Editor's note: This post provides an excellent reference for past Google activity and updates. Since publication, elements of both the organic and local results have undergone yet further changes. We're preserving this article as-is, for posterity. Happy reading!
As a group, we SEOs still tend to focus most of our attention on just one place – traditional, organic results. In the past two years, I've spent a lot of time studying these results and how they change over time. The more I experience the reality of SERPs in the wild, though, the more I've become interested in situations like this one (a search for "diabetes symptoms")...
See the single blue link and half-snippet on the bottom-left? That's the only thing about this above-the-fold page that most SEOs in 2014 would call "organic". Of course, it's easy to find fringe cases, but the deeper I dig into the feature landscape that surrounds and fundamentally alters SERPs, the more I find that the exceptions are inching gradually closer to the rule.
Monday, July 28th was my 44th birthday, and I think Google must have decided to celebrate by giving me extra work (hooray for job security?). In the month between June 28th and July 28th, there were four major shake-ups to the SERPs, all of them happening beyond traditional, organic results. This post is a recap of our data on each of those shake-ups.
Authorship photos disappear (June 28)
On June 25th, Google's John Mueller made a surprise announcement via Google+:
We had seen authorship shake-ups in the past, but the largest recent drop had measured around 15%. It was clear that Google was rethinking the prevalence of author photos and their impact on perceived quality, but most of us assumed this would be a process of small tweaks. Given Google's push toward Google+ and its inherent tie-in with authorship, not a single SEO I know had predicted a complete loss of authorship photos.
Yet, over the next few days, culminating on the morning of June 28th, a total loss of authorship photos is exactly what happened:
While some authorship photos still appeared in personalized results, the profile photos completely disappeared from general results, after previously being present on about 21% of the SERPs that MozCast tracks. It's important to note that the concept of authorship remains, and author bylines are still being shown (we track that at about 24%, as of this writing), but the overall visual impact was dramatic for many SERPs.
In-depth gets deeper (July 2nd)
Most SEOs still don't pay much attention to Google's "In-depth Articles," but they've been slowly gain SERP share. When we first started tracking them, they popped up on about 3.5% of the searches MozCast covers. This data seems to only get updated periodically, and the number had grown to roughly 6.0% by the end of June 2014. On the morning of July 2nd, I (and, seemingly, everyone else), missed a major change:
Overnight, the presence of in-depth articles jumped from 6.0% to 12.7%, more than doubling (a +112% increase, to be precise). Some examples of queries that gained in-depth articles include:
- xbox 360
- hotels
- raspberry pi
- samsung galaxy tab
- job search
- pilates
- payday loans
- apartments
- car sales
- web design
Here's an example set of in-depth for a term SEOs know all too well, "payday loans":
The motivation for this change is unclear, and it comes even as Google continues to test designs with pared down in-depth results (almost all of their tests seem to take up less space than the current design). Doubling this feature hardly indicates a lack of confidence, though, and many competitive terms are now showing in-depth results.
Video looks more like radio (July 16th)
Just a couple of weeks after the authorship drop, we saw a smaller but still significant shake-up in video results, with about 28% of results MozCast tracks losing video thumbnails:
As you can see, the presence of thumbnails does vary day-to-day, but the two plateaus, before and after June 16th, are clear here. At this point, the new number seems to be holding.
Since our data doesn't connect the video thumbnails to specific results, it's tough to say if this change indicates a removal of thumbnails or a drop in rankings for video results overall. Considering how smaller drops in authorship signaled a much larger change down the road, I think this shift deserves more attention. It could be that Google is generally questioning the value and prevalence of rich snippets, especially when quality concerns come into play.
I originally hypothesized that this might not be a true loss, but could be a sign that some video snippets were switching to the new "mega-video" format (or video answer box, if you prefer). This does not appear to be the case, as the larger video format is still fairly uncommon, and the numbers don't match up.
For reference, here's a mega-video format (for the query "bartender"):
Mega-videos are appearing on such seemingly generic queries as "partition", "headlights", and "california king bed". If you have the budget and really want to dominate the SERPs, try writing a pop song.
Pigeons attack local results (July 24th)
By now, many of you have heard of Google's "Pigeon" update. The Pigeon update hit local SERPs hard and seems to have dramatically changed how Google determines and uses a searcher's location. Local search is more than an algorithmic layer, though – it's also a feature set. When Pigeon hit, we saw a sharp decline in local "pack" results (the groups of 2-7 pinned local results):
We initially reported that pack results dropped more than 60% after the Pigeon update. We now are convinced that this was a mistake (indicated by the "?" zone) – essentially, Pigeon changed localization so much that it broke the method we were using. We've found a new method that seems to match manually setting your location, and the numbers for July 29-30 are, to the best of my knowledge, accurate.
According to these new numbers, local pack results have fallen 23.4% (in our data set) after the Pigeon update. This is the exact same number Darren Shaw of WhiteSpark found, using a completely different data set and methodology. The perfect match between those two numbers is probably a bit of luck, but they suggest that we're at least on the right track. While I over-reported the initial drop, and I apologize for any confusion that may have caused, the corrected reality still shows a substantial change in pack results.
It's important to note that this 23.4% drop is a net change – among queries, there were both losers and winners. Here are 10 searches that lost pack results (and have been manually verified):
- jobs
- cars for sale
- apartments
- cruises
- train tickets
- sofa
- wheels
- liposuction
- social security card
- motorcycle helmets
A couple of important notes – first, some searches that lost packs only lost packs in certain regions. Second, Pigeon is a very recent update and may still be rolling out or being tweaked. This is only the state of the data as we know it today.
Here are 10 searches that gained pack results (in our data set):
- skechers
- mortgage
- apartments for rent
- web designer
- long john silvers
- lamps
- mystic
- make a wish foundation
- va hospital
- internet service
The search for "mystic" is an interesting example – no matter what your location (if you're in the US), Google is showing a pack result for Mystic, CT. This pattern seems to be popping up across the Pigeon update. For example, a search for "California Pizza Kitchen" automatically targets California, regardless of your location (h/t Tony Verre), and a search for "Buffalo Wild Wings" sends you to Buffalo, NY (h/t Andrew Mitschke).
Of course, local search is complex, and it seems like Google is trying to do a lot in one update. The simple fact that a search for "apartments" lost pack results in our data, while "apartments for rent" gained them, shows that the Pigeon update isn't based on a few simplistic rules.
Some local SEOs have commented that Pigeon seemed to increase the number of smaller packs (2-3 results). Looking at the data for pack size before and after Pigeon, this is what we're seeing:
Both before and after Pigeon, there are no 1-packs, and 4-, 5-, and 6-packs are relatively rare. After Pigeon, the distribution of 2-packs is similar, but there is a notable jump in 3-packs and a corresponding decrease in 7-packs. The total number of 3-packs actually increased after the Pigeon update. While our data set (once we restrict it to just searches with pack results) is fairly small, this data does seem to match the observations of local SEOs.
Sleep with one eye open
Ok, maybe that's a bit melodramatic. All of the changes do go to show, though, that, if you're laser-focused on ranking alone, you may be missing a lot. We as SEOs not only need to look beyond our own tunnel vision, we need to start paying more attention to post-ranking data, like CTR and search traffic. SERPs are getting richer and more dynamic, and Google can change the rules overnight.
The answer box example you gave, for me, is an issue.
1. Google have taken the content and answered a stage one question, thus not directing searchers to the source.
2. If you actually go to the site, they have other resources such as "Complications", "Risk factors", "Prevention", "Facts & figures". All of which gives the searcher a well rounded and essential understanding of the complication.
So, not only is Google taking content and displaying it in SERPs and massively restricting CTR. They are also restricting and making it difficult for the searcher to be prompted / guided to understand the symptoms better.
The answer box simply answers a stage one question but restrict the searcher to be guided to further information that is relevant and essential.
I feel for these site owners, they spend years creating and adapting excellent content. They've thought about the searchers thought process and adapted their sites to become informative, get the searcher to look at all areas connected to the question and then offer essential support. Now they are at risk of walking away with basic answers.
My opinion is this - Google has an unspoken agreement with webmasters, and it goes something like: "We'll make money off of your content, but in return we'll send you traffic." That's fair, in theory, and many of us have done well by it. Now, though, Google is making $60,000,000,000 off of that exchange, and they're becoming more interested in how to protect/grow that number than honor the agreement. I think these scraped answer boxes are crossing a line, personally.
Hi Pete and William... personally I have contrasting feelings about the Answers Box.
From one side I totally agree with both of you:
On the other hand I see the Answer Box as a really interesting opportunity, because that organic link outstanding everything above the fold is very very tempting.
It's certain, a lot depends on how Google will be perfecting how it retrieves content for the Answer box, but if it seriously starts using authoritative sites, then working hard for making your site so authoritative that Google scrapes you for "stage one questions" (which usually are those that also brings the less converting traffic), and is able to drive you really targeted and converting organic traffic, then... in that case that would be a feature for which I would work for.
Here's the tough part (replying to Cory below as well). These answer boxes, once they're fine-tuned, are arguably good for search users. Once you factor in mobile, Glass, and smartwatches and the limited screen space, these answer boxes become essential.
The problem is that "good for users" has become a convenient battle cry for Google that seems to correlate (r=1.0) with "good for revenues." I think this future exploits the people who provide the content. If Google pushes hard enough, they're going to tip the balance. If they go all answer box, why shouldn't we robots.txt block them? It doesn't matter if that's good for users - it matters that they're using everyone else's property and not paying rent.
I love this explanation. You've done a fantastic job succinctly describing the issues at hand.
I'm split though - if you look to the future, these answer boxes really are great for users with limited displays. It creates good experiences for mobile users looking for a quick answer. And answer boxes seem handcrafted for Google Glass. Where's the middle road? How can Google evolve to match mobile needs without answer boxes?
I know there's no easy answer but I am genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.
It would be amusing to see Google penalize themselves again. It also would be interesting to know how they keep from violating copyright laws.
There are issue with some of these answer boxes though in that the answer is COMPLETELY WRONG. A search for "how old is the constitution" comes up with an answer box and answer of "400 years old" then cites as the reference for the "answer" a comment made by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Google gives this as the answer.These "answers" could become an issue, though so far, this is the only one I've encountered that was blatantly wrong.
Dr. Pete,
First, thank you. This is the kind of data that makes my job easier and lately, that is a big deal. One area I cannot find a pack for is real estate. Searches for real estate, homes for sale, townhomes for sale all return only the large RE companies like Zillow and Trulia, et ux. Not a single local broker in an organic result, (Not even ones that do 100's of millions in sales per year in Houston) Over and over. Over at WhiteSpark there was a post stating that changed if you put in a long tale term: real estate near Houston, etc. Unfortunately, in a large city the difference between 10 searches on that long tail and 10,000 on common terms is significant. I found it odd that apartments for rent would show a pack when homes for sale does not.
I think your question concerning does this portend a removal of the "pack" is quite coherent and reasonable. My personal feeling is, if you do not like roller coasters, you need to leave the theme park.....
Thanks for the helping hand you regularly provide.
Robert
Edit
Dr. Pete,
As I sat here trying to do work that needs to get done before 0930, I could not get my mind off of this. As someone who regularly spends times on the serps with clients who are in packs and organic, I kept thinking about your list and the missing real estate pack. With the absence of the pack in RE, there was another more insidious issue and that was NOTHING local shows. So, I took your list and went searching (sorry, quickly so it is based on Houston and is simply incognito). Of your ten, "jobs" returned one organic listing that was relatively local, our Houston newspaper had one page listed and all else were the large job posting companies. Liposuction did have two local physicians in the organic but all else was scholarly or big med referral firms, etc.
Cars for sale - ALL national companies including a couple of rental companies selling their cars.
Sofas - All large national companies
Motorcycle helmets - All large national companies
So, where I know there had been local companies is cars for sale and real estate in houston. I have to believe there were at least large local retailers of furniture and local cycle shops. This is more than an absence of a Pack. this is the absence of local as we know it.
If this mimics authorship, local companies better be very strong on Bing.
Interesting - yeah, I haven't looked at local intent in the organic results post-Pigeon (for obvious reasons, that's a LOT tougher to quantify).
I think real estate is in trouble. I look at what's happened in travel, hotels, and insurance, and I see Google making a similar move in real estate. There's unified data (MLS listings), and if Google bought access to that data, they could start providing listings right in an answer box. They could even treat that as a paid feature. So many real estate sites are just churning out MLS data, anyway, with no value add (I'm not criticizing them - it's the nature of the business) that Google probably considers the results low quality anyway. It would not surprise me if they made a big move in the next 2-3 years.
Meanwhile, Zillow and Trulia are probably going to merge, and, in our data set. Zillow is the #21 domain (ordered by most rankings across our 10K page-1 SERPs) and Trulia is #42. That's two big players that will soon dominate results even more than they do today.
If I were in real estate, I'd look hard at diversification. Banking on Google could be very dangerous in the next couple of years.
Robert and Dr. Pete,
Thanks to you both for sharing your findings. Much appreciated (as always)!
I'd be very interested to see an in-depth study of local intent in organic SERPS once the dust settles around Pigeon. As Google becomes mobile-centric, it will be interesting to see how it determines local intent. I queried the same terms you and Robert mentioned (non-personalized, location set to Denver, CO) and received similar results. However, when I added the term "near me", at least part of the local pack returned. For "restaurants near me", I got the Carousel with blended results dominated by apps and directories. I tried a few other other modifiers typical used in voice search, but without the same findings.
Christy
Christy,
Good info all!
And this begs a question I think that originally came from Dr. Pete (I'm not sure where though): Will searchers change the way they search in order to get a result they want. Or, a result type like a true local result page. I cannot tell you how many people gripe about not getting a local offering for a search that the intent was local. Meeting with a client who is in his early 70's yesterday - and who understands why organic is important - he stated to those gathered that he was really unhappy with Google. The reason was he wanted to find a local dog breeder for a french bulldog and all he could get were the puppyfind com sites. Nothing local. He stated, "Even when I put my zipcode in all I got was the national sites."
So, will searchers change their methods (add "near me") or will at some point searchers change to Bing, duck duck, etc.? What an interesting job we all get to have!!!
Thanks as always to you Christy for insightful comments and to Dr. Pete for being the smartest guy in the room.
Best
And the rest if the world is here asking: when Pigeon will be rolled outside of Google.com and English?
And I am wondering: will Google ruin my (and hundreds of European SEOs) vacation rolling it in the middle of the holidays, as it did the 12th of August 2011?
Just one serious question Pete? Do the Mozcast data confirm what told by some people that Pigeon is being helping classified directories (I.e. yelp, tripadvisor et al) bent even more visible?
Thx for the european hint x)
I read that it was possible to search for "restaurant-name yelp" and the first result was Google maps, now Yelp is first. Dont know how it could be, that you find google when the query contains the word yelp x)
Most people don't have their search settings set to "verbatim".
If you don't, Google won't always actually search what you put in the search box. :)
I can confirm that for you, Gianluca.
I've seen a bit of a drop off in traffic on my appliance site, with the competition I used to compete with no longer on the 1st page for their own websites. Now I'm competing with Yelp for my own site's placement again & all of the directories like CitySearch & YP.
Business however has only increased. Client's fielding the largest volume of calls ever, they're just not clicking on my site.
ALSO. I'm getting map packs where there were none before.
https://screencast.com/t/ncq9D4U36Ak
I'm not seeing broad gains for Yelp and similar sites, but (and this is a big but), we don't really track the long-tail well. It's entirely possible directory sites had gains across certain subsets of geo-targeted queries. I don't have that data.
The "California Pizza Kitchen"/"Buffalo Wild Wings" result seems to be a pretty big miss. It looks like "Kentucky Fried Chicken" is behaving the same way. My guess would be that there's some fuzziness with brands that use a combination of a locality and a popularly searched food term (e.g. fried chicken, pizza kitchen, wings, etc.). I haven't yet been able to think of any non-food examples. Still, it's hard to imagine that a miss this impactful would get by QC, unless the update was rushed out the door. I hope that's not the case.
Yes I'd agree that it's a glitch more than anything else, Tommy. Interesting, it does seem most of these "glitches" are related to restaurants… Hmmm. Let's see if we can find some non-food related company/location hiccups.
Wow, yeah that's interesting for such a big brand - many people are probably searching for a local "Kentucky Fried Chicken". Looks like "KFC" returns local results (which makes sense).
Check out 'burlington coat factory". It always defaults to Atlanta, GA. Google's got some work to do...
I got plano myself.
Are you in Atlanta?
https://screencast.com/t/UdTXB5gtgz5
Nope, Burlington VT. Have had friends check that one from NJ & CA with the same results.
I got my local results in Columbus. Do you have a local BCF store in your area?
Bizarre. Seems to be some significant inconsistencies going on.
That's really odd. I did not get any local results when searching Burlington Coat Factory. Although SERoundtable is reporting Penguin was just re-updated, so maybe some of these odd inconsistencies have been addressed.
For a non-food related example: San Antonio Shoe company
Belated, happy birthday, Pete!
Yes, these changes are ground breaking, and can affect user behaviors across SERPs. These changes are indicative of Google's major shift towards improving search for smartphone landscape.
Moreover, with the introduction "in-depth articles", compliance to schema meta data markups such as logo, Google's authorship, title, description has become even more pronounced.
Thanks for sharing the data!
Your last sentence in this post is totally solid. I agree with you.
Overall this post is so much informative. As it recalls all the latest SEO trends once again.
and Google can change the rules overnight.
So then what is the point of getting so worked up about Search and SERPs?
I can't do anything about it other than produce good content and find customers through other channels (email, postcards, Ads, etc.).
I can't hire an SEO "expert" because he/she has the same problem of not knowing what Google will do tomorrow. Hence, that's a waste of money better spent on more ad campaigns (which I can measure whether they work or not).
This is exactly why we stopped tracking keywords and we haven't hired an SEO consultant in years. What's the point? It's too unpredictable, and unpredictable is no way to run a business.
It's a fair question, and many people share your frustration, but I think part of the problem is how we look at SEO. For too long, we've thought of SEO as something you just "do" and then ride out for months or years (or, in some people's minds, forever). Every form of marketing is changing, and even if the medium is stable, its effectiveness changes, your market changes, your customers change, etc.
I think it's a bit like the stock market. The market is risky and unpredictable. On the other hand, there's a lot of opportunity, and there are many degrees of risks and payoffs. What if you invested in authorship two years ago, and now it's gone? Some people did and are pissed at their SEO. What does the data say, though? If that investment yielded two years of positive results (and authorship isn't a huge investment), then the ROI was probably good. It sucks that the rules changed, but it was still an opportunity and money well spent.
So, the question isn't to-SEO-or-not-to-SEO. The question is what risk/reward trade-off are you willing to accept. No form of marketing is guaranteed or risk free. Even producing "good" content is a target that will move a lot in the next 3-5 years, and the ways we share and promote content will evolve dramatically. That investment today isn't going to pay out forever, and good SEO will still help you get the most out of that investment, from a traffic standpoint.
I think you also have to ask, as in all things: "Compared to what?" In most forms of marketing, you have to keep paying in every time. You want to direct mail? Great, but you'll pay each times. PPC can have great returns, but you pay every month. From that standpoint, I think SEO is often still a great investment with fairly long returns. We just can't expect those returns to last forever or nothing to change.
Do you think it is worthwhile to implement Google Authorship anymore? I'm tempted to say that, even with the Authorship photos gone, tying your Google+ profile to your content is still valuable. You are still able to establish/maintain credibility with your byline on your Google+ profile. But I'm not sure if I would recommend to a client anymore that they bother to set it up.
What exactly does "in-depth article mean"?
Any definition?
This might be a year old, but Ana Hoffman's explanation is one I've kept in my 'Pocket' for referring to in-depth articles
https://www.trafficgenerationcafe.com/google-indepth-articles-schema-markup/
Great article! Thank you much!
Sorry, I thought people were familiar with the In-depth Article feature by now, and I probably glossed over it. I did a write up here a while back:
https://moz.com/blog/inside-indepth-articles
Essentially, they're an alternative type of news result, usually reserved for general queries. When Google doesn't know exactly what you want, and they think you might want a deep dive into a topic, they'll provide a block if "in-depth" articles.
Thanks for recapping all of this SERP fluctuation, Dr. Pete. While it's not necessarily surprising to see such movement and changes to Google's algo, it certainly has been a busy month.
One thing I find interesting about the Pigeon update: while the queries "buffalo wild wings" and "california pizza kitchen" automatically bring you to those respective areas locally, the queries "texas roadhouse" and "burlington coat factory" - two brands just as popular as the others - do not.
Is "Texas" just too vague? (Although, how is "California" not vague?). Is "Burlington" too small and popular a city name for Google to decide? Are these all just glitches? Surely my search location should take precedence over the name of a brand's location…
Just a thought or two. Anyone get different results when performing those same queries/similar ones?
When I queried: "texas roadhouse" and "burlington coat factory" brought up the local areas. Could be just a glitch/testing or something else.
Interesting: I just got a KG for their entities, no location involved. Yes there's always something going on. Thanks!
Yeah, I haven't been able to spot a rhyme or reason. Clearly, Google is trying to parse out geo-keywords in a more sophisticated way and use them for localization, but there are still kinks in the system. Does Pigeon work better on balance? Possibly. Does it work better for these cases? No.
Well that wasn't the best thing to read to start my day off in a good mood.. Emergency kittens! should help cheer me up!
Nice alogorithm following. Will update this article along with 2015 changes.
Thank you for the great summary, Peter! I was one of those completely surprised by Google authorship photos disappearing. The graph is excellent!
Definitely noticed the change in 7 pack to 3 pack results with a few clients. It seems to fluctuate depending on the search, however. I expect the 3 pack to be more common showing only the most relevant results as the 7 pack results did tend to get muddled with businesses that weren't very relevant to the keyword phrase being searched.
Linking this article with one written by Cyrus Shepard here: https://moz.com/blog/traffic-case-studyEverything becomes clear. I find your two ideas together and complement each other. One speaks of change, the other took a step back to calculate the impact of some of these changes.
I am wondering if the removal of author photos is one of the last nails in Google+'s coffin. I think a lot of people were using Google+ simply because they thought (and in correctly so) that a photo could help with their click-throughs. If you pull that benefit away the obvious value of Google+ for authors also goes with it.
Haha "Sleep with one eye open" we've no more eye avalable for that kind of stuff ;)
That's a detailed analysis. Thanks. In-depth articles, original ones having something unique (may not be full but partial), and well researched articles will be the norm in the coming days. However, some SEO managers are still oblivious to this fact and are trying to save couple of bucks in articles. At Hubpages the minimum word count required is 1150 words and I believe that will be the norm in the near future for quality articles. However, I'm a bit puzzled about the recent Pigeon update. Isn't this localization update too soon as the penetration rate of internet in emerging countries is miniscule compared to the developed countries?
I had been reading lately that the "Pigeon" update has got its name from Search Engine Land and they had put up certain articles from the time when it started till the date. Google has launched that update after Yelp complained google for manipulating their search results by showing the Google Plus listings ahead Yelp in spite of being less popular and having lesser reviews as compared to Yelp. As suggested by them it has particularly given an uptrend to the US search results and local business listings.
Being based in Australia, i had done a few keyword search analysis and came to the conclusion that it has surely given a boost to the local business listings and directories but still the Google Plus is reigning on the top of the search results. Is this something that is done only for US or will it going to show up in Australia too?
I am also seeing changes in my site's ranking. Mostly I am seeing ups and downs in local keyword's ranking.
"Both before and after Pigeon, there are no 1-packs" That statement is false, although the update is still rolling out. I have seen lots of 1-packs, depending on the search query and variations of the same search. I believe citations carry more weight now then they ever did before with the Pigeon update.
As mentioned in another comment, I think you may be referring to the authoritative one-box, which local SEOs typically don't consider a "pack" result. When a map pin and address is integrated in an organic result, that's generally called a "one-box". Packs are stand-alone and visually separated from the organic results. Granted, that's just a naming convention, and I apologize if I didn't explain it very well.
Just read this article - even though it's a few years old, I find that it covers all the basis and is a better structure than I have seen from many UK based agencies.
Not sure if that is a new thing. But Google seems to take music related SERPs even further, while pushing organic results below the fold.
Just took a screenshot of it here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5soz5cf9wijk9p7/Screensh...
It seems that Google is becoming more a Curator of content than a Search Engine these days.
I really, still can't believe that they remove authority
Do you mean authorship?
yes, exactly, sorry for my shorthand :)
It is a great change by the Google. I have also suffer this change
awsome observations .. a web made of entities may explain a little more the in depth articles raise , as they usually cover more topics at once.. a my point of view to your observation with the serp obessions is that we should really start (if we did not do it yet) switch our attention more on UX and Multi Channels on GA.. just a humble thought thou, wonderful post thanks for sharing.. and happy past birthday @drpeter!
As you said, Google changing the rules over night. I have also started to concentrate more on click through rate and traffic rather than getting ranking alone for my customers.
Wow, interesting information. I appreciate how this site makes SEO more fathomable.
Hi,
I am starting to see non adwords title tags an meta descriptions that are some how changing for the same url based on a google search.
Search New Homes in San Jose and then New Homes for sale in San Jose and look at how the first result changes drastically their title tag and description on the same URL. How is that possible?
Thanks,
-Jonathan
How can i optimize my website search results ? I want show author pic in results . this is my website : متخصص پوست
[link removed by editor]
Hi there! That sort of question is best suited for the Q&A section on our site; we try to keep the comments on the blog posts relevant to what the author talked about. Good luck with your SEO! =)
The changes in algorithm or updates are not major but still have impact in the search world. Among this changes i don' support the disappearance of Authorship image. I am personally read or click those links whom i know as a good author. In a specific filed if i know that the expert has written i don't have to go through other pages or sties. It saved my time many times. I am not disappointed with the Pigeon update. Because like google local listing other business directory sites like yelp, cityserch etc has a good authentic database. They have the right to be in the SERP.
I am very much pleased that they omit many video snippets those are misleading. Thousands of time i clicked a video showing a good snippet or image but after playing found nothing relevant or interesting. I appreciate that google is now more in-depth and mining useful information for searchers.
I hope google will continue such little changes which will benefit common guys.
I don't think photo in authorship is important. Most of the photos are fake that's why Google remove this. it is a good idea from Google.
Nice analysis about "The month Google Shook the SERPs"
Google have the history to shocking webmaster by its frequent Updated. Once Webmasters heard that matt Cutts on leave till October-November, got relax but Google still rolls out its Algorithm. Thanks for sharing in depth Article link Pete.
Interesting figures Dr. Pete about search results in SERP related to Authorship images, Video thumbnails and in Depth articles.
Google indepth article reference is quite useful atleast for me; Thanks Duncan!
Great Analysis; Google is making a lot of changes within their algorithm. This month we see 4 major changes. The biggest one was authorship photos disappeared. In my opinion this was a wrong move. I thing Google will bring them back in coming few months after realizing that they have made wrong move.
Anyhow What more we can expect to see more in coming few months?
Great article as always, so thank you. The other area I am seeing a lot of fluctuation is in the brand results it is changing daily between a branded 7 pack and the traditional 10 pack with site links. I know a few other SEO's here in the UK have noticed this too has anyone else?
Author photo removal is the very shocked news of all SEOs. It decreased the CTR. Do the depth article increase the SEO performance?
[link removed]
Can you please elaborate some more points about "in-depth articles"?
Removal of author picture is not making any sense in ranking or in any other SEO factor (its my opinion, everyone is free to have their own perspective according to their experiences) but regular updates are really shocking. Now i am just wondering, How to concentrate on the Good SEO after several and regular Google Updates. Now it has become a regular routing of Google to make some Update one by one, after every short break..
DR. Peter - for me your posts are always a great source to get practical information. Hats off..
"in-depth articles" are the ones which has rich schema markups and ofcourse in-depth content. Google announced it here.
Thank you Pete for explaining the last month in one article. It will clear many unorganized minds like me :)
This article explains why my boss has been asking a bunch of questions regarding our clients search ranking in the last week. The tunnel vision remark is spot on and also something that many SEO's need to evolve from for sure to truly stand the test in search rankings. The funny thing is every time Google allows for enhancements to search we all get on the band wagon like requesting that Google Authorship photos were a must and now they all drop off. I would say that this is a great example of having to roll with the punches at every turn, and always be on your toes about search.
I spotted a 1-pack today, though I am seeing less and less. The 1-packs I see usually come with a featured box in the top right of the SERPs.
I probably should've said that there's a special kind of "1-pack" local SEOs refer to as a "1-box" or "authoritative 1-box". It looks like an organic result with an embedded pin, and it was the first kind of local result to pop up a KG entity (I think). These aren't considered "pack" results, but, admittedly, that's more of an industry naming convention than any kind of objective reality - they are 1-packs, in a sense. We track them separately in MozCast.
With Google anything can happen! The unpredictability of the search engine with the changes it often make in SERPs gives SEOs the goose bumps.
I am aware of the changes that shook the SERPs but one that really got to me surprised was Google's removal of photos from the Authorship profile.
I still wonder if the search engine is planning for a better option seeing that it already got searchers, bloggers, and marketers interested in signing up with Google +!
Has anyone noticed a reduced number of image results as well?
This really shook me, when Google removed the author images. This just proves that no one should chase algorythms and instead focus on the user.
I've noticed the same with the query "burlington coat factory". Even though there is one close by, it always defaults to showing the listings for Atlanta, GA.
Awesome Dr. Pete. What all these SERP modifications show is Google trying to increase the CTR for paid search results. Following a zero sum game, a loss in click on organic search results would result in more clicks to sponsored search results. What most surprising is the hike for the in-depth articles SERPS. But Matt never disclosed any info at SMX west regarding what optimal markups are required for in-depth article optimization. A lot of 7 packs modifications have been found globally too. Google is going crazy for revenue generation.
Sites are still getting an incredible boost from those scraped content boxes. I just searched for something the other day and followed the link back to the site to see if it was authoritative. Clicking on the next few results to check their status takes seconds. Google can justify this by that increase in traffic that goes along with that old unspoken agreement. I have a feeling these boxes will be an article soon.
It seems that it's still a little hazy as to what Pigeon did. I certainly saw a corresponding dip in my site's traffic after comparing it with the graph you showed. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a dip in traffic across a wide spectrum as Google 'sucks' in hits during an update, hits directed at a site they then use to better learn their intent, kind of a reverse sitemap or indexing approach if you will.
Thanks for the great analysis
It seems like every week google is trying something new and adding more of what they think the user should be seeing instead of focussing on what naturally occurs in the rankings due to seo factors - basically compensating for the fact their rankings are not so great anymore.
I still think ranking checking is an important factor in getting noticed. All the recent changes just push the focus to longer tail searches where google haven't started promoting their selected content yet.
We use still use serplab.co.uk to check our rankings but have been seeing a bit of fluctuation lately - maybe something even bigger is in the google pipeline?
Dr Pete,
Thanks for a great article.
Our service includes blog and article ghost writing and placement for clients.
As part of that service, we have recommended that clients set up a G+ profile. Our experience indicates that the author photos did increase CTR. Most clients ask why they need G+, since they already have profiles on FB, LinkedIn, etc..
For our B2B clients, I think it will now be a bit harder to demonstrate the value of G+ vs other social channels. It sounds like Google authorship is not going away; but I think removal of photos makes it less valuable. What's the future of G+? Looks like Google is really focused elsewhere.
I'm now suggesting that clients build their own prospect universe using a variety of channels (SEO, SEM, content marketing, email, etc.). It is getting harder for small to mid-sized companies to compete in the SERPs. We're telling our clients to
With the diminished real estate on the SERPs, it seems like organic rankings will be more and more challenging, especially for companies that are not big brands.
That diabetes symptoms SERP must be so cluttered and confusing to "Joe Searcher." Can we start calling things like this SERP Vomit? Snippet Vomit? Too negative?
How about Rich Snippet Parade?
Dr. Pete, what might Google be doing to clean-up the confusing array of rich snippet that can sometimes show a lot at once?
I don't think this SERP is confusing at all. What Google are doing is answering that query right from the get go and answering it very accurately. As someone with Type 1 Diabetes I can say that this is more useful than half the health sites out there, they look terrible and provide poor advice.
Hello Friend, We have seen exactly the same thing in France about Rich snippet Vidéos.With a pool of 10000 KW, we seen a 40% to 25% kw with videos snippet.
Removal of author photos came as a complete shocker to me @Peter. Yes, I also see an increase in the number of in-depth articles.