In October of 2014, Google launched "In the news", replacing their traditional news vertical results with a broader range of sources from across the web. Last week, Google's news results were shaken up again with the launch of "Top Stories", a card-style set of featured stories. Here's an example from a search for "John Glenn":
Even John Glenn's death somehow can't escape becoming a Trump story, but that's a topic for another time. What do we know about the shift to "Top Stories", and does this indicate a change in the way Google defines what's newsworthy? Let's start with the data...
Vital statistics
The following data was captured on Friday, December 9th across a tracking set of 10,000 keywords. These keywords cover a wide range of categories and types. Prior to the changes last week, "In the news" fluctuated on a weekly cycle (peaking mid-week), but occurred on somewhere between 10-15% of the keywords we track daily:
As of Friday, "In the news" had fallen to less than 2% of searches in the tracking set, and "Top Stories" spiked quickly to almost 13% (in the same range as "In the news" previously). None of the searches in our tracking set had both "In the news" and "Top Stories" on the same results page. It seems clear that "Top Stories" is replacing all news searches, and we can expect "In the news" to be completely phased out soon.
The new "Top Stories" UI has two distinct designs. The card-style design above accounted for 78% of the "Top Stories" results in our data set. The remaining 22% looked like this result for "flu symptoms":
Like the old "In the news" pack, the vertical "Top Stories" list can have from one to three stories. The horizontal version has three stories in every example in our data set (1,011 total).
The Newsmakers
Who's making the news that makes it into "Top Stories"? Across our tracking data set, we recorded 3,605 URLs appearing in "Top Stories" (some were duplicates, appearing across more than one search). Those 3,605 stories came from 1,319 different domains, suggesting that "Top Stories" is still sampling a very broad set of sources. These were the top 10:
- Forbes.com (2.1%)
- NYTimes.com (2.0%)
- USAToday.com (1.7%)
- FoxNews.com (1.2%)
- Bankrate.com (1.0%)
- Reuters.com (1.0%)
- WSJ.com (1.0%)
- CBSNews.com (0.9%)
- CNBC.com (0.9%)
- WashingtonPost.com (0.9%)
The top 10 sources accounted for almost 13% of all stories, and the top 50 accounted for just under 25%. The top 10 generally represented reputable news sources, although you might not think of Bankrate.com as a news source. Bankrate is appearing on commercial searches, such as this one for "buy cars":
In the context of that particular search, these are fairly reputable sources, but the search itself isn't one we would usually think of as newsworthy. Like "In the news" before it, Google seems to be casting a wide net with "Top Stories".
The News-fakers
Given the recent interest in fake news stories, some people have speculated that "Top Stories" is Google's attempt to address dubious news sources. Google has been fairly quiet so far about the motivation behind "Top Stories", but my sources suggest that this is primarily a design/UI change. This argument is supported by the fact that "Top Stories" rolled out with a broader redesign, including a new header and updated designs for image results and Twitter results. Additionally, "Top Stories" has been in testing on mobile search for a few months now, prior to the desktop roll-out
Our data also suggests that the number of sources involved in "Top Stories" is still very broad. Is there any evidence of some of the more controversial news sources of 2016? A quick check shows a handful of "Top Stories" results for Breitbart.com, with searches ranging from "second amendement" to "Kellogg's":
This is a bit of a grey area – while the Kellogg's boycott story is certainly newsworthy, and Breitbart's announcement is the source of that boycott, many people would consider them far too biased to quote as a source on this particular topic. Their inclusion suggests that Google is tapping a very wide range of sources from web results, without necessarily vetting the content of those sources.
Politics aside, other clearly fake sources are popping up in "Top Stories". Look carefully at this set of three results on a search for "violin":
While I'm personally a fan of The Onion, I think it's safe to say that no one should consider the article in the third card to be actual news. The second article, while certainly legitimate, is clearly an opinion piece. Our data set also included a handful of articles from Snopes.com. Here's one on a search for "lyme disease":
I'm sure we're all relieved to know that our Christmas Trees are (probably) not infested with disease-carrying ticks, but while Snopes has become a credible source for debunking bad information, it's certainly not a traditional news source in most people's eyes.
What is news?
Google's job isn't easy. News is no longer something delivered to us in a 30-minute nightly television program, recapping the same world of hand-picked information for everyone. News is contextual and driven by the information we seek. For example, almost no one would consider Nintendo.com to be a news source, yet take a look at the following set of "Top Stories" results:
These results appeared on a search for "3DS games" – in that context, a recent release on Nintendo's site is both timely and, in a broad sense, newsworthy. We wouldn't expect a link to Nintendo when searching for news about the conflict in Syria, but in this context they're a reputable source.
While "Top Stories" may be primarily a design overhaul for now, I do think that the conscious removal of the word "news" signals Google's intent. They have to be able to deliver stories in any context, even when traditional, reputable news sources aren't available (or, at least, when the reputation of those sources is unknown).
If Google sets the reputation threshold too high or restricts "Top Stories" to hand-picked sources, then they'll only be able to deliver recent news results to a very small set of searches. If they set it too low, then we'll be inundated with fake news. We're still a long way from teaching a machine to fact-check, and Google has a tough road ahead.
I wanted to keep the article as fact-based as possible, but I do think the question of Google's role in vetting information is an important one. While I have no doubt that the task is very difficult, I also believe that a $70B company who controls as much of the flow of information as Google has the capability and responsibility to do more. Simply swapping "news" for "stories" feels like a cop-out.
It is fair to say that sometimes time-sensitive content on a wide range of topics isn't going to come from traditional news sources, and I understand Google's need for flexibility. On the other hand, calling out content as "Top Stories" suggests a certain mark of approval. Even if we don't call them "news", Google is highlighting these results as worthy of our attention. That should require more than just traditional relevance and authority factors. Credibility and veracity matter.
This is such a great point! It does seem like a bit off a cop out.
Thanks for putting this all together! Curious what % of the articles use AMP or fall under a certain page speed? Have you noticed anything like that correlated to the chosen Top Stories?
Hello Peter,
First, excellent research as usual!
I agree with you; besides SEO news, the change comes with a lot more implications.
Information and access to it is one of the most powerful tools. If we recall the last US elections, the lack of accuracy of all the advance surveys, has changed history. I think that, because many were confident that they could vote one way and were sure, through wrong information, that their votes would be only signs of protest against the political establishment. Surprise.
Regarding the power of Google to curate the news or not, it is a power that is not good news at all.
I just looked for "top stories SEO", it comes up with these:
"Google replaces 'In the News' box with 'Top Stories' on desktop" PA: 1
"Google Tweaking Top Stories Algorithm To Filter Out Fake News?" PA: 1
"5 Crucial Mistakes to Avoid When Building a Website" PA: 1
Though I noticed a lot of outbound links...
Yes, we expect better performance, trustable sources on the matter, and yes I am very worried about the too much power one company has.
Thanks for sharing with us your wonderful work.
They're clearly not adjusting their algorithm to deal with legitimately "fake" news sources...
On the plus side... at least they weren't including fake news stories from Salon.com as legitimate "top stories".
@Scott - I think we could find poorly vetted stories in all of those publications, with the possible exception of Bankrate.com, which I'm not sure how to judge :) One complication is that many major news source now have multiple tiers of news, including contract and community contributors. Forbes is a good example - they have some thoroughly researched, well-vetted content, and then a lot of second- and third-tier content that's created mainly for clicks/traffic. Problem right now is that they still get all lumped together, not just by Google, but even by the PR world.
The problem is Journalists aren't being Journalists... they're being entertainment/National Inquirer writers. When you're too focused on geting the story out first, what's the point of the truth? -- Which seems to be their only priority, timeliness as opposed to newsworthiness. This isn't a problem for search engines, social medial outlets or other websites to solve... It's a problem journalists and the media have to solve.
My mother is a true journalist... I find the sham of our current Media disgraceful.
I'm don't entirely blame the Journalists. While i think they should vet their content, take the time to research their sourced information, and all-in-all ensure their content is legitimate, I think their publications (or their bosses) are judging performance based on non-monetary, "SEO" type metrics (clicks, pages/visit, shares). From conversations I've had with news publishers, as in the print kind of news, they are being given promotions and bonuses, and in some cases keep their job solely based upon how many clicks or shares their articles get. I think it's this measurement that impacts a journalist to write & publish as quickly, without time to fact-check. Clicks are a terrible measurement for journalism, but they are what is being watched because it's gives them ad revenue. I'd much rather see a pay-per-view style of article reading across every "Top Stories" or "News" site. I think that having people pay 1, 2, or 5 cents to read an article would slow down fake news, cause journalists to write engaging & valuable stories, and give publishers a better metric to measure. It may even stop those clickbait slideshow stories that spread one sentence across three pages in the hopes we click on an advertisement along the way.
So - am I reading you correctly that it seems like this news pack is not subject to the traditional requirements of being in Google News? Google is grabbing sources that weren't previously in Google News results? Or is it more of a change in design & labeling, but similar domains to before?
To the best of my knowledge, the "news" pack has not been subject to Google News requirements since "In the news" launched two years ago, and that remains true for "Top Stories". If you click on "more" or on the "News" tab, those rules change. I'm told that "Top Stories" itself (relative to "In the news") is primarily a design change and not algorithmic.
Fact. The Moz Blog is a good example -- we were frequently (in the few days after a post was published) in the "In the news" section for relevant keywords. Given the occasional marketing posts on the blog about our own products, however, we're not generally eligible for inclusion in Google News.
This certainly does bring the question of "What's newsworthy?" or "What's relevant?" Google has been quiet about this change, but I think the underlying message here is that everything we do online should and will always be for the users. Google will have so much ground to cover before they can refine the searches for these news sites.
"Top Stories" sounds so generic, makes that block look useless. When I search for somethings like oil price, I either want to see the price or I want to see the news about the oil price, not the top stories.
Agreed, Igor, there's an unnecessary conflation here.
As Peter says, it's a cop out!
Unfortunately, the most Top Stories failed by all accounts so far
Scroll down many of the official sites and appeared in the most Top Stories of new sites unrelated news truth.
Are there any tips to be displayed in the most Top Stories .
I think Stories is more relevant to where we are and feels like an alignment of where the news, opinion and comment space actually is. If we stick to traditional 'news' in this area it would be nowhere near as diverse or opinionated and people wouldn't naturally gravitate towards other platforms that can deliver a different perspective more rapidly. I often search in Google for the mainstream line, then check Twitter for the 'read-between-the-lines' version and then see what friends and colleagues (and others) are saying on Facebook for example.
First, thanks Peter for the article, for us "Top Stories" helps us to look for information related to SEO and positioning with relevant articles and also current, as for us it is very important for the daily update and changes in our sector . I think "Top stories" will replace "in the news" in the near future as we can see in the chart. Thank you Peter.
Good observation, Peter. Top Stories will continue to dominate search rankings in the upcoming years as well. While the feature does offer a playground for fake news networks to pop up, I guess users will have to trust only reputed/authentic news networks when checking out top stories- until Google comes up with a better mechanism to keep fake news at bay.
Well, i think the market is saturated with news blogs or webs.
It simply means more dictating on what people should know and what not.
Where is the difference to any country's dictatorship?
If Google keeps stamping out this path for much longer, I guess the era of Google will be soon over. Other smart kids are long working on a SE replacement.
Information should be Free, not at the will of an IT tyrant like Google.
Besides,
anyone noticed how Google goes about making people dumber and dumber with their Google map GPS? Funniest part - Google Always looks for a "Toll Way" (Could one suspect a plot with toll way operators?) On the other hand, Google is too dumb to offer alternative routes which Really Would short-cut your trip? (Could one suspect a plot with governments and road and traffic authorities?)
Regardless, I use my street knowledge and be still faster than Google.
No, I am not banging on Google. It's just the way how Google aims for dictating people and their brain, it's none less suppressing than the works of Thailand's Junta.
Top stories exist purely as a method of pushing liberal agenda. Apple top stories are constantly riddled with Washington Post, CNN, New York Times articles who all have been exposed as Liberal news outlets not afraid to publish fake news, or extremely biased left rubbish.
Aggregators are steering readers toward the path that best suits their agenda, not necessarily accurate, popular stories.
Snopes is awful, does less debunking more manipulation.
Our source - VAVEL.com - is not appearing in any query of the Top Stories new module.
It is decisive for traffic, and we contacted Google to feedback it and can take the changes they consider right. We are a trust source cross the world and no cover rumours, just facts in Sports.
I think that should be some problem in the algorithm yet they must fix, as some to-trust publishers disappear, while are appearing (in top results) sites as 1news com br, futboltotal com mx or capitaldeporte com and more wordpress blogs (please take a look to the sites to understand the confusion publishers have now).
We were appearing in the tests Google did before 5 of december, after this day we detected the change.
Hi Peter,
First of all, I really enjoy this post, trully :)
Before we have Google News, and everyone could be there, now we have top stories, "only" for big brands and media, nothing new, but another little push for the same brands...
"Top Stories" makes sense if we think about it in the context of what your search is and your location. As a gamer, I'd consider Nintendo a news source. I'd consider all the hardware and software vendors a news source because we often go to them to know what's happening hardware and software wise. I could go to IGN but they own all the sub news brands in gaming and not much choice for other news sources out there.
With the Visual Sitelink beta on AdWords happening right now. I think we can safely say that the card-style set route is in style for Google... when ever they can fit it in.
Fake news is a major issue and one we need to get a handle on. Though I had a talk with someone last week about fake news and spam domains. The issue is how they display banners and people click on the banner ads and make someone (Google, Bing, Facebook..ect) money. That's the problem with fake news and spam domains, there is to much money at risk that Google and Facebook have a deep vested interest in not doing anything or appear to not being doing anything. I can easily seeing it be 10%-20% of their revenue when we look at the display network on Google and audience network on Facebook.
As a search engine user, I've really liked the new card design with Top Stories. It's especially useful while on mobile. So from that standpoint I see why they made the change!
Yeah, it's worth noting that the design change is definitely another one influenced by Google's mobile-first philosophy. Cards are much friendlier on smaller devices.
Maybe there should be a disalaimer on all Internet Stories & news.
I prefer the word stories to news. A story can have many purposes. It can be fiction or non-fiction, an allegory told to make a point, etc. News ought to be truthful. Both the crazy news and the regular news serve their agenda first.
Are there any CTR studies on news result vs Top Stories? As well as Top Stories ctr impact on standard organic results.
I'm not aware of any yet. We're hoping to dig into some clickstream data soon, but it's still pretty early.
Indeed a great news to be over!! This change seems to just be an aesthetic update to the design in order to make the news box on desktop match that on the mobile version.