Google's "Helpful content" Update - What I've Noticed

[homeriscool]

I had some really good blog posts ranking on page 1 for years but now they are sliding off page 1.....

The only thing different about these blog posts is that they are 4000 word +

Well written content (not ai or spun)

My other blog posts (on the same site) are still doing great.

Maybe Google hates long content now?

 

[averjr]

What do you think is the magic number now?

 

[homeriscool]

What do you think is the magic number now?

I can only hazard a guess.......

But I would say below 2k words.....

 

[averjr]

I can only hazard a guess.......

But I would say below 2k words.....

I see, I think the sweet spot is 600-2000.

 

[homeriscool]

I see, I think the sweet spot is 600-2000.

Yes I would say that's good.

I like experimenting to find out what works......

I wrote a few 4k + word articles a few years ago and the ranked great. They brought loads of traffic.

But not now.......since helpful content update my blog posts are trash

 

[Alexion]

There was someone posting something about Google showing "less than 5 min read" on some results.

I'm guessing that COULD be a factor.

Considering your findings, it would make sense.
Was looking the other day for "edit single-post top margin Wordpress" and I had to go through 8 H2 headings and endless fluff to get to the point.

Same with some tech articles. You look for "how to remove Cortana from gpedit" and you have to read how Microsoft launched, their versions, what is cortana, and other endless crap before you actually read what you need. These articles were ranking on top 3.

I really find that annoying, and I can only assume Google noticed this as a trend for many people.
You can't have 4,000 words in an article and expect people to read it all to find out what they need.

Not talking about your case, I just took the number as an example.
But it COULD make sense.

 

[HenryObi]

I can only hazard a guess.......

But I would say below 2k words.....

I saw a video or read something somewhere by either Matt Diggity or one other guy on how Google neither prefers very long not very short answers. It all boils down to the specific question itself.

If that is the case, then Google's understanding of search intent must be very high.

 

[HenryObi]

Was looking the other day for "edit single-post top margin Wordpress" and I had to go through 8 H2 headings and endless fluff to get to the point.

Same with some tech articles. You look for "how to remove Cortana from gpedit" and you have to read how Microsoft launched, their versions, what is cortana, and other endless crap before you actually read what you need. These articles were ranking on top 3.

You can't blame the writers or sites for this. There was a time Google was not ranking sites that go straight to the point and answer a question. They were regarded as having very thin content.

 

[Black Belt Spodermen]

Well, yes, I watched some videos about the content length. Including all the related things in a single post might not work like before.

 

[homeriscool]

There was someone posting something about Google showing "less than 5 min read" on some results.

I'm guessing that COULD be a factor.

Considering your findings, it would make sense.
Was looking the other day for "edit single-post top margin Wordpress" and I had to go through 8 H2 headings and endless fluff to get to the point.

Same with some tech articles. You look for "how to remove Cortana from gpedit" and you have to read how Microsoft launched, their versions, what is cortana, and other endless crap before you actually read what you need. These articles were ranking on top 3.

I really find that annoying, and I can only assume Google noticed this as a trend for many people.
You can't have 4,000 words in an article and expect people to read it all to find out what they need.

Not talking about your case, I just took the number as an example.
But it COULD make sense.

Yeah this makes sense.....and I find it annoying having to read through loads of crap to get to the golden nugget of information.

I only wrote those long blog posts as a test to see if they brought more traffic.....and they did.

 

[Alma]

I saw a video or read something somewhere by either Matt Diggity or one other guy on how Google neither prefers very long not very short answers. It all boils down to the specific question itself.

If that is the case, then Google's understanding of search intent must be very high.

They prefer to write short simple answer or takeaways at the beginning / near the beginning of the article and then write the long fluff.

 

[homeriscool]

The other issue with super long blog posts is that it's a drain on Google resources?

Having to index all this garbage text.

I wonder how much computing power all this ai content and stupid long blog posts wastes?

 

[Alma]

The other issue with super long blog posts is that it's a drain on Google resources?

Having to index all this garbage text.

I wonder how much computing power all this ai content and stupid long blog posts wastes?

I am sure the bot/ai doesn't go over every single word. Also text is really really small, 1 MB of text is a LOT of text.

 

[MisterF]

There's nothing worse in content than line after line of fluff and filler.
Possibly too that Google wants to see more linking internally to other relevant articles?

Barry seems to think that the after-effects from this aren't finished as yet

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-helpful-content-update-not-done-34065.html

 

[TheDankChocolate]

So you believe short and to the point PAAs will be the future in some niches?

 

[homeriscool]

There's nothing worse in content than line after line of fluff and filler.
Possibly too that Google wants to see more linking internally to other relevant articles?

Barry seems to think that the after-effects from this aren't finished as yet

https://www.seroundtable.com/google-helpful-content-update-not-done-34065.html

This is an interesting article but have you read the comments at the bottom?

Very revealing.....

 

[jeronymo29]

Maybe now they put the reading time in the algorithm, not the number of words.

 

[homeriscool]

Maybe now they put the reading time in the algorithm, not the number of words.

It's quite possible.....

People's attentions spans are the lowest in decades so why do we need articles that take 20 mins to read?

Not many people will read them.

 

[SirLouen]

Maybe Google hates long content now?

Yep, I've been commenting on this for several months but now this is starting to take over.

Long content, is not worthy any more, unless the topic requires so. When you write a lot, think if the text needs to be so long. My rule of thumb is: write until you don't have anything else to say. Don't do a ton of PAA inside the article. And never ever, use an AI headline generator because it will provoke such nuisance (for them is easy to generate the headlines, but for you is a duty to put content under such headlines).

Google has a ton more resources nowadays, crawl budget is not a thing any more. The thin content theory is outdated (still some noob tools implement such analysis)

The new strategy is this: Check for your top ranking keywords in an article and keep them there. Check for your underperforming ones, and split them in a different post article. Send some links from the original article to the new ones (personally I like lisitngs, which can be done for example with WP Show Posts, ACF, Toolset types, or whatever you like the most if you are on WP (or even plain simple anchors).

 

[homeriscool]

Yep, I've been commenting on this for several months but now this is starting to take over.

Long content, is not worthy any more, unless the topic requires so. When you write a lot, think if the text needs to be so long. My rule of thumb is: write until you don't have anything else to say. Don't do a ton of PAA inside the article. And never ever, use an AI headline generator because it will provoke such nuisance (for them is easy to generate the headlines, but for you is a duty to put content under such headlines).

Google has a ton more resources nowadays, crawl budget is not a thing any more. The thin content theory is outdated (still some noob tools implement such analysis)

The new strategy is this: Check for your top ranking keywords in an article and keep them there. Check for your underperforming ones, and split them in a different post article. Send some links from the original article to the new ones (personally I like lisitngs, which can be done for example with WP Show Posts, ACF, Toolset types, or whatever you like the most if you are on WP (or even plain simple anchors).

I was thinking of chopping my 4k word articles in half.

Focus on the keywords that are ranking....