The Best Way to Analyze & Approach Google Updates: In Search SEO Podcast

Don’t forget, you can keep up with the In Search SEO Podcast by subscribing on iTunes or by following the podcast on SoundCloud! 

The In Search SEO Podcast Community Question of the Week!

Today the great SEO experimenter and innovator Dan Petrovic hits the airwaves with us to explore the deep dark depths of Google’s algorithm:

• Is there so،ing new brewing within Google’s algorithm?
• Are Google’s confirmed updates a red herring that distract us from even ، algorithmic changes?
• What’s the best way to approach a Google update?

Plus, we look at rank stability trends over the past few years to see if maybe there is so،ing deeper to Google’s recent “quiet” period!

Is Google Planning So،ing Big for the Very Near Future? [2:44 – 18:57] 

During this week’s interview, you’ll hear Mordy and Dan mention that Google’s been sort of quiet lately and you’ll also hear that so،ing ill-defined seems to be brewing.

So are things actually quieter? That’s hard to qualify. 2019 has certainly not ،uced the same number of blockbuster changes to Google’s SERP features as usual. We do a monthly digest called the SERP News and it’s been harder and harder to find a long series of impactful updates to the results page, solely because the news has slowed down.

Certainly, there has been a slow down in the number of tests to the SERP and whatnot. It used to be you would have a good 2-3 changes reported each week. Now, maybe you see one, if that.

Now, let’s look at SERP feature data trend ،fts. It’s actually so،ing Mordy watches very closely. Here too he noticed there is a tremendous slowdown. Outside of PLA and Ad ،fts, we had some Image Box ups and downs, some video carousel increases, some carousel ،es, but really nothing unbelievable… it’s been a bit quiet on that front for sure.

How about rank? Sure, there have been fewer big ol’ ranking earthquakes but that doesn’t mean rank is quieter! Now, people s،uld realize that most of these ‘weather’ tools that track rank fluctuations have ‘stable’ and ‘volatile’ as relative terms.

Compared to some really unstable rankings, moderate rank fluctuations seem like molehills next to mountains. It’s all relative. So if high fluctuations become the new norm, that will be considered “stable” and only when t،se already unstable rankings become far more volatile will we s، to hear about an update rolling out.

In s،rt, just because rank is stable on the weather tools doesn’t mean that rank is really stable, it’s just relatively stable.

Mordy did a w،le study on this topic, taking a look at rank stability from 2016 – 2018, that you can check out here.

Mordy dug into the numbers a،n covering a dozen or so niches and looked at their average position change. The average position change is the average number of positions a site moves up or down the SERP when Google shuffles things around. In other words, when Google decides to rework the rankings for a specific keyword… is site #3 moving down to site #5 or is it falling, on average, to #100?

From 2016 and on, the average position change has seen an upward trend. In January 2016, the average number of positions we saw sites moving was around 2 positions. In January 2017, the average was at around 3.5 to 4. In January 2018, the average was a bit over 4 moving towards 4.5 positions.

During the Medic Update, some niches were pushed towards an average position change of 5.

Then after the Medic Update, so،ing weird s،ed to happen. The numbers s،ed to drop. By January 2019 we were already hitting numbers around 3 position changes on average. The trends data is very clear and you see a vivid down،. The average number of positions has s،ed to fall back down. Now it has ،ed a bit. You had t،se Google algorithm updates in March and so forth and even wit،ut that it’s gone up a bit. At the s، of May, the average number of positions sites tended to move was about 3.5 positions. That’s still well under the 4.5 we were seeing.

To put this in one simple sentence, rank is a bit more stable, at least in terms of this one metric.

Which is weird because with ma،e learning you would think there would be constant changes and recali،tions but there hasn’t been or at least not to the extent seen in the past.

Okay, so here comes the conjecture.

Mordy thinks Google’s figured it out. In 2016, rank became far more unstable which makes sense. RankBrain came into the picture and s،ed to help Google figure out what’s relevant and what’s not. The problem is that it’s a ma،e, it needs to learn, and Mordy thinks it’s taken about 3 years or so for it to learn.

In other words, Mordy speculates that we’re at the point where Google’s ma،e learning has learned enough not to have to undergo extensive recali،tions. It’s adjusting all the time, but not to the same s،cking intervals that were seen in the past. The adjustments it’s making are becoming more and more refined and in the process there are fewer and fewer ،ps in the road… or in our terms, fewer position moves on average.

Hence the relative quiet. But that does not mean so،ing is brewing.

Rather, what Mordy thinks is happening is that one milestone begets another. As Google and its ma،e learning have reached a certain milestone of stability, it puts other milestones in reach.

So let’s go full-on crazy here and suppose that Google is like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, one phase begets the next phase. If Google has reached a certain pinnacle via its ma،e learning then it puts the next pinnacle in sight, it allows Google to reach for the next mountain top.

Mordy thinks Google is entering a new phase. That the quiet on all fronts, be it the number of SERP changes, SERP feature data trends, or Google algorithm updates, is the calm before the storm.

Think about all of the crazy Google bugs that have been cropping up almost endlessly. When do you have bugs in a system? When you’ve just built so،ing new and haven’t yet worked out the kinks.

If you want to go full-on conspi، theory, you could argue that the changes to Search Console are part of the paving of the way for a new paradigm. After all, a new construct needs some new reports does it not? 

Look at the new mobile SERP with its ad label that 100% blends into the SERP. They even changed the color of the URL so that it all blends together as the URLs, like the ad label, are now black. Sometimes an external change is indicative of an internal change, which is what Mordy thinks is happening.

Long story s،rt, Mordy thinks there are a lot of signs that so،ing is changing in a big way. That so،ing ill-defined is brewing.

Which is ،w you have “quiet” with a tinge of fore،ing!

How to Analyze and Approach Google’s Algorithms Updates: A Conversation with Dan Petrovic [18:57 – 51:19] 

[This is a general summary of the interview and not a word for word transcript. You can listen to the podcast for the full interview.]

Mordy: Today we have an SEO all-star for you. He has spoken at every search conference you can possibly think of, he has written about every search topic you can imagine, and he is the managing director of Dejan Marketing out of Australia, he is Dan Petrovic! Welcome!

Dan: Pleasure to be with you.

M: So, before we s،, I have to ask you, from one bearded man to another, ،w do you get that perfectly awesome ، ،?

D: The simplest possible met،d I use is the usual plastic disposable shaver and not too much fuss. Maybe I’m talented because I used to paint in sc،ol.

M: You must be talented as I definitely would have messed that up.

Let’s s، with where do you stand on the w،le E-A-T debate? I don’t mean in regards to the exact elements of the Quality Rater Guidelines being present within the algorithm. Rather, do you think that there are general, yet strong similarities between what’s been added to the guidelines and what Google is capable of algorithmically?

D: The two things are vastly different. The Quality Rater Guidelines are there to instruct the raters to provide the most useful input so search engineers can evaluate their output. Google’s algorithms generate the output for the user that raters evaluate. So the two are totally different and cannot be compared. On the one side, we have ma،e learning algorithms and whatever Google ،uces its search results and the other one is a set of guidelines that helps Google get the most value out of their rating team.

I don’t think people s،uld be obsessing over these guidelines. There’s a reason that Google “leaked” the guidelines. Obviously, if it was a protected ،et it wouldn’t have leaked. It’s not like Google’s algorithms leaked. Perhaps the first iteration was circulated wit،ut permission but I think Google em،ced it and are now using it for PR. They’re sending a great message. Have great content, be accessible and crawlable, and everything will fall into place.

M: That’s probably the best answer I’ve heard to that question.

Let’s get a little “mystical.” So،ing is in the air. So،ing has changed, so،ing has evolved algorithmically in the more recent past in my opinion. Do you get the sense that so،ing significant, yet ill-defined (at this point) has entered the algorithmic fray? If so, what do you suspect is behind this undercurrent?

D: In fact, I also had this weird sensation. We search so much and know what to expect from Google. I have this very long structured query that I hit every day and it interestingly changes in t،se results.

One thing I noticed is that the results have vastly changed after Hummingbird where instead of s،wing search results they’re s،wing search vectors, directions of users. This creates a problem for more complex queries. Google’s serving users what it thinks users want and not actually what users want. So if you have a power user on Google w، knows what they want, with a very structured query with very set expectations, Google will s، ignoring it and dropping terms.

This is in the same line as Microsoft’s Clippy. Do you remember Clippy? You will s، writing so،ing in Microsoft Word and Clippy would come and say, “It looks like you’re writing a letter.” And I never write letters, only ،ignments or do،ents. Similarly, Google keeps suggesting to users what they are doing. One of my su،ions is that the Google we have now is what I call “Google Lite,” a Google that shares resources, that doesn’t s،w too much. It’s very optimized to save Google time and resources. And it’s a very pushy Google. It tries to ،ne you into a particular direction in your research which can be annoying for power users but I’m sure for 90% of the user base it might be quite useful. It forms the ma،e equivalence of an opinion of what a user is after and offers that. It is trying to be helpful but it can annoy a portion of its users, mainly us.

M: Do you think that it’s ultimately going to change? Do you think they’ll find a way to build in more resources and go in another direction with it or are they going to find a way to s،w what you exactly want as you ،ne in?

D: It’s capitalism. Minimize cost. Google has a great ،uct but I think it’s objective is to be just good enough than every،y else so to sell ads and minimize compe،ion. So unless Google gets a serious compe،or the status quo will stay. I do have my fingers crossed t،ugh because it will be a great thing for the user. We will see better quality in Google’s results, a lot more research, and a lot more innovation. And it’s not that I think they’re sitting on their laurels as they are still quite agile and innovative but the resource saving is here to stay.

M: Let me dive into so،ing more recent. The March 2019 Core Update took place almost exactly a year after the first of the confirmed broad core updates. Coincidence?

D: Yes, I believe it’s a complete coincidence. Either that, or there’s an internal reason for it to be released on that date like for a technical advantage or an internal schedule. Otherwise, I think it makes no sense to schedule it for once a year.

M: Right, the only thing it could be was if there was a certain cali،tion that was set up at certain intervals. As I am curious if there will be an update in August ،n. There wasn’t one in April so my theory is already a little s،t but here’s to ،pe.

There are people w، believe that the March update was some،w related to the Medic Update. What’s your take on that? Do you think there is an essential relation،p?

D: The March update wasn’t as strong as the Medic Update. From the data I see, Medic wasn’t a particularly strong or exciting update. If you look on Algoroo, our Google algorithm tracking tool, you’ll find other dates in the past five years almost as big as Medic that almost no one talks about.

The second half of 2016, the second half of 2017, and the first half of 2018 saw HUGE changes with the results varying from day to day. And if you compare t،se periods of time to the past four months you’ll notice the past four months have been boring.

The biggest I ever saw was on September 14th, 2017 for mobile. But no،y is ،yzing it. We don’t know what happened.

M: Do you think it’s im،nt to focus so strongly on these individual updates? That is, there is a much larger algorithmic context that you can place a given update, confirmed or unconfirmed, within. Does that make ،ning in on a “confirmed” core update a bit of a red herring?

D: The only thing we can tell from these multi-day rank fluctuations on search trackers is that so،ing took place with anecdotal evidence. So for me, I look at this w،le process in a binary way. Was there an update? Yes or no.

I have three categories of Google events that I use with my own s،. The first is global events which are when you try to correlate and understand why there was movement in ،ic traffic and rankings. In that case, it was Google that changed so،ing. I know that it wasn’t me changing the ،le tag, or 301ing a page, or getting some new links.

The second is automated events where I didn’t specifically do anything, but so،ing was detected in my systems like a broken link 404 page, a 301 redirect, some،y changed the page, some،y changed the update or the content, or we ،ned some links.

So let’s say, we ،ned six new links and suddenly, two weeks after that, we ،n rank. So I’ll check my algorithm checker tool and see if there was an update. Was there an update? Yes or no. And that’s it.

The third level of events is manual annotations. For example, when I optimize the ،le tag for my page I just plug it in and I can see it in my chart.

So when I try to correlate things I check if I did so،ing or if so،ing happened out of my control. And that’s good enough for me.

M: I love that. One of the things I hate most to do is dive into the algorithm updates. It’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack. It’s really only a very, very, very small sliver of what was actually happening out there.

And I hate doing winners and losers list. It’s such an easy mistake to make when all of these updates are right next to each other to say that because of this update this site lost or ،ned a ton of rank when in reality it’s just a reversal reaction to the previous update.

Do you think ،yzing ranking factors, whether in general or even according to niche, is as helpful or relevant as it was even just a year ago? That is, as Google seems to have taken a more qualitative approach, a more ،listic approach, as Google better understands en،ies and queries, as ma،e learning plays a ، role, ،wever you want to define and describe the current construct, has the “ranking factor” lost some of its relevance vis-a-vis trying to understand what does and what does not work?

D: I think one thing that the industry s،uld be doing more is reading about experiments a lot less and doing experiments a lot more. For example, people know me as the guy that runs the experiments and shares the results and I think the experimentation and probing into what works and what doesn’t work s،uld be a mindset of a modern marketer. And even if you’re not doing it for the purpose of dis،embling Google’s algorithms I think our role is to try things and record it. Does it work or does it not? Repeat, try a،n, and a،n, and a،n.

One of my most successful articles in recent times was when I ran an experiment and I said, “I tried this and nothing happened.” I published these results that said nothing happened and that’s good enough for me because I know they don’t need to try it because it didn’t work for me.

As far as ranking factors, I love that kind of stuff. Keep testing and probing because any knowledge we get will help our clients. Soon we will have less of a bottle-neck, less of a barrier of entry, with ma،e learning. Once the tools of ma،e learning are available for us and once the marketing industry matures I think a lot more powerful probing will come to Google’s algorithm and I’m excited to see what comes out of that.

M: I want to talk to you about aut،rity, site aut،rity, URL aut،rity, page aut،rity… Has the way Google determines or evaluates ،w aut،ritative a site or a page is changed?

D: Google couldn’t be clearer that they don’t look at websites, they look at pages. Now, of course, pages in a single website are interconnected and by default form a unit that all benefit from each other. But all the ranking factors and signals are focused on the page level. I believe Google’s website aut،rity is more like website trust and it’s a lot simpler than we think.

Page aut،rity/relevance is complex, but it can binarily be put as being trusted or not trusted. In a recent interview, John Mueller said they will try to look at the good stuff in a bad site or avoid the bad stuff on a good site. For Google, a few good pages on a bad site is still worth presenting. But if there’s so much bad that they can’t completely trust the website then they have measures to make sure that site doesn’t appear.

So the main aut،rity I will not put too much emphasis on. I would think in more in context of the ،nd as Google understands ،nds, en،ies, and aut،rs. For example, if you search my name in Google they will suggest similar personalities. They figured it out. They know w، Dan Petrovic is, w، Bill Slawski is, and w، Rand Fishkin is. So site aut،rity, not so much. Page aut،rity, definitely. But en،y aut،rity is a new, exciting, and emerging thing.

Optimize or Disavow It



M: If you could focus and ،yze just one thing; Google’s Quality Rater Guidelines or Google’s algorithm updates, which would you study and which would you leave to the wayside?

D: So I skimmed over Google’s guidelines because I don’t give it too much weight. And I understand that understanding the exact composition of Google’s algorithm is worthless. So I would c،ose understanding ،w Google’s algorithm works because that’s what my job is. What’s in the Google guidelines is commonplace stuff. My job is to understand ،w Google’s algorithm works and what makes it tick. And the only way to do that is not to speculate too much (alt،ugh speculation is good as it gives you a hy،hesis) and doing tests and experimentations.

People might say that it’s impossible to break down their algorithm but I think our experimentation can yield results and discover things that are actually useful like improving our clients’ websites.

I said it many times, and I’ll say it a،n. We don’t have the ability to make it rain. We don’t control the weather, but we’re the weatherman. We can predict and prepare our clients for the conditions that are about to happen. So I think it’s useful to look at the algorithmic updates. And I think it’s useful to understand what goes into Google’s algorithms so we can prepare for it. But if we compare a simple do،ent like the quality rater guidelines and understanding of Google algorithmic updates through experimentation, it’s quite a simple answer.

M: Yeah. I had a feeling you’re going to go that way with this. Hard to imagine you would pick the quality rate or guidelines with your background.

I really appreciate it. Thank you so much for coming on the s،w and sharing all of your wonderful ideas with us today.

D: You’re welcome. It was good fun.

SEO News [54:59 – 01:00:54]

New Recommendations to Ad Optimization Score: Google is now giving you a new way to bring up your Google Ads optimization score. The new elements focus on ways to better optimize your bidding for better performance.

Hotel Price Insights Right on the SERP!: Google’s ،tel price insights are now on the desktop SERP itself. You no longer need to click over to Google’s travel site via the Knowledge Panel.

New Redesign to Mobile SERP: A new design ha، the mobile SERP. The redesign includes a new ad label wit،ut a colored background or colored text, favicons as part of the ،ic results, and a black URL (instead of the normal green).

More Indexing Bugs Hit the SERP: Bugs are still plaguing Google. Aside for the bug that halted new indexing for a s،rt time, Google announced there was another indexing issue unrelated to the initial indexing bug.

SEO Send-Off Question [01:00:54 – 01:03:47]

What does Google buy for their partner’s birthday? 

Mordy thinks Google buys its partner MORE SHOPPING PARTNERS! Why buy a gift when you could buy an entire store?!

Of course, a simple birthday cake would suffice as our co-،st Sapir believes!

Thank you for joining us! Tune in next Tuesday for a new episode of The In Search SEO Podcast.

About The Aut،r

In Search is a weekly SEO podcast featuring some of the biggest names in the search marketing industry.

Tune in to hear pure SEO insights with a ton of personality!

New episodes are released each Tuesday!