Has Google Lost Control of Its Search Algorithm?
Following the September 2023 Helpful Content Update, many small to medium-sized and independent publishers reported a drastic reduction in website traffic, with some experiencing losses of over 90%.
Numerous voices on X (formerly Twitter) shared their experiences, highlighting that several high-quality websites were unjustly affected by the algorithm changes.
In contrast, large brands either maintained or increased their traffic, despite the perceived low quality of their content. Independent publishers, producing excellent material, still witnessed a steep 90% decline in traffic. This trend suggests a potential bias in Google’s algorithms favoring larger brands over smaller, independent ones.
During this period, certain SEO professionals defended Google’s actions, arguing that the affected websites warranted penalties.
Things took a turn for the worse in March 2024 with the Core and Spam Update, which further slashed traffic for many sites by over 98%.
Between September 2023 and March 2024, small and independent websites faced near-extinction, unable to recover from the September 2023 update.
Google’s March 2024 update claimed it would eliminate 40% of low-quality, unoriginal content from search results, alongside introducing three new policies: Scaled Content Abuse, Expired Domain Abuse, and Site Reputation Abuse.
The Site Reputation Abuse policy is slated to be effective from May 5, 2024, offering large brands a two-month window to comply with Google’s spam policies.
This raises questions: why do big publishers receive advanced notice, while small and independent publishers face immediate penalties?
If Google anticipates that removing 40% of websites and enforcing further penalties will create content gaps for certain queries, it indicates a potential disconnect in their understanding of their own algorithm.
With the impending May 5 implementation of the Site Reputation Abuse policy, Google is likely to favor manual actions over algorithmic ones—perhaps due to concerns about penalizing larger publishers. This scenario underscores a seeming bias toward large brands.
Subsequently, people started inquiring with Google Search Liaison, Danny Sullivan, on X about the timing of the algorithmic action, leading to his exasperated response: “We will announce when it is applied.”
**In August, during an interview with Barry Schwartz from Search Engine Roundtable, Sullivan was again asked why algorithmic action had not been taken. He said, “The reason we
3 responses to “Google’s Search Algorithm: An Exploration of Recent Developments”
The question you raise touches on several complex and interconnected issues regarding Google’s search algorithm updates and their effects on small to medium-sized publishers. Let’s break down these issues to offer a comprehensive perspective.
Impact of Algorithm Updates
The September 2023 Helpful Content Update and subsequent March 2024 Core and Spam Update have allegedly harmed small and independent publishers more than larger brands. This trend suggests an unfair advantage given to big brands, potentially due to their ability to produce more content and adapt more swiftly to algorithm changes.
Claimed Quality Disparity:
Potential Bias in Algorithm
Google’s Approach to Updates
The decision to implement manual actions over algorithmic changes for big brands shows Google’s caution in maintaining established search quality. Manual actions allow for more controlled, case-by-case evaluation.
Advance Warning for Big Publishers:
Challenges in Algorithm Management
The Machine Learning aspect of Google’s algorithm can lead to unintended consequences where sites fluctuate in perceived helpfulness. Machine Learning models can struggle with context and nuance without clear and explicit signals.
Complexity of Content Quality Evaluation:
Transparency and Communication
The Gemini AI answering a lot of queries is likely responsible for this as Google want to horde all of the traffic online rather than passing it on. YouTube is evidence of this.
This post raises critical concerns about the potential biases in Google’s search algorithm and its disproportionate impact on smaller publishers. It’s interesting to consider the long-term implications of these updates, especially in terms of diversity in content and the overall health of the web. While Google claims to prioritize high-quality content, the reality suggests that algorithmic adjustments could inadvertently favor larger brands that may not always provide the most valuable or unique insights.
One angle to explore further is the impact of these changes on user experience and how audiences perceive reliability in search results. If smaller, high-quality publishers continue to see a decline, we could face a homogenized internet landscape dominated by major players, potentially stifling innovation and reducing the availability of diverse viewpoints.
Additionally, the question of transparency in algorithm updates is crucial. It’s vital for Google to clarify how they define “quality” and what specific criteria are being used, especially with the introduction of policies like Site Reputation Abuse. A more equitable approach would not only benefit independent creators but would also enhance the value of search results for users seeking genuine expertise and diverse content.
As we look ahead to the May 2024 implementation, it would be helpful for Google to provide clearer guidelines on how smaller publishers can adapt and thrive within this evolving landscape. This might include more robust support systems, tools, or resources dedicated to helping independent sites maintain visibility without sacrificing quality for clicks. After all, a vibrant digital ecosystem thrives on the contributions of all its players, not just a select few.