Early search engines were built on an unspoken transaction — a pact between search engines and website owners — you give us your data, and we'll send you traffic. While Google changed the game of how search engines rank content, they honored the same pact in the beginning. Publishers, who owned their own content and traditionally were fueled by subscription revenue, operated differently. Over time, they built walls around their gardens to keep visitors in and, hopefully, keep them paying.
Over the past six years, Google has crossed this divide, building walls around their content and no longer linking out to the sources that content was originally built on. Is this the inevitable evolution of search, or has Google forgotten their pact with the people's whose backyards their garden was built on?
I don't think there's an easy answer to this question, but the evolution itself is undeniable. I'm going to take you through an exhaustive (yes, you may need a sandwich) journey of the ways that Google is building in-search experiences, from answer boxes to custom portals, and rerouting paths back to their own garden.
I. The Knowledge Graph
In May of 2012, Google launched the Knowledge Graph. This was Google's first large-scale attempt at providing direct answers in search results, using structured data from trusted sources. One incarnation of the Knowledge Graph is Knowledge Panels, which return rich information about known entities. Here's part of one for actor Chiwetel Ejiofor (note: this image is truncated)...
Including links to Google Images, that's 33 different links back to Google. These two changes — self-contained in-search experiences and aggressive internal linking — represent a radical shift in the nature of search engines, and that shift has continued and expanded over the past six years.
More recently, Google added a sharing icon (on the right, directly below the top images). This provides a custom link that allows people to directly share rich Google search results as content on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and by email. Google no longer views these pages as a path to a destination. Search results are the destination.
The Knowledge Graph also spawned Knowledge Cards, more broadly known as "answer boxes." Take any fact in the panel above and pose it as a question, and you're likely to get a Knowledge Card. For example, "How old is Chiwetel Ejiofor?" returns the following...
For many searchers, this will be the end of their journey. Google has answered their question and created a self-contained experience. Note that this example also contains links to additional Google searches.
In 2015, Google launched Medical Knowledge Panels. These gradually evolved into fully customized content experiences created with partners in the medical field. Here's one for "cardiac arrest" (truncated)...
Note the fully customized design (these images were created specifically for these panels), as well as the multi-tabbed experience. It is now possible to have a complete, customized content experience without ever leaving Google.
II. Live Results
In some specialized cases, Google uses private data partnerships to create customized answer boxes. Google calls these "Live Results." You've probably seen them many times now on weather, sports and stock market searches. Here's one for "Seattle weather"...
For the casual information seeker, these are self-contained information experiences with most or all of what we care about. Live Results are somewhat unique in that, unlike the general knowledge in the Knowledge Graph, each partnership represents a disruption to an industry.
These partnerships have branched out over time into even more specialized results. Consider, for example, "Snoqualmie ski conditions"...
Sports results are incredibly disruptive, and Google has expanded and enriched these results quite a bit over the past couple of years. Here's one for "Super Bowl 2018"...
Note that clicking any portion of this Live Result leads to a customized portal on Google that can no longer be called a "search result" in any traditional sense (more on portals later). Special sporting events, such as the 2018 Winter Olympics, have even more rich features. Here are some custom carousels for "Olympic snowboarding results"...
Note that these are multi-column carousels that ultimately lead to dozens of smaller cards. All of these cards click to more Google search results. This design choice may look strange on desktop and marks another trend — Google's shift to mobile-first design. Here's the same set of results on a Google Pixel phone...
III. Carousels
Speaking of carousels, Google has been experimenting with a variety of horizontal result formats, and many of them are built around driving traffic back to Google searches and properties. One of the older styles of carousels is the list format, which runs across the top of desktop searches (above other results). Here's one for "Seattle Sounders roster"...
Each player links to a new search result with that player in a Knowledge Panel. This carousel expands to the width of the screen (which is unusual, since Google's core desktop design is fixed-width). On my 1920x1080 screen, you can see 14 players, each linking to a new Google search, and the option to scroll for more...
This type of list carousel covers a wide range of topics, from "cat breeds" to "types of cheese." Here's an interesting one for "best movies of 1984." The image is truncated, but the full result includes drop-downs to select movie genres and other years...
Once again, each result links to a new search with a Knowledge Panel dedicated to that movie. Another style of carousel is the multi-row horizontal scroller, like this one for "songs by Nirvana"...
In this case, not only does each entry click to a new search result, but many of them have prominent featured videos at the top of the left column (more on that later). My screen shows at least partial information for 24 songs, all representing in-Google links above the traditional search results...
A search for "laptops" (a very competitive, commercial term, unlike the informational searches above) has a number of interesting features. At the bottom of the search is this "Refine by brand" carousel...
Clicking on one of these results leads to a new search with the brand name prepended (e.g. "Apple laptops"). The same search shows this "Best of" carousel...
The smaller "Mentioned in:" links go to articles from the listed publishers. The main, product links go to a Google search result with a product panel. Here's what I see when I click on "Dell XPS 13 9350" (image is truncated)...
IV. Answers & Questions
As Google realized that the Knowledge Graph would never scale at the pace of the wider web, they started to extract answers directly from their index (i.e. all of the content in the world, or at least most of it). This led to what they call "Featured Snippets", a special kind of answer box. Here's one for "Can hamsters eat cheese?" (yes, I have a lot of cheese-related questions)...
Featured Snippets are an interesting hybrid. On the one hand, they're an in-search experience (in this case, my basic question has been answered before I've even left Google). On the other hand, they do link out to the source site and are a form of organic search result.
Featured Snippets also power answers on Google Assistant and Google Home. If I ask Google Home the same question about hamsters, I hear the following:
On the website TheHamsterHouse.com, they say "Yes, hamsters can eat cheese! Cheese should not be a significant part of your hamster's diet and you should not feed cheese to your hamster too often. However, feeding cheese to your hamster as a treat, perhaps once per week in small quantities, should be fine."
You'll see the answer is identical to the Featured Snippet shown above. Note the attribution (which I've bolded) — a voice search can't link back to the source, posing unique challenges. Google does attempt to provide attribution on Google Home, but as they use answers extracted from the web more broadly, we may see the way original sources are credited change depending on the use case and device.
This broader answer engine powers another type of result, called "Related Questions" or the "People Also Ask" box. Here's one on that same search...
These questions are at least partially machine-generated, which is why the grammar can read a little oddly — that's a fascinating topic for another time. If you click on "What can hamsters eat list?" you get what looks a lot like a Featured Snippet (and links to an outside source)...
Notice two other things that are going on here. First, Google has included a link to search results for the question you clicked on (see the purple arrow). Second, the list has expanded. The two questions at the end are new. Let's click "What do hamsters like to do for fun?" (because how can I resist?)...
This opens up a second answer, a second link to a new Google search, and two more answers. You can continue this to your heart's content. What's especially interesting is that this isn't just some static list that expands as you click on it. The new questions are generated based on your interactions, as Google tries to understand your intent and shape your journey around it.
My colleague, Britney Muller, has done some excellent research on the subject and has taken to calling these infinite PAAs. They're probably not quite infinite — eventually, the sun will explode and consume the Earth. Until then, they do represent a massively recursive in-Google experience.
V. Videos & Movies
One particularly interesting type of Featured Snippet is the Featured Video result. Search for "umbrella" and you should see a panel like this in the top-left column (truncated):
This is a unique hybrid — it has Knowledge Panel features (that link back to Google results), but it also has an organic-style link and large video thumbnail. While it appears organic, all of the Featured Videos we've seen in the wild have come from YouTube (Vevo is a YouTube partner), which essentially means this is an in-Google experience. These Featured Videos consume a lot of screen real-estate and appear even on commercial terms, like Rihanna's "umbrella" (shown here) or Kendrick Lamar's "swimming pools".
Movie searches yield a rich array of features, from Live Results for local showtimes to rich Knowledge Panels. Last year, Google completely redesigned their mobile experience for movie results, creating a deep in-search experience. Here's a mobile panel for "Black Panther"...
Notice the tabs below the title. You can navigate within this panel to a wealth of information, including cast members and photos. Clicking on any cast member goes to a new search about that actor/actress.
Although the search results eventually continue below this panel, the experience is rich, self-contained, and incredibly disruptive to high-ranking powerhouses in this space, including IMDB. You can even view trailers from the panel...
On my phone, Google displayed 10 videos (at roughly two per screen), and nine of those were links to YouTube. Given YouTube's dominance, it's difficult to say if Google is purposely favoring their own properties, but the end result is the same — even seemingly "external" clicks are often still Google-owned clicks.
VI. Local Results
A similar evolution has been happening in local results. Take the local 3-pack — here's one on a search for "Seattle movie theaters"...
Originally, the individual business links went directly to each of those business's websites. As of the past year or two, these instead go to local panels on Google Maps, like this one...
On mobile, these local panels stand out even more, with prominent photos, tabbed navigation and easy access to click-to-call and directions.
In certain industries, local packs have additional options to run a search within a search. Here's a pack for Chicago taco restaurants, where you can filter results (from the broader set of Google Maps results) by rating, price, or hours...
Once again, we have a fully embedded search experience. I don't usually vouch for any of the businesses in my screenshots, but I just had the pork belly al pastor at Broken English Taco Pub and it was amazing (this is my personal opinion and in no way reflects the taco preferences of Moz, its employees, or its lawyers).
The hospitality industry has been similarly affected. Search for an individual hotel, like "Kimpton Alexis Seattle" (one of my usual haunts when visiting the home office), and you'll get a local panel like the one below. Pardon the long image, but I wanted you to have the full effect...
This is an incredible blend of local business result, informational panel, and commercial result, allowing you direct access to booking information. It's not just organic local results that have changed, though. Recently, Google started offering ads in local packs, primarily on mobile results. Here's one for "tax attorneys"...
Unlike traditional AdWords ads, these results don't go directly to the advertiser's website. Instead, like standard pack results, they go to a Google local panel. Here's what the mobile version looks like...
In addition, Google has launched specialized ads for local service providers, such as plumbers and electricians. These appear carousel-style on desktop, such as this one for "plumbers in Seattle"...
Unlike AdWords advertisers, local service providers buy into a specialized program and these local service ads click to a fully customized Google sub-site, which brings us to the next topic — portals.
VII. Custom Portals
Some Google experiences have become so customized that they operate as stand-alone portals. If you click on a local service ad, you get a Google-owned portal that allows you to view the provider, check to see if they can handle your particular problem in your zip code, and (if not) view other, relevant providers...
You've completely left the search result at this point, and can continue your experience fully within this Google property. These local service ads have now expanded to more than 30 US cities.
In 2016, Google launched their own travel guides. Run a search like "things to do in Seattle" and you'll see a carousel-style result like this one...
Click on "Seattle travel guide" and you'll be taken to a customized travel portal for the city of Seattle. The screen below is a desktop result — note the increasing similarity to rich mobile experiences.
Once again, you've been taken to a complete Google experience outside of search results.
Last year, Google jumped into the job-hunting game, launching a 3-pack of job listings covering all major players in this space, like this one for "marketing jobs in Seattle"...
Click on any job listing, and you'll be taken to a separate Google jobs portal. Let's try Facebook...
From here, you can view other listings, refine your search, and even save jobs and set up alerts. Once again, you've jumped from a specialized Google result to a completely Google-controlled experience.
Like hotels, Google has dabbled in flight data and search for years. If I search for "flights to Seattle," Google will automatically note my current location and offer me a search interface and a few choices...
Click on one of these choices and you're taken to a completely redesigned Google Flights portal...
Once again, you can continue your journey completely within this Google-owned portal, never returning back to your original search. This is a trend we can expect to continue for the foreseeable future.
VIII. Hard Questions
If I've bludgeoned you with examples, then I apologize, but I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a case of one or two isolated incidents. Google is systematically driving more clicks from search to new searches, in-search experiences, and other Google owned properties. This leads to a few hard questions...
Why is Google doing this?
Right about now, you're rushing to the comments section to type "For the money!" along with a bunch of other words that may include variations of my name, "sheeple," and "dumb-ass." Yes, Google is a for-profit company that is motivated in part by making money. Moz is a for-profit company that is motivated in part by making money. Stating the obvious isn't insight.
In some cases, the revenue motivation is clear. Suggesting the best laptops to searchers and linking those to shopping opportunities drives direct dollars. In traditional walled gardens, publishers are trying to produce more page-views, driving more ad impressions. Is Google driving us to more searches, in-search experiences, and portals to drive more ad clicks?
The answer isn't entirely clear. Knowledge Graph links, for example, usually go to informational searches with few or no ads. Rich experiences like Medical Knowledge Panels and movie results on mobile have no ads at all. Some portals have direct revenues (local service providers have to pay for inclusion), but others, like travel guides, have no apparent revenue model (at least for now).
Google is competing directly with Facebook for hours in our day — while Google has massive traffic and ad revenue, people on average spend much more time on Facebook. Could Google be trying to drive up their time-on-site metrics? Possibly, but it's unclear what this accomplishes beyond being a vanity metric to make investors feel good.
Looking to the long game, keeping us on Google and within Google properties does open up the opportunity for additional advertising and new revenue streams. Maybe Google simply realizes that letting us go so easily off to other destinations is leaving future money on the table.
Is this good for users?
I think the most objective answer I can give is — it depends. As a daily search user, I've found many of these developments useful, especially on mobile. If I can get an answer at a glance or in an in-search entity, such as a Live Result for weather or sports, or the phone number and address of a local restaurant, it saves me time and the trouble of being familiar with the user interface of thousands of different websites. On the other hand, if I feel that I'm being run in circles through search after search or am being given fewer and fewer choices, that can feel manipulative and frustrating.
Is this fair to marketers?
Let's be brutally honest — it doesn't matter. Google has no obligation to us as marketers. Sites don't deserve to rank and get traffic simply because we've spent time and effort or think we know all the tricks. I believe our relationship with Google can be symbiotic, but that's a delicate balance and always in flux.
In some cases, I do think we have to take a deep breath and think about what's good for our customers. As a marketer, local packs linking directly to in-Google properties is alarming — we measure our success based on traffic. However, these local panels are well-designed, consistent, and have easy access to vital information like business addresses, phone numbers, and hours. If these properties drive phone calls and foot traffic, should we discount their value simply because it's harder to measure?
Is this fair to businesses?
This is a more interesting question. I believe that, like other search engines before it, Google made an unwritten pact with website owners — in exchange for our information and the privilege to monetize that information, Google would send us traffic. This is not altruism on Google's part. The vast majority of Google's $95B in 2017 advertising revenue came from search advertising, and that advertising would have no audience without organic search results. Those results come from the collective content of the web.
As Google replaces that content and sends more clicks back to themselves, I do believe that the fundamental pact that Google's success was built on is gradually being broken. Google's garden was built on our collective property, and it does feel like we're slowly being herded out of our own backyards.
We also have to consider the deeper question of content ownership. If Google chooses to pursue private data partnerships — such as with Live Results or the original Knowledge Graph — then they own that data, or at least are leasing it fairly. It may seem unfair that they're displacing us, but they have the right to do so.
Much of the Knowledge Graph is built on human-curated sources such as Wikidata (i.e. Wikipedia). While Google undoubtedly has an ironclad agreement with Wikipedia, what about the people who originally contributed and edited that content? Would they have done so knowing their content could ultimately displace other content creators (including possibly their own websites) in Google results? Are those contributors willing participants in this experiment? The question of ownership isn't as easy as it seems.
If Google extracts the data we provide as part of the pact, such as with Featured Snippets and People Also Ask results, and begins to wall off those portions of the garden, then we have every right to protest. Even the concept of a partnership isn't always black-and-white. Some job listing providers I've spoken with privately felt pressured to enter Google's new jobs portal (out of fear of cutting off the paths to their own gardens), but they weren't happy to see the new walls built.
Google is also trying to survive. Search has to evolve, and it has to answer questions and fit a rapidly changing world of device formats, from desktop to mobile to voice. I think the time has come, though, for Google to stop and think about the pact that built their nearly hundred-billion-dollar ad empire.
One of the best deep-dive posts I've seen for a while Pete. Nice work.
Two thoughts:
I'd love to hear your take on those two.
The legal aspect has been interesting to follow -- Google does fall back on the idea that we can opt out at any time, which is true in theory. Many have argued, though, that Google's disproportionate share of search (I won't use the M-word) means opting out is a practical non-option now. We've been led down the garden path, and now there's nowhere left to go.
I think the ethical aspect is more challenging. Google got to where they are based on the broader content of the web, and that content fueled everything else. Do they owe the people who provided that content something, or was that paid in full by traffic received so far? If Google went to an all owned-content or paid model, I think (like it or not) they could wipe the slate clean. When they start to extract answers, though, and use them to build content, and that content replaces the original, it gets a lot more dubious.
I think the other worry I have regarding (2) is the end of diversification. When you get back 10 blue links, they may not all be good, but you get choices. You can go to those sites, judge their quality, and go somewhere else if you want to. Look at my Featured Snippet example, though. What if that information is false? I probably won't vet it much, because Google grants that answer authority, and as an end-user I generally trust Google. I have no idea, though, and I could end up (metaphorically?) poisoning my hamster. On desktop/mobile, I've at least got a SERP below it, but on voice this is the only answer I'll get.
I empathize with the challenge, and I get why Google has done this. Medical Knowledge Panels probably came out of issues with bad information in the medical space -- I get that, and I get it's a real challenge. On the other hand, not all information is clearly factual (a problem Google is painfully aware of in the news space). As Google chooses content and creates their own content, they narrow our point of view.
Yep - agree with all of that.
They got away with the opt-out for regular 10-blue-link web search in that 9th circuit judgement - but in general you can't infringe copyright and say that it's fine because you'd stop if someone asked. They got away with it in 10-blue-link web search land because the use was fair, and the societal benefit was great. It's harder to argue that the use is fair in deep-linked images or in one-box style answers.
Regarding the challenges of accurate one-boxes, I found this post from Google fascinating - don't know if you saw it. (Link to my musings about it on twitter).
It's also easier in the 10-blue-link world for Google to just claim they're dispassionately surfacing information and people have multiple options. When they start choosing an answer or presenting their own content, it complete shifts the balance of responsibility for that answer.
Amazing stuff here. I really enjoyed this post. Thanks Dr. Peter. I've long had this unshakable feeling about Google and its position on the web. It's at the center of almost everything and as you well-noted, it's not an option to opt out right now. There aren't that many search engines that can compete with the amount of traffic they receive and send to websites. And yes, website owners are being squeezed out slowly but surely. I feel that Google is under pressure to make more money each quarter/year since its a public company. Facebook faces the same pressures too. With the issues surrounding content on Facebook, they may just go private in order to fix the platform. Who knows, but it's looking like if Google continues on its current path, website owners will suffer. On the other hand, if Google goes private, we might get the company back that we all fell in love with. In any case, I don't know if any of that will even happen but just a thought.
Very impactful and hard-hitting post, Dr. Peter.
I sincerely believe Google should have a monetizing system for organic listings (featured snippets) just like they have Adsense for publishers.
To clarify my point, suppose, your content is fetched by Google and shown as a featured snippet to complete a search intent, then the original publisher should be entitled to some monetary benefits - based on impressions or clicks on the featured snippet result.
If Google is building up their audience by providing them with a nice UX which largely depends on the content created by other publishers, then the publisher should be rewarded for his efforts. Ultimately, growing search audience is a business goal for Google, which they can't achieve alone.
Thanks
P.S: It's just my personal point of view, not intended to hurt anyone's sentiments! :)
Don´t worry. Your personal point of view is very respectful and interesting. :)
I agree with you, the one who makes the article with original content does not take any advantage by showing fragments in Google, although there are some very long contents that to read it whole if you have to enter the result and this would benefit
Thinking out loud, I almost wonder if there's an AdSense model that could be put into place. If Google uses our content (instead of just linking to it), does it merit some kind of micro-payment? The big challenge is that those programs are ultimately opt-in, and Google can't limit themselves to just participants. For answers to work, they need the entire index in play. This is also why they're not waiting for structured data and are using any text available.
Do you think Google have this in place with the You tube model of being rewarded, by placing ads before your video content and paying the provider?
Completely agree with you!
Facebook is doing the same, TripAdvisor did the same, it's not easy or fair but is what we have, so it could be a great idea create an article about how to deal with this new Google's rules in my case I'm studying and trying to mastering on schemas, structured data and so on.
I agree with Roman, a post about how to deal with that new rules could be great! The things are going this way and we have nothing to do about. So, let´s adapt ourselves and try to survive in this new environment. I hope you can help us ;-)
Catch 22 - If Google stops sending traffic to other websites, those websites will eventually go out of business, and the resources Google pulls from will be gone. It's a delicate balance indeed. Great post.
I'm delighted to see that Google's walled garden strategy is finally covered by the main stream search industry publications. I have written about it 5 years ago but nobody took notice of it due to my "fringe voice" status:
https://seo2.onreact.com/when-will-google-sunset-se...
To those who downvoted this: do you dislike the fact that I saw it coming 5 years ago? What's wrong with you people?
I definitely don't want to give the impression that this idea is somehow new and uniquely mine -- I think many smart people (yourself included) have seen it coming. Even as I follow the trends, it's hard sometimes not to just see each change as an isolated event. It's only been the last 2-3 years, when the pace has really accelerated, that the trend has become inescapably obvious to me. I think that's why I finally wrote the post -- because there are just so many examples now that I hope even people outside of search can see the bigger picture.
I didn't mean to complain or something. Please take my comment literally. I don't use irony online.
I remember the days (Matt Cutts time) when Google actively courted Mom & Pop Shops (ultimately to get them to use AdWords), the very same Mom & Pop shops they have now put out of business as the cost of Adwords has escalated to a point where only Big Brands can afford to use them aggressively. (At least that is how it seems when you are bidding for Adwords from a country with a very weak exchange rate).
One of the issues facing us is that the CEO of Google isn't fit for the position.
He is part of the Silicon Valley culture so wrapped up in the idea of “making the world a better place” he and many others are oblivious to business ethics. I’m sick of hearing about “what is best for the user.” It always translates to "what is best for the bottom-line."
I really don't know if Sundar actually understands the difference between helping the user and doing something that is wrong. Maybe to him stealing content, SPAMing results , and slandering thousands of businesses with HTTPS non-sense is all about helping the user and he feels better about himself.
My view point is the ecosystem would be a lot better off if the FTC ran Sundar out of office and put in place a Chief Ethics Officer to help correct some of the issues the ecosystem is dealing with. Google is a Monopoly. If we have big business we need big government to watch over it.
I run sites in travel that have great content, and get emails on a regular basis from actual people thanking me for the content. I don't expect to rank #1 for lots of terms because after all I complete with huge billion dollar brands. I sit in a small niche and please the shit out of those users.
What sucks is that Google has created an uneven playing field and violates the standards they set for the rest of the web on an increasingly regular basis.
I’ve seen Google Travel Products out rank me overnight with content that doesn’t answer the search query what so ever. Google’s products don’t abide by the same ranking factors as the rest of the results. I guess spamming the user with shit products and sloppy ads is "whats is best for the user."
A search engine in which ads compete with organic results for top positions would be "best for the user." A search engine focused on mining the best results and not spamming their thin products might be "best for the user."
Not everything about Google is bad, in fact a lot of things are great, but they need an ethics correction and a broader perspective at CEO. Sundar needs to go ASAP.
I feel your pain - in the same boat!! What you say is 100% our experience. They built their search engine using our content and now push us out in favour of the highest bidder.
Thoroughly enjoyed!
To your point about why Google is doing this, even if they're not showing adverts, presumably a large chunk of this must be data gathering? And probably for the home/assistant market? The longer they keep you on Google properties the better they'll understand your journey and that's typically how they've tried to win new areas (i.e. Google Home wants to win on being smarter than Alexa for example, whereas Alexa is trying to crowdsource that stuff from developers and then plugs more neatly into products.)
From an integration standpoint, presumably the content they're creating here is more likely to be device agnostic, more likely to work on smart assistants and gives Google a leg up because they can interact directly with it. If you can play videos straight from results for example, presumably "Ok Google, play me the Black Panther trailer on my Chromecast living room" becomes notably easier to do.
That's a great point -- there is a lot happening around query refinement and Google trying to determine search intent. Recent example is the new links that appear when you bounce back from a search. Trying to figure out what people want from a few words is one of Google's biggest challenges, and they're going to use all of the data at their disposal. If they control the path of that data (and don't send you out to a 3rd-party site), then they can watch the entire process.
Very interesting post. I think google does this because it interests you to use it more and stay in your search engine without having to enter the pages of origin, this is good for the user, but not so much for the original article that does not It takes no benefit.
Terrific article, love all the great examples. As some others have mentioned its great to see this issue being highlighted by an industry heavyweight like Moz. The depressing ever-decreasing volume of organic traffic has hit all industries although some a lot more than others. We can debate all day about Google's motivations and whether or not its fair play, but the bottom line for me is we all need to diversify. Google is still the greatest marketing channel out there, but if thats all you have, you're in a terrible position, as a business. But you also have to recognise this threat is also an opportunity, and its why SEO is still so vital. In fact this reminds me of a really great talk given by Marshall Simmonds at SMX 2014 where he illustrates some of the big SERPS changes implemented by Google post 2012, one of which was image search. Well worth a look if you haven't seen it or another look if you have : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fcg6nbl0WM&t=16m1...
Yeah, this is one of the main problems with where search is headed. Google doesn't want to be a search engine, they want to be an information source but they want us to do all the work. It's crowdsourced knowledge at it's best. We'll take the photos, write the content and Google gets to use them and take all the credit.
Another very interesting post, Dr. Pete. Thank you. Even enjoyable without any sandwich ...
It is very helpful to see these various developments at a glance, as it gives quite a good idea, where Google is heading. The question remains, how hard they are going to push further into this direction, and whether there can be any way back.
Keeping users inside the Google universe is most probably not a vanity thing. I am rather leaning towards the idea that all these activities are massively helping them to make progress with their machine learning algorithms. Each user on such a journey through their products is sending very strong signals about his or her original search intent. Thus these algorithms are on a really fast learning track. Which in turn enables them to provide even better results in future.
Sad for content providers, as they will get less and less exposure. But probably a nucleus for the rise of a new competitor ...
Spot on with the machine learning guess! This is the first place my mind went as well. It's need the volume of interactions, queries, etc. to establish reliable data sets and proper modeling. It makes complete sense when you think needing the users to go deeper and stay longer. Behavioral patterns can be tied to keywords, etc. However... I'm also firmly in the "because of the money!" camp.
You're right, Dr. Peter. It's scary to think about how we stop being owners of our own ideas.
The worst thing is that the google figure is so powerful that we can do little about it. It is not that we live in a technocracy, but we are small slaves of the system.
Fortunately, we have not yet been expelled from our walled gardens, as we are experts in using the laws of the great google.
Fantastic and very considerate post. Thank you so much for sharing it.
1.I think Google is in a very complicated position. Google is trying to get ahead or setting the guidelines of the future web
Thank you for the article Dr. Peter.
It's a very tough reality as a user especially on mobile I love being able to check the scores of my favorite teams since I don't live in LA anymore it's difficult to watch Lakers, Dodgers, UCLA, 49ers, etc. out here in Dallas but as a digital marketer it is tough to see my favorite marketing type SEO start to lose it's market share. One one hand nothing has changed - you need high quality content to rank well but even the "golden triangle" isn't always enough, you really need to be in the 0 spot because 1-3 just isn't cutting it anymore.
I'm fascinated to watch this unfold - is Google going to become so ad heavy that people lose trust and look elsewhere?
My thoughts too. Going to be interesting to watch how this unfolds going forward. My guess is that G know exactly what they are doing and only push sites out far enough to benefit their business, but not so much that it hurts G.
But I do hope some smart young things are working on The Next Big Thing that gives the Big G a run for their money! It is time...
I’m guessing you guys have all read this article published in New York Times? I only just found it so thought I’d post it here for anyone else that might have missed it. If not allowed, admin please delete my post? Thanks. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/magazine/the-case-against-google.html
Many niche companies (like airfare companies, in my experience) are worried about Google disrupting their business model by taking flights, for example, away from them. Now, if an airfare company really wants to survive, they need to offer some level of value other than just being a booking engine...which anyone with access to an API can do.
My hope is that these Google changes will make small businesses focus on unique value, rather than being catch-alls.
Google isn't going to nix ads: on the contrary, they're expanding them rapidly. From an AdWords perspective (my company is PPC-focused, so these changes affect us a lot) we just have to keep up with the latest walled gardens and remember every day it gets a little bit closer to pay-to-play.
That's the challenge right now -- it used to be that algo updates would impact everyone, to some degree. Now, Google's launches are so laser-focused that they impact only a small amount of companies, but for those companies the impact is massive. It leaves everyone wondering when the other shoe is going to drop for their industry. I'm not trying to be conspiratorial, but I hear this fear from businesses every week.
the "massive" part is especially valid in mobile search
One thing that worries me is Google's partnerships with big brands and the way it displays that information for instance the shopping for a laptop example. How can the little guy sneak in here, a mom and pop electronic store that is trying to compete. There are not many of these left and i feel it is because google has become the yellow book. Google no longer partners with the mom and pops in the traditional sense of the unwritten pact. Many have been pushed out of search results in favor of bigger brands.
Not to be cynical, but I do think that the egalitarian days of the early web are over. Google's job is to model the world, and in the world big brands and big money are powerful. If a search for "Apple" returns nothing but enthusiast sites from apple growers, no matter how well written the content is, that's not going to match the expectation of consumers. I don't think we're ever going back to a time, from a search engine standpoint (any search engine), where the playing field is level.
In my opinion, Mom & Pop can still thrive in business, both on and off the web if they pick:
1) The right business
2) The right location
I'm not sure if Mom & Pop have been able to compete with big boxes electronics stores since the 1990s, but let's say they don't try to be Best Buy. Let's say, instead, they specialize in repairing computers, vintage video game systems, older TVs, DVD players, even VCRs and stereos. I can't bring my VCR into Best Buy to be repaired, but there is a family-owned business in the town nearest me who knows just how to fix things like this. I did find them on the web ... why? Because the town nearest me has a population of only 60,000, and this shop is literally the only game in town. While I don't know the profits the business is making from their venture, I do know they've been successful enough to open a second location in a town about an hour away.
Now, had they opened their business in a metropolis with 20 competitors, it's true I might not have found them on the web, but as it is, specialization and location seem to be the winning combo. There may be a country mouse/city mouse element involved here that is worthy of Mom & Pop's investigation if they want to succeed.
At this point, Google's walled garden is still letting business models based on scarcity/rarity be found when there is no big box or self-referential answer. But what Pete is describing here is real to the point that I'd be strongly advising Mom & Pop to invest all they can in offline WOMM, loyalty programs, and a very large, visible street sign.
Is this much difference to what Facebook did recently by basically getting rid of pages and removing them from the main feed. These companies care about themselves, they use the people for a time to grow their businesses and then when they have a large enough base / market share - work out how to monetise to their benefit.
I don't agree with any of it, but this is why I am trying to build brands that people go directly too rather than ranking higher.
Facebook has almost gotten away with more because we didn't expect as much from them. They were never really a fair playing field. I completely agree, though, that it's becoming more and more important for all us to diversify traffic sources and build our own audiences. It's not easy, but Google and FB hold too much power over out traffic right now.
Google is the quintessential 21st century Robber Baron. The sooner every one recognizes the lurking beast our data fed, the sooner we can set to slaying it.
Very thought-provoking post. An interesting element in all of this is the argument that Google is actually violating its own Quality Guidelines by scraping content from other sites. I wrote a post about this in 2014 when Google began showing song lyrics in the SERPs. I shared the same sentiment back then that I think many people still share regarding in-search experiences: good for users, potentially damaging for publishers.
Super overview. Something that I think also deserves to be considered in this context is AMP, which goes even further by pulling third-party content wholesale into Google's system.
Terrific article Dr. Pete. Very thorough (okay- freaking long :D with many many examples). As noted above others have commented on this in the past, so the topic isn't new--and you acknowledge thinking about this for a while--but all and all this article is very thorough.
I commented here as it applies to the usage of AMP. This will simply hurt and deprive many sources of traffic. It will further put a dagger into the news industry which has been suffering for decades. Only a very small few of major news sources have been able to boost paid readership by virtue of well spoken marketing programs and pay walls. The NYTimes and the Washington Post are two prime examples. Their readership has grown and their paid readership has soared. But on the other side of the coin the entire world of media has been crushed by the web and with that media and writers and journalists are taking a terrible beating.
And that has become a big big problem in our current world. You don't see the hard data very often but one does see the stories about media sources failing or shrinking one after the other. If you want to take a look at some hard data here is a link to the NY Times financial results from 2017 and compared to 2016: https://investors.nytco.com/investors/investor-news...
The NYTimes now depends on subscriptions to carry the bulk of its revenues. Ad revenues, once the overwhelming share of media revenues now contributes a minority of the revenues. The NYTimes financials show the ad revenues broken down by print and digital sources.
Hey if you want to CRUSH or negatively impact digital ad revenues for media sources----USE AMP to redirect links to articles away from the original sources and into a google property. Its one more situation where google is redirecting traffic away from primary sources and into its own monopoly of traffic. It impacts sites and their traffic--starves them of traffic and potentially monetizing. Google though marches on and ALWAYS increases its revenues from advertising---ALWAYS.
In my own little way when I cite a news source I ALWAYS link to the original source. They need the traffic. Not google--who is taking their original content and recirculating it into its own environment and DEPRIVING the source of the traffic. If you wish to kill media...then go ahead and link inside google's world of AMP. Such are the consequences.
Also above Miriam discussed the plight of smb's and strongly suggested focusing on good old Word of Mouth as a means to survive in a world where google is both limiting visibility to sites and smb's but redirecting the traffic into their own eco system.
We have been running smb's since before the web (we are damn old). We depended on print and WOM then and we still depend on WOM. The simple issue is it takes a TON of time and effort. SMB's need to realize that. Its a large investment in time hours and energy...all on top of actually running the business. But its necessary as google simply has shrunk visibility (or killed it in the context of travel and hotels) or you have to spend big on digital advertising.
The environment is tough.
Nice article describing some of the realities!!!
Dav
Great article!
I think Google is trying to make the search experience as quick and painless as possible - eliminating all simple query searches in the way, like q&a pages that are specifically build to answer simple questions.
I think that we, as marketers, need to think about writing more complex and rich content, that will provoke readers to click on our page, when a quick answer from the answer box is not thorough enough for the user.
It is definately limiting and making marketers and content writers rethink our strategy.
I hope Google will understand one day that without webmasters, its search tool is useless.
I hope also that politics will explain this to Google ;)
A masterpiece Pete with a good recap. I'll add some considerations.
1. Sometimes Google is pushing the boundaries converting part of the search results in a product, like Weather Progressive Web Apps, you can install on your device. This obviously put at serious risk the market and it's an abuse perpetrated by a monopoly. Just to make an example, Google uses weather.com data, but those data are no more accurate or better or relevant than local weather provider outside of US. If the main mission of Google is to give the most relevant and better results for users they are failing miserably. But at the same time they are trying to reduce competitor's visibility with the false promise of better UX. Perpetrated false claim.
2. I'm very scared by Google at this time for the evolution of AMP and their effort to monopolize the web bypassing standards (W3C etc...) instead of working in make the web a better place like they "say". The new effort in helping Wordpress scare me a lot more if looking from the AMP perspective cause it's a huge weapon to gain market share for "their non-standard" the same as considering "Gmail" the only possible mail.
They can do everything they want, but the issue remain, cause they are a defacto monopoly. They have no rivals. This is not good for the web.
All these things you have listed are from the 'Semantic Web', something first created way back in 2005. The reason I mention this is because Google has been very slow to add Semantic Web technology to its search engine and the year 2018 we are in shows more than 10 years has passed.
So what about 2018? Well there are now better protocols than (http - https - http/2) things like IPFS which let users be able to search for information a lot better! So actually Google is a bit old school and there are actually better technologies out there that markers should be aware of and these new technologies wont let a single company like Google try and take over the whole internet.
Interesting. Seems like the search engine as a portal onto the world is changing. Facebook has started to do the same thing - a lot of things linked to externally are backgrounded or made visually boring, where stuff posted directly in is attention grabbing. If the search engines, or the cross-posting functionality changes then the purpose of websites is forced to change too. Are they just going to become storage places used by bloggers and the like? Things you have to know the address to or need to be sent the links for to actually find them? Google as its own internet. Facebook as its own internet? Given the size of them they are going to be hard to divorce. It's interesting to me that people were expecting net neutrality to cause an atomisation of the internet, and in fact it may be the social media and search engine giants that achieve that.
Great Article Dr Pete, I agree with all your points.
In my opinion Google are treading a very fine line. Lets compare it this way, if Google built a city and allowed people to move into that city, prosper and create their own businesses off the back of the benefits provided by 'Googles government', then they definitely have a responsibility to look after the people who live in that city.
At the minute they seem to be neglecting some of those people / businesses and even taking their place in the search results. Just think of the traffic loss to a website that used to rank highly for some of those terms, now pushed out by googles instant results who are linking back to their own properties.
To quote Uncle Ben, With great power comes great responsibility and they seem to me, to be less responsible these days!
As a marketer I completely understand the whys and why-nots and the need for companies to adapt to change, but I think there's an ethical fine between Google the 'provider' and Google the 'competitor'.
Fantastic, comprehensive post - thank you! It will be interesting to see how things shake-out over the next couple of years, especially within "local". To say that we as marketers are at Google and mercy is putting it mildly! Not sure how the MOZ community views the SEM "reseller" game going forward - but increasingly SEO and social seem to be the best opportunities...
Wow what a great post. Thanks for putting this together!
Google is certainly trying to get ahead of what the web can be—and I think they are making a prediction that individual sites will become more like profiles in a more homogeneous ecosystem (hopefully theirs). They are designing functionality for users that came after the DIY researching phase, and users that put more trust in what's in front of them rather than knowing more about what it actually takes to put that information there.
In a lot of ways it's scary because one company is subjectively deciding what has enough value to be seen, which means less opportunity for individuals and smaller companies. CTR and searcher intent should decide what gets seen, but it's so cyclically created that that isn't cut and dry. Ownership online has always been murky, in almost every space. When real dollars and millions of potential eyes are involved, Google has more of a claim already.
Been waiting for an article like this to come out for a long time. As a travel blogger, I'm affected first-hand by how much Google has stepped directly into the travel sphere recently.
Not just recently Sofie - they have been insidiously picking away at travel businesses for many many years - flights, hotels even car hire and travel insurance. Makes a tough challenge for anyone trying to help these businesses get organic traffic.
Thanks for the information!!
I don't see mere searchers on google having a problem with this just marketers. It seems to me that it's working for them and we marketers need to adapt accordingly.
Thanks Dr. peter for giving this information. I forgot about these updates with the time but you have been recalled it again. Yes you told all things right about these changes in google on SERP page about knowledge graph, knowledge panel and much more other things about updates. And also I want to say that before your article I didn't read about these updates in a single article ever.
Great article, Pete, thanks for taking the time to piece together all these elements. I've been watching SERPs enrich and been wondering where the fine line might be where sites start not wanting to be a panel/a featured spot, because they would rather have their own experience with the user... but also thinking about just how blurred SEO and UX are becoming, because search just wants to 'get' humans, and give them a seamless, convenient, simple experience that gets them to the answer they need in the fastest possible time. I'm sure it'll continue to evolve, and I look forward to seeing how it shapes up.
PS: You should get "A Salute to Cheese" by Betty Wason.
Is it possible that Google is thinking the very long game is for them to provide all the content themselves and company's just pay to be a part of it?
That way no site can cheat the system and we as user's only have to learn how one site works to find the information we require, Google.
It could also mean that Bing and the others are prevented from growing.
Dr. Peter, nice to meet you on the web. I really appreciated your post and the time you took on presenting your information. To be honest we have all seen the gradual changes, but you got me to look at it from a different perspective.
I guess it is one of those things where you have to have access to some sort of revenue streams that don't rely on Google, as hard as that sounds, as that is where most traffic comes from. I've taken a longer look at referral traffic and how I can boost profit from that after reading through this.
There is no sense in me over-reacting, but I do get exactly what you are talking about. Even more so with the medical stuff. As I have found myself countless times stopping at that panel with enough information, and never visiting anyone's website.
Keep up the great work!
Wow, this post is spot on. I had been pondering over this topic lately.
I'd like to add one more example of how Google is using data from content creators and fuelling it into building custom in-search experiences.
1. Do a Google search for "Best note-taking apps."
2. Currently, the Featured Snippet is a relevant article from PCMag.
3. It mentions various apps like Google Keep, Evernote, etc. in the article.
4. But Google pulls this data from PCMag, and shows a "According to PCMag, here are the best note-taking apps.." and directly offers a Google Search for Google Keep, Evernote, etc.
What do you think, Dr Pete?
I'd love to hear your rake on this.
Great article and spot on. Google's carrot is starting to show signs of spoiling. Symbiotic relationship is great way to describe it. It seems to me it's moving from one of perceived mutualism to exploitative? Your article also got me thinking about digital property law. If Google was found to have crawled or indexed your pages/content (owned domain) despite clear crawling & indexing directives to block Google, could they be held accountable at any level? ICANN? This would trespassing no? If it happened more than once could you get a digital restraining order? Maybe overly dramatic but interesting nonetheless. Thanks for sharing!
I've only recently become aware of this trend as I search for products. Could someone suggest another search engine? Is bing the only alternative? (I haven't used it so I don't know if it behaves differently.) Could the masses rise up and promote an alternative?
Very interesting article and I certainly agree. I have been tracking online directories like Tripadvisor or Enritsch for a while who have managed to pop in google under the business snipped via reviews. Recently google has changed that as well and mostly shows reviews left on google only - even though there are multiple credible (more credible if you ask me) who have 10x more reviews. Again, another case of building a wall and cutting businesses out. It almost seems that at the end, there will only be google - no matter what you search for.
Thoughtful and honest. I appreciate this article.
This has been an issue on my mind (as an agency owner) for a while. Google's wall-building seems to be in line with what we see happening on other popular sites. Facebook and LinkedIn give native content a lot more reach—it seems like Google's doing the same.
Except Google's writing its own native content.
It makes me a little uneasy—but like you say, "Google has no obligation to us as marketers."
Thanks for a fine read, Doc—glad it showed up in the Top 10 this morning!
Apakah ini?I'm really happy to be able to read from the beginning of the article to the end of the comment. I found smart and reliable thinkers here. So What is a good strategy for new website owners to be able to compete with big investors who in all aspects are able to cooperate with Google?
I am totally new in this world and I am greatly helped by your writing.
As Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman puts it and I quote, "what goes up must come down." If you hate what Google is doing then you might as well stop producing content and spend time doing something useful.
Good post. It is very scary for SEO's.
However, I do think it is good for users. Google make lots of test to get users' response to their changes, and adapt to offer the best "product". It sure causes concerns for marketers, and create a more a complex ecosystem with which to work with, but it provides what we all usually want: a quick and reliable answer.I do get you though when you fear about being run in circle by this.
Thanks again for the post.
We've been watching this happen for years, and it really has ramped up over the past year, but the way you put it -- in this long-form write-up -- really shows the scale of the changes. Great article Doctor.
Thought-provoking post, Dr. Pete. As someone who works with a lot of publishers, the pain is real! It's one thing to give up traffic in exchange for getting your to phone ring, as in the case of local panels in Google Maps, but for businesses that produce content or data that's monetized via advertising, this stuff is a back-breaker.
An interesting thought occurred to me while reading this: Amazon is doing something very similar. They're allowing 3rd party merchants to sell in their marketplace. They collect all the data, and when they see a hot selling product that meets their criteria, they private label it and being selling it directly (see Amazon Basics). They're shortening the path from China to Amazon to your doorstep -- no need for retailers.
I get that some outdated business models need to be disrupted, and some people will lose jobs and need to adapt. But in these cases it seems less about true disruption and more about finding ways to repackage the work of others for their own benefit. If they're not careful, this thing they're creating could become an Ouroboros, but for now, it's good to own the platform!
Monopoly of information and gaining profits from it-- that is what's happening here. Digital information these days is so important that companies such as Google, tries to give what the market wants, within their own system, customized for every user's needs, etc. Everything is in Google; Google provides.
Great article, Peter!
I wonder if giving a single "free" click to ANY originating source keeps some Google board members up at night. It certainly seems like it!
I think Google's approach as outlined above could eventually be good for users. Content marketers have been talking for years about the "Content Tsunami", the overwhelming quantity of digital stuff we produce to garner attention. If Google's in-search experience breaks the business model for all but the best quality content, this will reduce the noise in the digital sphere, benefiting everyone long-term.
How much of the content that we marketers produce on a daily basis is actually "10x" content? How much low quality (.5x - 2x content) do we produce simply to stay in the game? If Google breaks the business model for low quality content, maybe we can spend our time creating fewer but more awesome content that truly serves customer needs.
Of course, Google is also doing this because it is profitable for them, that is a separate question.
Fantastic article! Thanks for laying out the landscape so well.
There was also the Google OneBox back in about 2009. A medical site site I worked on then was featured in the Health OneBox for a few years (alongside of other links, including links to the long-defunct Google Health) If I recall correctly, they were at the top of search results, then later moved to the right side of the SERPs. Medical Knowledge Panels emerged from the Health OneBox.
In my opinion Google are treading a very fine line. Lets compare it this way, if Google built a city and allowed people to move into that city, prosper and create their own businesses off the back of the benefits provided by 'Googles government', then they definitely have a responsibility to look after the people who live in that city.
Awesome article Dr. Peter!! As you say, the big players are trying to keep the users for themselves and that´s scary for the business and digital marketeers. But we should know that new environments always create new chances, and this is what we call evolution. Those changes also produce extintions, so let´s work hard if we don´t want to become the next digital dinosaurs :-)
Great but terrifying article. So for solo service businesses who get most of their clients from their websites like coaches or consultants, who have no local brick and mortar stores for offline advertising, and don't have big business budgets for paid advertising what specific measure would you recommend to google proof their business beside focusing more on building your email list?
Great post, Dr. Pete.
This is something our team has been discussing at length for some time as we've all felt the results of the walled garden and voiced our frustration at the ability to contribute to a balanced conversation. Health and wellness is the perfect example, while there is a lot of misinformation, it often feels there is a one-sided story unfolding in front of us.
What resonates most from this post from both an audience and brand perspective is the 'narrowing our point of view'. We often comment these snippets of information are taken out of context, only present one view, and often contradict one another when viewed in a series.
We understand there is a need for quick answers, and potentially this is a societal problem Google is feeding into. However, this current approach is severely limiting our access to knowledge, reducing our ability to critically think about the information presented, and training the next generation to look to Google as an authoritative, single source of information -- not the experts in the field that wrote the content.
One of the best examples not listed in your post is that Google is also limiting the number of organic results to about 300 blue links now. At the top of searches, Google states there are several million results per keyword, however, they truncate at 300.. Long gone are the days of sifting through hundreds of Gooooogle 'o's to get a broad understanding of a topic.
This has incredible real world implications as its altering the entire way the world perceives critical information. It's providing a narrow lens on a variety of topics and has the ability to tailor messaging to those most related to Google's interests.
I'd love to see the content ecosystem flourish again and move away from indexing quick, out of context Q&A's selected from ambiguous metrics. Google has built the audience and right to serve information, but we also should be able to know the 'cheese to should feed to your hamster should also be mild and low in fat' as to promote their health in the long term.
This is such a fascinating post. As a travel blogger it is so interesting to me. On the one hand my website traffic can be negatively impacted by the featured snippets, travel guides and local results that keep searchers on Google. Answers to simple queries like "Things to do in X" or "Best breakfast in X" used to be excellent traffic sources but now they get pushed down in SERP by Google's own replies. Bummer - but as a user I like the quick answers, as many others have said.
I guess for me the problem really comes in when Google is taking my content and displaying it without providing me compensation in the form of additional clicks to my site or payment. If they just keep all the searchers on their own site and take my content, then they should pay me for that.
Now it seems you are sometimes rewarded by using schema etc to make it easier for the big G to use your content in exchange for higher SERP position. But at what cost if no one needs to click your link?
I guess for now my future plan will be to create more complex content (like this article) that is difficult to summarize in a little snippet box.
It´s a very interesting post!,