What You Should Know About Google Core Updates

What You Should Know About Google Core Updates

Welcome back this is John Locke. And I’m
discussing an article that dropped on the Google Webmaster Central blog on
August 1st entitled, what webmasters should know about Google’s core updates.
Now this article was a big buzz in the SEO world the other day. And I think the
reason why Google put this article out is because there’s been a lot of
confusion about why rankings go up or go down or they fluctuate, when they do
these broad core updates. Now for a little bit of a back story, for people
who are new to SEO, in the past when Google would do updates, they would
generally be focused on one aspect of the algorithm, and they would usually
have some kind of clever name like Panda, or Penguin, Puffin, Hummingbird — all these
different things. And they were usually focused on one aspect that they
needed to clean up, whether that was low-quality links, taking all the power
out of them ,focusing on devaluing low value content, spam, all these
different sorts of things, Private Blog Networks, article farms, all these things
have been targeted in the past. But ever since about a year ago, with August 2018,
the so-called Medic Update, and then also in March 2019, and June 2019, we’ve seen more what they call Broad Core Updates. Where these updates are not targeting one
specific part of the algorithm, where they’re not targeting one thing to
devalue or push harder. It as it states, a broad core update to the
algorithm, and Google is basically trying to improve how they
evaluate content and sites, and all these different things. These updates happen
about three times a year it seems so far. A good way that they
describe these updates — because a lot of people get upset, they think they’re being
penalized, they think they’re being hurt, they think they’re being singled out, and
Google is punishing them for something that they did wrong — and that’s not the
case. The analogy that they use here is thinking of a core update in the way
you think about making a list of the top movies, or the top albums. If you
made a list in 2015, and then a few years later in 2019, there’s new movies, there’s
new creative works that could be added to that list.
Maybe there’s ones in the past that their legacy has grown over time. Maybe
an album that was popular or a movie that was seen as popular, or
groundbreaking, maybe it’s been kind of devalued in the eyes of people
over time. Maybe there’s other movies whose legacy has grown, and their genius has
shown through. Obviously there’s new movies coming out, so the list is going
to change, and some things that used to be higher up might get pushed down by
some of these newer movies. The ranking algorithm is like that too. So if you were number one for something, or in the top ten for something, for a
long time, and then you slowly slip down the ranks, or you notice that a lot of
your content is not doing as good as it was, that is Google reevaluating the rankings based on
the set of web pages that they have now. It simply means that other people
are working hard to create great content, that is presented in a way that’s great,
and build strong brands. It doesn’t mean that you did anything wrong. It just
means that other people are also putting in the work. and they might move ahead of you, because they’re putting in the work,
that’s all. So I’m going to focus most of this video on this section where there’s some bullet points here. It starts in, they say, Our starting
point is to revisit the advice we offered in the past. There is a Google article
from 2015, on how to self assess if you’re offering quality content. The reason
why I’m going to assess what they’re saying here is, sometimes Google says things
and they’re very straightforward. They say “Yes this is something you
should do” or “No this is something you should not do”. Other times they have
ambiguity built into it, and Google representatives in particular, sometimes
they write things with ambiguity on purpose. Because Google is not going to
tell you a hundred percent of what’s in the algorithm. Even some Google
engineers might not know a hundred percent of what’s in the algorithm, day
to day. Like I said, they make adjustments to this algorithm several
times per day. So it is a black box with a moving target, that you’re aiming at.
But there are things that they want to see happen, and they try and point you in
the right direction, without giving too much away. So let’s get into it.
Content and quality questions. Before I go any further – this is my own take
on these what Google is saying here based on my own experience and what I’ve
seen with client sites. This is not me just repeating what I heard somewhere
else. This is my own interpretation of these based on my own experiences. Does the content provide original information reporting and research or
analysis? I think part of what they’re looking for here is, they’re looking for
a fresh take or a fresh voice. Google might be looking at the syntax and the words
that are in the page. They might be checking to see if you are covering a
different subtopic of this subject, whatever you’re talking about on this page,
different from other people. If you are using different words, or you’re
telling a different story as far as presenting the facts, but telling them in
a different way, then you might get rewarded for having
original information. I think something that’s important here is “original
research, original analysis”. Now this is something that cannot be duplicated very
easily. You cannot just repeat what other people said, but bring something
new to the table. You see this especially in marketing when people bring their
own data to the article, it seems to do better in ranking in some cases. Original
information, original research, original analysis. Does the content provide a
substantial complete or comprehensive description of the topic? What I think
that they’re looking for here is, well for one they’re looking for certain phrases and
words that have performed well in the past. The way that their machine
learning understands this — there are certain words that appear when you’re
talking about a certain topic. The other thing that I believe that they’re
looking for is having more questions answered than your competitors.
We’ll talk more about that in a second. But they want to make sure that you are not just
writing 300 words on a topic. Instead, especially with an
informational post, it has to be comprehensive, and cover all the bases
that some of the other well-performing articles touch on. Going back up
here to this other point, if you add more original reporting or information, that might help the page do a bit better. You’ll want to cover all the bases that the top ranking pages
are covering. Does the content provide insightful analysis or interesting
information that is beyond obvious? This could be
a lot of different things. This particular bullet point is written with
a lot of ambiguity. It could be the way that you analyze the information, it could be
anecdotes. It could be a story that you’re telling. It could be the way that
you’re presenting the information. It could be original illustrations or
images. But something in there is providing something different than the
other articles out there. You’re putting your own unique spin on the topic. Next bullet point. If the content draws on other sources, does it avoid simply
copying and rewriting those sources? Or does it instead provide substantial
additional value and originality? What I think is going on there, they’re
checking for plagiarism. They’re checking for copying and pasting. If you’re just
copying and pasting somebody else’s words, then there’s no real reason to
rank you above pages that are already ranking well, because your page is not doing
anything original. If you are drawing on sources, how are you adding your own original take
on that? How are you adding to the data that’s already been collected? What
additional insights are you bringing? Definitely don’t copy and paste. Write
things from your own words. Does the headline and/or page title provide a
descriptive, helpful summary of the content? What I believe Google is
saying there is, they want to see keywords both in the title tag in the h1
on the page. They’re looking for specific keywords that are in the content. They’re
taking cues from the title tag, and they’re taking cues from the h1, then
comparing it to the rest of the content. Google is saying, are you summarizing what this
article is about? I believe that is what this bullet point is saying. A
descriptive helpful, summary of the content. This could also be related to
the title tag, are people clicking through on it because you’re giving them what they need. Then maybe they have a deep
scroll depth on that page. But a helpful summary of the content. Does the content
on the page in the title and the h1 all match up equivalently? Next, does the
title and/or page title avoid being exaggerating or shocking in nature? What I believe is happening here is, Google does not want to reward clickbait. They
don’t want to reward things like “Who’s the father?” or “You won’t
believe what they look like now!” or “Here’s one weird trick to make you lose
belly fat”. I think Google has a data bank of certain phrases and words, that when
put together equal clickbait. Google is not going to reward that content because it’s just
meant to titillate, or shock, or cause controversy, and get people to check it
out, just on shock value alone. Google does not want to reward
that content because there’s not a lot of depth to it. It’s just a gimmick. Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or
recommend? Now, there is a theory, and it sounds very plausible if you ask me,
that has floated around SEO for a while — and that is, that bookmarks in the
Chrome browser might have an effect on SEO. If you were Google ten years ago,
and you wanted to collect data on how people engage with the page, because
remember not every website has Google Analytics. Only about 50% of the websites
out there in the world have Google Analytics, but we still need to get
information about how people engage with the page, how they interact with the page.
How can we do that? If you are Google from 10 years ago, you might be thinking, let’s
build our own web browser called Google Chrome, and we can see what people do. There is a theory that says, people who bookmark
certain pages in Chrome, that might have a positive effect on the ranking of those pages. That’s a very
plausible theory. I don’t know that it would ever be a theory that you could
prove, because you’re talking about such a large-scale thing that’s happening.
It might have a little bit of an effect, who knows?
But sharing with a friend, or recommending? That’s obviously talking about social
media. That’s talking about putting it in email, putting it in Gmail, putting
the URL in Gmail and sharing it with a friend. It could be a YouTube link that
you’re sharing. This could be social buttons. Those are all definitely things
that could have a positive effect. Next, would you expect to see this content
referenced by a printed magazine, encyclopedia, or book? Obviously,
Google doesn’t have access to printed books. Well, they do have Google Books.
They do have a thing where people scan in books, so they do have that. But it’s
not going to always be current.If a book was published just this year, or
encyclopedia, it might not be in there yet. Referenced in a printed magazine,
encyclopedia, or book — this seems to be a clue that they’re looking for things similar to that. Let’s say the reference is in an e-book, a Kindle book or something like that.
Let’s say that it’s a free ebook, that’s publicly available. If there’s links to
certain webpages cited in those books, that might be something that they consider more authoritative. What about Wikipedia? If you’re referenced in
Wikipedia as a footnote or a citation, that might be authoritative. Many
people theorize that one if your articles or if your page is referenced in a
thesis paper, or a scientific study, or some sort of
doctorate paper, that might be a good sign. I think that’s really what
this is. It’s a clue. Google doesn’t out-and-out say it, but if you
really think about what they’re trying to say, that makes a lot of sense. Let’s look at this next section which is expertise questions. I think this is the
one that’s the most controversial. With the E-A-T that’s in the search
quality rater guidelines, the expertise authority and trustworthiness, a lot of
people get tripped up on this one. I believe because they think about it how
a human would evaluate expertise, authority and trustworthiness. I
think a lot of people feel, “I have all three.
I have expertise. And I’m an authority, and people could trust me. So my website
has E-A-T. So Google should rank me higher.” The thing of it is, Googlebot is a machine, it crawls around the web and it looks for
mentions of words and phrases, it looks for links, and it looks for semantic
meaning from words and phrases that are in the web pages it encounters.
If it’s not on the web, then it does not exist to Google. You must keep that in mind. Expertise as well — Google has a hard time
evaluating the expertise — stack ranking all the experts in a particular
subject, for all the subjects in the entire world. I don’t think Google’s AI is quite
there yet. I don’t think that’s an unfair statement to make. I think a
lot of people get tripped up on this one. I’m going to give you my take. Does the content present information in a way that makes you want
to trust it? Such as clear sourcing, evidence of the expertise involved,
background about the author, or of the site that publishes it? Sch as links to an
author page or a site’s About page? First, you’re presenting information in a
way that makes you want to trust it? This could mean a lot of things. It could be the
formatting of the content. It could be the track record of the website itself,
which i think is a lot of this, not necessarily web authors, and I’ll tell
you why in a second. Do you have clear sourcing, or do you have footnotes? Just like we
talked about in the last seciton. If you expect to see this content referenced by
a printed magazine, encyclopedia, or book, or Wikipedia, or thesis documents, or in
an e-book? It stands to reason if you are showing where
you’re getting your information from, if you’re linking to where you’re getting
your study information from, then that might be good. If you’re linking to sources, not just pulling facts out of your ass, or out of thin air, but if you’re
showing your sources like Wikipedia does? That might be a good thing. Next, showing evidence of the expertise involved. One of the things, and it’s not just
the content and not merely who’s writing it. For expertise, I think that who’s writing he content, to me it’s the least important part of how Google grades expertise. A lot of it
has to do with the expertise of the site. That is something that is discussed in
E-A-T in the Search Quality Rater Guidelines. Was the site made with a high degree of quality and skill? That’s
something that is talked about in the expertise section. Also, are you
writing this in a way that shows that you have understanding of the subject?
Are you writing it in a way that’s well syntaxed and well put together? The
expertise involved, as far as authorship, this is another thing where if you’ve
written a book, or an e-book, or if you published a book on Amazon, then Google has
an Entity Graph for that author. Google will have you in a Knowledge Panel. But if you’re
just a regular Joe Blow or Jane Plain web author or blog post author, then Google has no idea
whether you have expertise in your given subject or not. Google really doesn’t have that ability to judge your expertise in most
cases. You need to have a really long track record for it to understand that
your name is an entity in itself, and then it has to be
associated with a given subject. It’s a lot of work that you’re putting on
Google to do. We discussed this in a video called The Google Paradox, where it
talks about this. Where Google is not omnipotent. With certain people, it
does understand their expertise (famous or truly noteworthy people). But the vast majority of people it does not accurately judge their subject matter expertise. I wold advise saying on your author pages, you should show what they
are known for. And you should have an About page at least, to tell who’s behind
the website. However, I’ve seen many websites that don’t make it clear who’s the
author of the content or who’s running the website, and those sites still rank. So take this bullet point with a grain of salt. I
will point out that I’ve seen very recently, especially with sites that
are “Your Money or Your Life” sites like health, finance, insurance, nutrition, that the author could be a PhD, and they could have a lot of real-world
expertise, but for whatever reason it doesn’t seem to have a big effect on
bringing the site up. That’s why I say, a lot of people feel like they have
expertise and authority, but perhaps in Google’s eyes, it’s not proven. You must remember that Google assesses this stuff the way a
machine would, and not how a human being would. Google is looking for certain phrases, it’s looking for certain things, perhaps you’re being linked to a lot,
that might be something that helps. Here’s a clue. If you researched
the site producing the content would you come away with an impression that the
site is well trusted or widely recognized as an authority on its topic?
Here’s what I think this means. I think this means, if you’re doing
background research on this site and you google the name of the site, yourdomain.com, and you’re seeing that there’s not a lot of places
that reference that website, then maybe it’s not that much of
an authority. Remember how we talked about, just a minute ago, that you would expect
to see this content referenced in a book or encyclopedia? Maybe it would be referenced by other websites, or a book, or Wikipedia? If you’re actually an expert
or an authority in your field, then other websites
are going to link to you. If other websites in your field are not linking to you, or
if nobody’s talking about your website, or you, or your content — then maybe you’re
not that big of an of an authority. Remember it’s all about
what Google sees. It’s not about what’s happening offline. It has to exist online.
As far as E-A-T, the Expertise Authority and Trustworthiness —
this is the only time in this article where the word Authority is mentioned. LEt me say that again.
This is the only time in this article where the word “Authority” is mentioned. So when you are
widely recognized, other sites are linking to you. Where Google mentions you
are well trusted? Other sites are linking to you. If they didn’t trust you, they
wouldn’t link to you. I think this section is basically a pseudonym for
“you have links from other people in your industry”. The next thing we’re going to talk about, “Is this content written by an expert or
an enthusiast who demonstrably knows this topic well?” There’s a
couple things that are happening here. “An expert or enthusiast who
knows the topic well”. I believe that Google is looking for certain phrases,
and it’s looking for certain things that are mentioned in this article. I believe Google is looking for specific phrases,
words, or topics that come up when you talk about certain subjects. Again, Google is a machine and it doesn’t
understand every single topic, and who’s an expert and who’s not an expert in
the world. What Google does have, is an index of all the pages that it’s
ever crawled. It can separate them all into categories. Here’s all the
pages that talk about this subject, and the vast majority of them mention
certain phrases, or they answer certain questions, and
they touch on certain sub topics within this particular subject they’re
talking about. I believe this is where you’re showing some sort of
evidence that you know what you’re talking about. Part of it is
just hitting some of the similar things that Google is expecting to see, based on
the pattern of other pages that it’s encountered in the past, talking about
similar topics. That’s what I believe based on patterns I have seen. Is the content free from easily
verified factual errors? Flat-earthers, sorry but you’re going to
lose on this. Google does not want to promote things that are widely known to be disinformation, misinformation,
misspoken, lies, unfactual, untrue, or without evidence. The sites that will be held to the highest standard with this point are the Your Money or Your Life
sites, which would be health, finance insurance, nutrition, buying
a car, buying a home, or anything that’s going to affect your
long-term well-being. This is going to be held to the highest possible
standard. If you’re a health site or you’re a finance site, if you’re giving
advice that is not the consensus of the majority of the rest of your field, you
might not rank as well. If you’re a scientific site or an
engineering site and you’re saying things which are not the
consensus of the other web sites out there, not the agreed
upon information, then you might get hit. Would you feel comfortable trusting this content for issues related to money or
your life? This is the same thing that we just talked about.
I think that’s self-explanatory. Part of this, though it doesn’t
explicitly say this, but there’s two things that that are called into this criteria. One
is user experience and design. If the site looks like garbage, then you’re
probably not going to trust it, and you’re not going to trust this website. Do you feel comfortable trusting this content? if this site looks like it was
built in the 1990s that’s not going to make you feel
comfortable trusting it. The other thing is the brand perception, especially with topics
like health. Over the last year, there are certain brands that are
getting pushed. Google says, “We trust these websites, because they’ve been
around a long time, and the user engagement metrics say that
people trust these enough, so we’re going to push these websites.” Finance websites are the same
thing. Any Your Money or Your Life verticals have established brands
getting pushed. This is not a new thing. This is something that Google set
about to accomplish long ago. They talked about it in 2008, remember? “Brands aren’t
the problem, they are the solution. Brands are how you sort out the cesspool.” That was a
quote in 2008 from the then CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt. “We have all the
big-name sites over here, and then all the smaller websites over here”. It’s about credibility, especially with Your
Money or Your Life websites. This is a long-term battle, okay? Brand is part of
SEO, for sure. It’s not just content. Next section, Presentation and production questions. Is
the content free from spelling or stylistic issues? I think that’s pretty
straightforward. Google doesn’t want to see misspelling. They don’t want to see
broken English, or broken — whatever the language is. If it’s not written in
the natural syntax of that language, or if it has spelling errors, if it just
sounds weird in the native language — whatever it’s written in — then
it’s probably not going to rank as high as it could. People, website visitors, will show that is true by scrolling through quickly, or bouncing out quickly, or not scrolling as
deep, or going back and looking for something else.
Was the content produced well or does it appear sloppy and hastily
produced? There’s some overlap there, but this could be stuff like, maybe you didn’t
research stuff that deep, you didn’t research the topic, and just
wrote some words down without actually thinking about the question that you’re
trying to answer. Perhaps you hired somebody on Fiverr to produce your
content. That could be what’s going on there. Is the content mass-produced or
outsourced to a large number of creators? Or spread across a large network of
sites, so the individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care? There’s a couple things here. Where Google is talking about “mass-produced
or outsourced to a large number of creators”,
this has some overlap with the syntax, the sloppiness that they talked about previously.
“Hastily produced, spread across a large network of sites” I think that has
to do with content syndication. There’s a lot of SEO firms
on the lower end of the market that are using techniques from ten years ago. They’re submitting articles to all
types of places that take articles and there’s not a lot of hoops to jump
through. These article submission sites, you just give them an article and they publish it. So this
content is getting syndicated on a bunch of low-quality,
low barrier to entry websites. And that could be a signal to Google that particular content that’s
linking to you is not that great. This could also be if you have content like that on
your site, and your site is an article farm, you’re taking articles for money, and
they’re not well-written. You’re just getting the payday and cashing the
checks. Something that I heard recently – and I can’t remember who said it but,
basically”If you’re checked out from producing your own content, and you’re accepting a lot of guest posts, and they’re not the same quality
as your original content, that could devalue your site after a while.” Does the content have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or
interfere with the main content? Something that I know for a fact,
because Matt Cutts, who used to head up the web spam team at Google used
to talk about this — but there is a ratio of screen size for ads vs content, that you don’t want
to have. Where there is more screen real estate filled with ads. You don’t want to have
more of the screen taken up by ads than by the main content. That is a bad
sign. There’s a way to do ads tastefully, and there’s a way to do it tacky and
annoying, to where there’s pop-ups everywhere, and there’s ads overlaid on
top of ads, and it’s just annoying. That is not good user experience. I
believe that Google has some sort of ratio calculation in their algorithm for
determining how much of this screen is actually being overlapped with ads. If it exceeds a certain threshold — and I don’t know what that threshold is — but
I believe that that probably devalues a website’s ranking power. Does the content display well for mobile devices when viewed on them? This is
something that goes back way back to 2014, when Google started telling people about
Mobilegeddon, and to get your sites mobile-friendly. They’ve been saying
this for over five years. Even when I was building my very first websites in
2010, mobile-friendly responsive design was a thing already. And that’s — it’s
been almost a decade since that time. So if you’re not mobile-friendly by now, Google
does not care, because you don’t care. Google talked about mobile-friendliness with the
mobile first index that was about a year and a half ago? Basically,
everything is mobile first. There’s more people accessing the web on mobile than
there are on desktop for five years now. So if you don’t care about mobile friendliness, Google
doesn’t care about your website. Next section, comparative questions. Does the content
provide substantial value when compared to other pages and search results? This is something we were talking about, answering
questions, substantial. Do you know the expertise on the topic? I believe
there’s a certain threshold for pages that rank well in any search query. For some search queries, maybe there’s not a lot of good pages. For those queries, the
threshold may be really low. But if you’re in marketing and you practice the
skyscraper technique, the threshold is really high. What this has to do with is, are you going deep on the topic
on this page? How deep are you going on this topic that you’re trying to to rank for this certain query. Substantial value, a way that you could measure it is, compared to the other pages
that you’re trying to outrank, do you answer more questions in the subtopic
of that query? For the query you’re trying to answer, do you answer more subtopics? IF the answer is Yes, that could lead to more Rich Snippets. It could lead to more “People Also Ask” boxes, those little accordion boxes that appear in the
search engine results pages. Many people will point to studies that
say that larger word count pages seem to rank better. That’s a
correlation to this providing substantial value, going deeper on the
topic, but I don’t know that it’s specifically because of the word count. But
it’s more about you going deeper on the topic compared to the competitors.
The last one in this section, Does the content seem to be serving the genuine
interests of visitors to the site? Or does this seem to exist solely by
someone attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines? There’s
a video we did just a few days ago, that talked about focusing on a single
topic or subject, and becoming an expert on that topic with your website. I
believe that Google looks at the entire catalog of content
on your site, and tries to determine “what’s the main overarching topic of this
site? What is the main thread that’s tying this entire site together?” If
you have a website and it’s just a bunch of articles, and some of them are on home
and garden, and some of them are about lifestyle, others are on food, and
some of them are on home improvement — then Google doesn’t know what bucket to
put you into. It doesn’t know what overarching category to put your site
into, and it might look at that like, “You’re just writing a bunch of content
to see what ranks.” What I believe this is talking about is audience
cultivation. Going deep on one topic and becoming
a subject matter expert over time, over the long haul, on your website. This
is not something that you’re going to achieve in three months, or six months, or
even a year. You really have to build up a library and a track record of
answering the queries with your content, or letting people get to what they need
on your website. That is really what this line is talking about. This section also talks about looking at what pages dropped, or which pages were most
impacted by updates. Try looking at this article right now and comparing those to the pages that are ranking. There could be something missing, or
something that you could improve on your pages. Look at it objectively with
fresh eyes. Then it goes into you talking about
the Search Quality Rater Guidelines, and the E-A-T, the Expertise Authority and Trustworthiness of your site. This is something that existed in the Google Quality Rater Guidelines since
about 2015 or 2016. The human quality raters are human beings that
look at the search results, and they look at what’s ranking, and they evaluate
the pages. They have a checklist of things to evaluate. They’re supposed
to grade different parts of the page. The whole goal is they give that
feedback to the Google engineers, and then the Google engineers say either “The
algorithm is moving closer to thinking like a human and making the same
choices that a human would make” or “It’s not thinking like a human so we’ve got to make
adjustments.” That’s really what this is about. The E-A-T we talked about says search quality raters have no control over how the page is ranked.
They only give feedback to the engineers. Then the Google engineers dial in the algorithm a
bit tighter. That’s all that is. Then they talk about E-A-T again right
here. Many people, almost everybody that I talk to that does SEO seems to have a different
definition of Expertise Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness. You
will notice in this article, Google did not out-and-out say, “This equals
expertise. That equals authority. And this is trustworthiness.” The statements are really ambiguous, all of it. That’s why you have so many people that
are confused about E-A-T. I can give you my thoughts on it. Google also links to
some SEOs. It says “Here are a few articles written by third parties
who share how they’ve used these guidelines as advice to follow.” Google did not say the third-party articles were right or they were wrong. They only say, “Here’s third parties
who share how they’ve used the guidelines as advice”, and that’s it.
They’re not saying, this is right or wrong. Google is merely saying , “Check these out, and maybe there is some clues hidden in here that you should
look at.” Google also says, “Links to these articles are not endorsements of any
particular SEO companies or services. We just found these articles themselves to
be helpful content.” Maybe they’re giving you ideas of what they consider
high quality content on this particular topic. That might be a clue. Other
questions here they say: broad core updates tend to happen every few months.
Ranking recovery might not be until the next broad core updates. So every
three or four months. Google also says they do do smaller core updates, that’s
daily, that’s no big deal. Also, improvements don’t mean that you’re
guaranteed to get all your spots back and you will get
back to your ranking spot. There might be other sites that have
made improvements and they’re just simply better than yours now. Webpages do
not have any guaranteed position or static position. It’s not a title belt
where you have to get pinned or ko’d or tap out to
lose that number one ranking. If there’s more deserving content, that will rank
well. Lastly, they reiterate here, search engines do not
understand content the way human beings do. This is something that I’ve been
saying. Focus on this, Google looks for signals so we can gather about
content and understand the correlations. Machine learning is not a human being. we talked about this in The Google
Paradox video as well. Many people misunderstand that. Like I said,
Google is always trying to improve. This is just my take on this article. Like I
said, Google representatives and Google itself is not going to give you 100% of
the secret sauce that goes into the algorithm. They’re not going to tell you
exactly how to rank. You really need to make your own judgments about what’s
going on here. You need to make your own assessments, and analyze
it, not attach to your own website but analyze it from an objective
point of view. Hope that makes sense. My name is John Locke. My business is Lockedown Design and SEO. I’m here every single day making videos on SEO. I want
to thank all the new subscribers that have come on in the last few months. We
really appreciate it. If you have a question leave it in the comments below, I’ll
be happy to answer it for you. I’ll be here tomorrow as well. Hey thanks for
tuning in and until next time, peace.

2 thoughts on “What You Should Know About Google Core Updates

  1. Wow! We love this type of video! So comprehensive and full of value! Please do post more in depth videos when you have time! Thank you very much!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *