Another Google Update on It's way

Advertise on BHW
AngelSeo said:
yeah bullshit and CCN rant, which was PR stunt by the way.
Click to expand...

It was not a stunt. I have my bots watching CCN for a case study.

Their traffic shot up 50% past 48 hours. They're back up so they decided to save face with Google saying it was a joke.

Gogol said:
Exactly! If anybody was to gain from this, they had to buy it before the hype... which is pretty much impossible to know (for the most, that is).. I guess.
Click to expand...

Unless you're one of the people behind the pump.... Wouldn't be too hard to find out if it were a regulated market.

Brighter Faster said:
There are not infinitely many keywords.

More importantly, there are not infinitely many searches per month. The finite monthly searches generate a finite number of clicks. So some websites getting more of those clicks means others are getting fewer. Hence, zero sum.
Click to expand...

Being strictly pedantic, yes the number of keywords is infinite. In economic terms you are correct though, only a certain number of combinations make money (because searches are limited).

Every day the number of keywords grows. Someone creates a meme like I can haz cheezburger which means absolutely nothing and then it becomes a thing and generates thousands of variations and millions of pages. Whoever ranked #1 for that about 10 years ago made tons of $ in free traffic.

These opportunities appear daily. Just yesterday a mispelled hashtag about a controversial public figure made it to top 10 on Twitter. If you ranked for that for the next 48 hours you'd get lots of traffic. The keyword technically did not exist, it sprouted out from nowhere.

There are infinite (or astronomically as many) such possibilities and they appear daily. Catch the cluetrain.

koutb123 said:
Its 2 updates from google
Click to expand...

Correct. My whitest hat site got double fucked. I'm taking a vacation until it comes back.

AlphaMike said:
Finally someone speaking the truth about google. Everything google does whether small or big, is to generate more revenue. They want us to spend on ads and thats what it has always been about.
Click to expand...

Here's a word from the creator of Javascript. Posted just minutes ago.

eich.png
 
bartosimpsonio said:
Being strictly pedantic, yes the number of keywords is infinite. In economic terms you are correct though, only a certain number of combinations make money (because searches are limited).

Every day the number of keywords grows. Someone creates a meme like I can haz cheezburger which means absolutely nothing and then it becomes a thing and generates thousands of variations and millions of pages. Whoever ranked #1 for that about 10 years ago made tons of $ in free traffic.

These opportunities appear daily. Just yesterday a mispelled hashtag about a controversial public figure made it to top 10 on Twitter. If you ranked for that for the next 48 hours you'd get lots of traffic. The keyword technically did not exist, it sprouted out from nowhere.

There are infinite (or astronomically as many) such possibilities and they appear daily. Catch the cluetrain.
Click to expand...

Being strictly pedantic there are not an infinite number of keywords. Search length is finite, so there are finitely many searches that can be made.

Even if there were infinitely many keywords, there is a finite pool of searches. Hence, this is a zero sum game. Increases in searches for some new terms are offset by decreases in searches for obsolete terms.

The only sense in which this is not a zero sum game is if the total number of clicks is growing. I don't know the exact numbers, but I would imagine growth in organic clicks is low or negative given the higher CTR on various SERP "features." I would imagine this more than offsets the growth in total number of searches.

I'm just pointing out that this zero sum. It's a huge pie, so this is mostly irrelevant, but it is simply incorrect to say that there are infinitely many searches or that this is not zero sum. We cannot have all websites gaining traffic from organic search.

"Catch the cluetrain"... I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid insulting stuff like this. I'm just pointing out the mathematics of the situation. Of course there are plenty of opportunities to gain traffic, but that traffic is lost somewhere else.
 
Brighter Faster said:
I'm just pointing out that this zero sum. It's a huge pie, so this is mostly irrelevant, but it is simply incorrect to say that there are infinitely many searches or that this is not zero sum.
Click to expand...

It's not zero sum and I'll prove it to you with a very simple example.

You and I are the only two people on the WWW.

We are competing for the following keywords: black tea and homer simpson. Those are the only two keywords we know at the time and if I beat you, I take your clicks, so far it's zero sum per your explanation.

But then I accidentally optimize for black sea instead of tea and the next day a war breaks out in the black sea and I get tons of visitors that I'd never get for black tea.

Black sea did not exist before, I made it up accidentally. The traffic did not exist before, it appeared because of a new event.

New events and new keywords appear every minute. It's not zero sum.

Brighter Faster said:
"Catch the cluetrain"... I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid insulting stuff like this. I'm just pointing out the mathematics of the situation.
Click to expand...

How was that was insulting? Cluetrain manifesto is the name of a book.
 
bartosimpsonio said:
Black sea did not exist before, I made it up accidentally. The traffic did not exist before, it appeared because of a new event.
Click to expand...

Traffic does not appear. If more people are searching for "black sea," then fewer people are searching for "homer simpson" and "black tea."

You are asserting that there is a large increase in the number of searches, which is not true. There is probably around a 5-10% increase in total searches on google per year (if google is to be believed). Some of that increase is offset by decreases in organic clicks. Thus, the number of clicks is roughly flat (maybe growing slightly, I don't know).

When traffic "appears" because of a new event, it is not really appearing. It is getting shifted from older events. In our example the only two other things people search for are black tea and homer simpson, so when the black sea war happens, they search less for those old terms as their searching shifts to the new event. The number of clicks remains the same (again, roughly).

Maybe think of the rise of "keto diet." There were huge gains for everyone in the keto diet niche, but this wasn't new traffic. The rise in keto searches was accompanied by a fall in, I don't know, "Atkins" searches. The actual amount of traffic was roughly constant. Or if a war happens and there is a spike in searches about the war, there is a decrease in searches for Celebrity gossip maybe. The point is there is a fixed number of clicks, and those must be split among the websites. So you cannot have a situation where everyone is gaining. Increasing your clicks means someone else's clicks must have decreased.

In order for this not to be zero sum you need new clicks to appear. That does not happen in a huge way (again, there might be a single digit % increase per year or something since the internet is still growing, though my guess is that the decline in organic CTR more than offsets that).

I hope that makes sense.

Sorry if you did not mean to insult. It wasn't clear you were referencing a book. Instead it sounded like you were telling me to get a clue.
 
Really tired of Google's shit. My site was having decent rankings Top 20 and some in the Top 10. I added a few articles and now it seems they gave me an algorithm penalty?! All rankings went to shit, means page 7 or 8. I didn't build ANY link. Wtf is wrong with this? What did I trigger in the algorithm? Adding unique well-written content?!
 
Why worry about it?

You just smashing BH links or something?

If you're branded and have search traffic coming in, you shouldn't need to worry about any of that man.
 
My traffic went down sustantially after 15 March (something happened, possibly a G update) then it recovered about 70% after this new update completely rolled out (a few days until Friday) and now again it seems to be going down. Dunno what's happening.
 
Dancing to the tunes of G....how we all are at the mercy of the big G....wonder if there's any other SE to compete with them....ahrefs has plans as their scraper ranks 2nd.
 
Brighter Faster said:
Traffic does not appear. If more people are searching for "black sea," then fewer people are searching for "homer simpson" and "black tea."

You are asserting that there is a large increase in the number of searches, which is not true. There is probably around a 5-10% increase in total searches on google per year (if google is to be believed). Some of that increase is offset by decreases in organic clicks. Thus, the number of clicks is roughly flat (maybe growing slightly, I don't know).

When traffic "appears" because of a new event, it is not really appearing. It is getting shifted from older events. In our example the only two other things people search for are black tea and homer simpson, so when the black sea war happens, they search less for those old terms as their searching shifts to the new event. The number of clicks remains the same (again, roughly).

Maybe think of the rise of "keto diet." There were huge gains for everyone in the keto diet niche, but this wasn't new traffic. The rise in keto searches was accompanied by a fall in, I don't know, "Atkins" searches. The actual amount of traffic was roughly constant. Or if a war happens and there is a spike in searches about the war, there is a decrease in searches for Celebrity gossip maybe. The point is there is a fixed number of clicks, and those must be split among the websites. So you cannot have a situation where everyone is gaining. Increasing your clicks means someone else's clicks must have decreased.

In order for this not to be zero sum you need new clicks to appear. That does not happen in a huge way (again, there might be a single digit % increase per year or something since the internet is still growing, though my guess is that the decline in organic CTR more than offsets that).

I hope that makes sense.

Sorry if you did not mean to insult. It wasn't clear you were referencing a book. Instead, it sounded like you were telling me to get a clue.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. However, you are not taking into account hot trends or fan fades traffic does increase and does appear when people jump onto a new trend, traffic can not "move" from one event to another if I never searched for anything.

If I never looked for red paint before or any paint and suddenly I decided I needed paint because I bought a house. My search has not shifted from one part to the other - I'm still looking and searching for all my regular searches, I've just grown my outreach and searched - I've become a new stat to someone.

Search has three types none of which are ever equal.

1. Those not searched for kale before.
2. Those searched in a topic such as eating kale.
3. Those that shifted topic such as eating kale to now wanting to make a kale smoothie.

If a large number comes from 1 and starts to search for eating kale. That traffic has increased, it's new traffic.

People who fall into point one may have never had any interest in kale, or maybe too young to search before. I doubt both of those combined are a single digit increase..

Should also add that zero sum with search I don't think can exisit. Even if you split it as basic as

1. People who searched for a term the have's
2. People who have not searched for a term the have's not.

If the internet is growing and users come then one column is always going to be greater..
 
Last edited:
Brighter Faster said:
Traffic does not appear. If more people are searching for "black sea," then fewer people are searching for "homer simpson" and "black tea."

You are asserting that there is a large increase in the number of searches, which is not true. There is probably around a 5-10% increase in total searches on google per year (if google is to be believed). Some of that increase is offset by decreases in organic clicks. Thus, the number of clicks is roughly flat (maybe growing slightly, I don't know).

When traffic "appears" because of a new event, it is not really appearing. It is getting shifted from older events. In our example the only two other things people search for are black tea and homer simpson, so when the black sea war happens, they search less for those old terms as their searching shifts to the new event. The number of clicks remains the same (again, roughly).

Maybe think of the rise of "keto diet." There were huge gains for everyone in the keto diet niche, but this wasn't new traffic. The rise in keto searches was accompanied by a fall in, I don't know, "Atkins" searches. The actual amount of traffic was roughly constant. Or if a war happens and there is a spike in searches about the war, there is a decrease in searches for Celebrity gossip maybe. The point is there is a fixed number of clicks, and those must be split among the websites. So you cannot have a situation where everyone is gaining. Increasing your clicks means someone else's clicks must have decreased.

In order for this not to be zero sum you need new clicks to appear. That does not happen in a huge way (again, there might be a single digit % increase per year or something since the internet is still growing, though my guess is that the decline in organic CTR more than offsets that).

I hope that makes sense.

Sorry if you did not mean to insult. It wasn't clear you were referencing a book. Instead it sounded like you were telling me to get a clue.
Click to expand...

I understand your point but I think it's wrong.

It's pretty obvious to me that your initial point isn't valid. If more people are searching for black sea it does not mean they're not searching for the other 2. Keywords do appear out of nothing.

I'm sure Google has a limit of X approximate searches per month, after all there are only 7 billion people out there.

But my example stands. Every month you get the chance to rank for new kws that no one was competing for before, which means it's not zero sum. Anyway this is as far as I'll go in this conversation because I think we're going in circles here.

Cluetrain = a train of keyword "clues" passes by you every day. Catch the train and you'll have tons of keywords. That's what I meant. It's a old business book with cool ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yee
Well, there are lots of people who are still making a lot with Google SEO but I am happy that I leave that business. Though I made good money with this till 2018. But depending on google, investing time and money on something uncertain doesn't seem worth it. Playing with paid traffic is much better.
 
bartosimpsonio said:
I understand your point but I think it's wrong.

It's pretty obvious to me that your initial point isn't valid. If more people are searching for black sea it does not mean they're not searching for the other 2. Keywords do appear out of nothing.

I'm sure Google has a limit of X approximate searches per month, after all there are only 7 billion people out there.

But my example stands. Every month you get the chance to rank for new kws that no one was competing for before, which means it's not zero sum. Anyway this is as far as I'll go in this conversation because I think we're going in circles here.

Cluetrain = a train of keyword "clues" passes by you every day. Catch the train and you'll have tons of keywords. That's what I meant. It's a old business book with cool ideas.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think both of you are right.

Brighter Faster is right on theory. Because if you have a maximum length of search string then you have a finite amount of different strings(keywords). However, the combinations are such a big amount that practically we can assume that they are infinite amount.

Also, in theory the number of searches performed by one person is a finite amount(because we have only 24h a day) so if one niche gains attention other loses. However, practically we can't assume that we are losing traffic if some other niche is gaining traffic because no one is using their 24h a day to perform searches.
 
yesofcourse said:
Actually, I think both of you are right.

Brighter Faster is right on theory. Because if you have a maximum length of search string then you have a finite amount of different strings(keywords). However, the combinations are such a big amount that practically we can assume that they are infinite amount.

Also, in theory the number of searches performed by one person is a finite amount(because we have only 24h a day) so if one niche gains attention other loses. However, practically we can't assume that we are losing traffic if some other niche is gaining traffic because no one is using their 24h a day to perform searches.
Click to expand...

I get your point. But if you can make up kw's then it can't be zero sum. It's not just about length.

I gave the cheezburger example. This word didn't exist, then it suddenly does.
 
bartosimpsonio said:
I get your point. But if you can make up kw's then it can't be zero sum. It's not just about length.

I gave the cheezburger example. This word didn't exist, then it suddenly does.
Click to expand...

Practically, you are right. That's what I said.

However, in theory you can't just "make up" keywords. They are a finite amount if the search string is of a finite length and the alphabet is of a finite amount of symbols/letters.

I will give you an example.

Let's say the whole English alphabet consists only the letter "a" and "b" and the search string can be a maximum of two letters. Then ALL the combinations are a,b, aa, bb, ab and ba. Doesn't matter if you consider "ba" a meaningful keyword and "ab" a new not-meaningful keyword. They both still exist. This example is just in a much smaller scale.
 
yesofcourse said:
Practically, you are right. That's what I said.

However, in theory you can't just "make up" keywords. They are a finite amount if the search string is of a finite length and the alphabet is of a finite amount of symbols/letters.

I will give you an example.

Let's say the whole English alphabet consists only the letter "a" and "b" and the search string can be a maximum of two letters. Then ALL the combinations are a,b, aa, bb, ab and ba. Doesn't matter if you consider "ba" a meaningful keyword and "ab" a new not-meaningful keyword. They both still exist. This example is just in a much smaller scale.
Click to expand...

But when you get people adding in aab, aaaab etc ... people type something "new" which has little to no search history on an almost daily basis.
 
yesofcourse said:
Practically, you are right. That's what I said.

However, in theory you can't just "make up" keywords. They are a finite amount if the search string is of a finite length and the alphabet is of a finite amount of symbols/letters.

I will give you an example.

Let's say the whole English alphabet consists only the letter "a" and "b" and the search string can be a maximum of two letters. Then ALL the combinations are a,b, aa, bb, ab and ba. Doesn't matter if you consider "ba" a meaningful keyword and "ab" a new not-meaningful keyword. They both still exist. This example is just in a much smaller scale.
Click to expand...

Strange logic to be honest, I think he's right. This could be a good example why testing is important
 
Lost around 25-30% of my traffic ... Great Google!
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top