✅ Did your SITE get HIT by Google May Core Update? (READ THIS!!!)✔️✔️

[Kinu Actaz]

Quality is not equal to eat. People come here and claim all kind of crap. It don't mean nothing.

Yeah! It applies same to you too!
As I have said, they outsource most of the manpower from 3rd world countries, many people from those countries don’t know the fuck about quality. They just rate stuff watching movies while lying on bed (as what I used to do)
Later I was dragged out of the platform, one of the managers of the angency emaild me that I had been using multiple ips to login and it was a suspicious activity. They banned me. But it was not my fault. I had a 3G phone and whenever I called someone my IP address would change automatically because you can not use 3G data while calling, so after reconnecting the IPs changed everytime.

 

[DeadJoe]

From what I can tell they were targeting crap content, most of it just falls under affiliate review type generic rehashed bs + meaningless AI. If you're not writing well, you're going to get hit unless you are an authority, at that point the links outweigh the low effort content.

 

[SeoWrecker]

Only an algorithm can evaluate sites of this volume at a time. The rater theory is nonsense.

The rater's rating could be used as a one of the many feedbacks to improve the system, that's all.

 

[Black Belt Spodermen]

While I was not hit by the May update, my site got on 1st July. It got recovered after 16 days with 100% original traffic. I checked my analytics and cannot find the raterhub and I seriously don't think there is any reason to believe this theory is true.
Some of my competitors who have awesome content and good authority in the niche have suffered from the May update. None of their posts are bad or average but only top quality.

 

[fb3003]

Yeah! It applies same to you too!
As I have said, they outsource most of the manpower from 3rd world countries, many people from those countries don’t know the fuck about quality. They just rate stuff watching movies while lying on bed (as what I used to do)
Later I was dragged out of the platform, one of the managers of the angency emaild me that I had been using multiple ips to login and it was a suspicious activity. They banned me. But it was not my fault. I had a 3G phone and whenever I called someone my IP address would change automatically because you can not use 3G data while calling, so after reconnecting the IPs changed everytime.

what does your logging in from multiple IPs and getting fired has anything to do with what we are talking about? I am not doubting that you were a rater at one time, I am just confused with the comment around IP and getting fired

 

[Hawkeye Digital]

Still not hit , I am praying that I would not get hit !

 

[HustleTong]

Websites that got HIT were mostly PAA sites, also most of the sites that got hit got their Snippets removed from google results, meaning these Google raters were probably checking for websites who are just scraping Google PAA results and copy-pasting them in their websites. They probably were also looking at the websites that are over-optimizing their articles to win the Google snippets.

I also have the same feeling about PAA niche sites
It won't be profitable unless you can automate the whole process
Good read

 

[Kinu Actaz]

what does your logging in from multiple IPs and getting fired has anything to do with what we are talking about? I am not doubting that you were a rater at one time, I am just confused with the comment around IP and getting fired

My intention is just to let you know that I missed on getting new updates of their instructions.

 

[TwilightShepherd]

there are many sources from where these quality visits come from in addition to "raterhub" , I've put all the ones I can see on the web into a segment to make it easier to filter them in analytics
https://analytics.google.com/analytics/web/template?uid=MdiTK5mFR-yIgFltqpOsDA

 

[caligirl22]

What these raters try to do is to figure out if your site is promoting violence, selling illegal things etc. They are not rating if your site should rank or not.
They got a giant ai called Google algo to do just that.

I don't know about now, but I did that job back about 10 or so years ago. Maybe further back. We didn't check for sales of illegal materials. We were more concerned about duplicate pages, spam, websites that were simply affiliate based, etc. I mean honestly, when I do a google search and all I see are a bunch of duplicate content sites with a load of crap on all of them I can see the raters aren't really doing a good job at all or google isn't hiring people at the moment.

 

[IM Dude]

I don't know about now, but I did that job back about 10 or so years ago. Maybe further back. We didn't check for sales of illegal materials. We were more concerned about duplicate pages, spam, websites that were simply affiliate based, etc. I mean honestly, when I do a google search and all I see are a bunch of duplicate content sites with a load of crap on all of them I can see the raters aren't really doing a good job at all or google isn't hiring people at the moment.

Yeah, I will go with what ahrefs is saying on this whole rating thing:
https://ahrefs.com/blog/google-quality-raters-guidelines
Does google rates adsense approved sites too?

 

[Alma]

Websites that got HIT were mostly PAA sites, also most of the sites that got hit got their Snippets removed from google results, meaning these Google raters were probably checking for websites who are just scraping Google PAA results and copy-pasting them in their websites. They probably were also looking at the websites that are over-optimizing their articles to win the Google snippets.

May boosted many AI and/or PAA sites

 

[neo]

If you find out Raterhub has visited your website before your traffic dropped, you need to check which of your pages raterhub actually visited.

How do I find which page the guys from ratershub visited?

 

[MJ]

If they were indeed using rater feedback, they could have simply hidden that data from Analytics. Or simply blocked analytics code on whatever app/ website they were using

 

[HenryObi]

What's interesting, they were looking at one exact page all 4 times.

It appears the update has to do with core web vitals or other on page issues.

 

[RStar66]

Websites that got HIT were mostly PAA sites

That is not true. It always makes me laugh when I see people say this about the May update. Yet, there is not data that support this. As in none. But, seems like "SEO" these days just run around claiming things no matter how baseless they are. Just like Alexander Vasev and his little Twitter rant. His "evidence" is anecdotal at best and screenshots from search console or his Analytics is very far removed from a study or actual evidence of anything other than he has access to GSC and GA. That's it. John Mu is going to ignore the crap out of this dude, as he should.

Did the meaning of the word "study" change?

What these raters try to do is to figure out if your site is promoting violence, selling illegal things etc. They are not rating if your site should rank or not.

Google 100% has manual search raters and their work is related to search, not content censorship. In fact, you would have to be stupid to think that Google relies 100% of AI to teach their AI about how to rank pages.

 

[finco]

That is not true. It always makes me laugh when I see people say this about the May update. Yet, there is not data that support this. As in none. But, seems like "SEO" these days just run around claiming things no matter how baseless they are. Just like Alexander Vasev and his little Twitter rant. His "evidence" is anecdotal at best and screenshots from search console or his Analytics is very far removed from a study or actual evidence of anything other than he has access to GSC and GA. That's it. John Mu is going to ignore the crap out of this dude, as he should.

Did the meaning of the word "study" change?


Google 100% has manual search raters and their work is related to search, not content censorship. In fact, you would have to be stupid to think that Google relies 100% of AI to teach their AI about how to rank pages.

Yes you are right. Claims from these SEO guys seem to be increasingly baseless.

And also, from my little Experience with AI, most models require a human to actually train them.

 

[caligirl22]

Yeah, I will go with what ahrefs is saying on this whole rating thing:
https://ahrefs.com/blog/google-quality-raters-guidelines
Does google rates adsense approved sites too?

I don't remember if it was for quality content or adsense approval. It was many many years ago. It was very time-consuming and boring so I didn't stay long. It didn't pay enough to be that bored.

 

[blackbeans]

Thank you for sharing Alexander Vasev's thoughts on the Google May algorithm update.

My question is, how did he know that the Google rater went to a specific website? How would website owners know that Google raters visit their sites?

I get your concern that it's alarming that they can give a site a big thumbs up or thumbs down based on just one page.

But in more practical terms, my question is how people would know that the raters visited their sites considering there are millions upon millions of sites out there.

Are we talking about actual visits? I'm imagining an army of people doing this thing.

Even if Google outsources it, that's still a lot of person-hours given the tremendous amount of materials spread out among the almost-infinite number of niches on the internet.

Maybe there is some midway solution to this.

I'm not knocking the rater theory, but perhaps they take a sample of raters tackling different types of sites.

And then, they use machine learning to detect these patterns and apply them to sites which Google's data robots will crawl to spot specific problematic patterns.

I'm just thinking on top of my head, but we all know that Google spends tremendous money on artificial intelligence.

From a practical perspective, it's the only way rater feedback from a one-page impression of a site can be scaled to the level it needs to be to affect actual algorithm updates.

 

[ranga]

Raters visiting a site is just a correlation and not a cause of the drop. There are a number of websites which got hit without raters visits. Google may have randomly assigned websites to raters to see how their core update is performing over the course of rollout. So raters may be used to actually check the result (feedback loop) and not be a cause of the result.