:
"https://www.searchenginejournal.com/author-biography-google-ranking/312175/"
' the rollout of these updates can be multiple weeks'
Does this update have a different feel to you compared to the past? It feels different to me for some reason I've not been able to identify. Usually a % of traffic returns after about 2-3 days, even if it's low numbers, and this time it's not returned since around the 13th. This is the first time for me; I usually get some little flow of traffic and now it seems like there's no one out there searching.
And I keep wondering if they have outsourced all the tech crew work to some other place that doesn't have the same perspective as if you've lived in the US, and the dismissal of the quality raters may indicate that they were the ones to catch the bugs in the system and provide feedback so they could be fixed. Now, the AI doesn't know what's quality and doesn't know how to identify the bugs, so they go unnoticed. I feel like it's a complete mess out of control compared to a few weeks ago and keep looking for a leaked story about what's going on.
Now sites are faking their EEAT by having "featured on" section on the home page, with logos of a million websites they've been "featured" on. Yet there are no links to those sites and no proof that they've actually been featured on these sites. I even saw one competitor who has been hit by HCU have new articles written by a fake persona with degrees listed. And a link to Linkedin but it just a link to Linkedin home page, there is no profile to this author (who is 100% the owner of the website, not an "expert" guest blogger). But I don't think any of this matters. People just believe in Google's lies about EEAT.
You're 100% spot on.
I've run two polls/surveys on my site since HCU, asking for legitimate feedback, and it's still +90% positive. I continue to get emails about how spot-on my reviews are, how helpful the guides and calendars are, plus the slew of free tools on my site.
Did I look at Ahrefs topics and search volume when researching topics? Yes.
Did I want to rank for high volume terms for more traffic and revenue? Yes.
BUT
I'm also a licensed professional in my niche and write as much helpful content as possible, despite the keyword research.
My question is, why can't it be both – both written for humans but heavily influenced by SEO?
It's clear that my audience and Google quality raters (now Machine Learning) view my site completely opposite. Am I supposed to revamp my site to satisfy the algorithm with the risk it could negatively impact my real traffic and users?
Oh I assure you it does. For me personally they have changed the primary search intent 3 times so far. Every time I got absolutely wiped, as I was not covering the 'correct angle'.
The issue is not the recovery time, it’s the classifier itself. Sites are getting incorrectly labeled “unhelpful”. So, it doesn’t matter if the recovery time is 2 weeks or 2 decades; there will be no recovery if the algorithm keeps mislabeling helpful sites as unhelpful.
I hear ya. I have no doubt the HCU is what I'm dealing with though.
Most people who were hit by it know it as well, since like you said the average core update doesnt generally keep an entire site down this long even when most of the content has been updated.
My 2 biggest pages are taking turns being indexed. First one is indexed, then as soon as it gets deindexed the other gets indexed. Absolutely hilarious. In between are around 3 minutes when they both are indexed.
I guess my point was that we cannot be 100% sure about the cause. It could be the HCU, but we should not dismiss the core update. So far I have only ever been annihilated by core updates. But at least core updates can boost you. The HCU seems to be pure cancer that can only demote you and your whole site.
When in september? Interesting. So you were hit with a different update. It is extremely hard to tell, because the rollout of these updates can be multiple weeks.
Exactly. The whole site went down in September with the HCU rollout.
Some pages still rank better than others, but the sitewide classifier penalty is clear as day across the board.
They said the HCU is a sitewise 'classifier'. So a sitewide penalty basically. Purely punitive, purely sitewide.
So have all your rankings gone down? Personally for me I still have some pages that rank. Its just as if site authority got turned off and now only very few pages with lots of links still rank.
And that is what parasite pages are exploiting. That site authority basically does not exist. But that is not necessarily the HCU. My drop happened during the October core update Oct 7th.
Yes they did. Sure, they piled on plenty post-HCU where it fogged up everything even more, but all anyone has to do is see when their traffic fell off a cliff in September to know they got hatefucked to death by HCU.
I don't think as many people got hit by the HCU as we assume.
They changed more things about search last october than the HCU update.
And all I see is worse results and tons of bugs ever since that. And not even the bugs get fixed so how will they ever have time for another update to improve search quality.
Clearly, their focus is somewhere else.
At this point I'm pretty much expecting exactly what you said.
Just more endless doubletalk as subterfuge for delay, until they switch over entirely to AI where their search results as we see it right now is basically gone.