Thanks for the insight, but I'm not making any changes to my website or to my server until Google stops making radical changes from one month to the other. An investment doesn't work like this, if I pour hundreds or thousands of dollars, I expect some semblance of stability for at least a year.
Google Broad Core Update December 2020
- Thread starter seomotionz
- Start date
Everything you written is not happening for now
D
Deleted member 657006
Guest
But it coming this January
I have already told in December Google will re-update in January so those who lost their traffic will be back to normal.
I meant not all the above ranking factors are getting applied at all
I just realized that this rubbed me the wrong way more than I anticipated. So after these douchebags have released the 'election core update' in May, now have the audacity to tell us to adjust our content, images and site speed, so we can rank better? Sure buds, we'll adjust right away.
PS: This comment is not a criticism towards your analysis, Redarrow.
This is exactly the same for me, hit hard in May, recovered nicely in December but the day after google said the update was finished took a small but noticeable drop. Now starting from yesterday I'm being hit again, some keywords are now worse than before the December update, I'm hoping this is just a blip because just like May, my site looks like it's being actively held back. In UK I'm seeing results bounce all over the place still so god knows but so far it's a horrible kick in the teeth. On a side note tried using the submit tool for 3 articles this week as well and none have been indexed.The most frustrating thing is they say there is nothing to fix with the core updates, that isn't true. Seen so many sites just completely not showing for keywords at all yet some complete rubbish does, and i'm not talking about my sites, seen many decent competitors completely wiped out by these updates
I checked some competitors on Semrush and all (I mean all) have a dent in the yesterday's keywords, so the trend is downwards for all. I'll grab some popcorn and see what excuse they come up with this time.
some keywords of mine I'm seeing drops of over 5 pages. when you say excuse they come up with, do you mean google?
Yes, I mean Google (sorry for being vague). When everyone is dropping, they have to come up with some excuse, as they did over the years.
0Z0N321337
Newbie
- Apr 9, 2017
- 34
- 23
Whats the verdict anyone?
- Apr 4, 2014
- 6,454
- 4,857
It's impossible for everybody to go down, somebody has to go up to replace the sites which went down.
0Z0N321337
Newbie
- Apr 9, 2017
- 34
- 23
Man that is gonna be nuts especially with the looming may 2020 core update for speed. Can't wait. I do think this will make SEO bigger for the service industry and though it will make it harder, this will more or less even out the playing field. Yes, they are making it harder with 30 days of indexing but also they are going to be favoring sites with better SEO optimization and in about 5 months and punishing you if you don't conform so it is up to us really if we want to listen to google.
But now people need to consult SEO experts or their sites will never take off and SEO experts now are the gurus that we all needed to be again before Wix and GoDaddy destroyed our market by making cookie-cutter SEO.
I checked about 20 competitors, including those that weren't affected by the May update and Semrush shows that all were affected. So yes, apparently pretty much all the main players in my niche are currently losing keywords being replaced by I have no idea what or who to be honest. Some larger website that I missed, Amazon, no idea since I don't have the tools (nor the time, at the moment to go more in-depth).
Enlightened Orangutan
Registered Member
- Mar 29, 2020
- 87
- 32
Within 2 days I lost 30% of my traffic compared to last week, this is just like another may update
My traffic is stable. Here are some stats from my competition.
1. Monster site, no older than 10 years though, aggressive SEO but also very popular among users:
2. Monster site, older than 10 years, very popular among users, covers just one sport. NO agressive SEO, I would say no SEO at all:
3. Aggressive newcomer (big budget, I would say six figures at least):
4. Not-so-old site, aggressive SEO (including GSA generated links), not quite popular in branded searches. No big budget, this one grew almost without spending, but implementing anything you can think of:
5. Not-so-old site, no aggressive SEO, got hit in May, recovered in December, not quite popular among users. Big budget from promotion but not aggressive in terms of SEO.
6. Biggest winner of December update, got hit in May, for some unknown reasons the AI decided in 6 months the site is in fact a good one, recovered in December. No aggressive SEO, quite popular among the users and webmasters.
Backlink profile for #6:
.edu links are plenty, but they all come from just 4 domains and are organic.
Sorry for posting so many screenshots
Knowing what each site is doing, I would focus on #6 and I can say what is distinctive:
1. Page speed sucks.
2. Content (as in correct English) is very far from what it should be, but data is accurate and plenty.
3. HUGE link popularity across the Internet, all gained organically, there's nothing forced.
Conclusion?
Natural gained links seem to matter the most. There's nothing new here, right? There's also no clear explanation for the May hit and December recovery. One would be the site gained a lot of new links, which can be seen in Ahrefs, but they were all due to increased popularity.
In the end:
All these sites above deserve to be on the top 10. Even more, there are still at least 20 sites that deserve the same places. I think Google knows that. The difference is made by little things or just by... link popularity.
I would not exclude the possibility of "rotation", so each site gets top positions for top keywords for a very short period of time. Even in the top 10, #1 can be shared among many, and during each time Google gathers data on increased/decreased link popularity, user behavior (even though they say it's not "on the menu") and other things, in order to prepare the next core update.
Hope this helps somehow in understanding the new (AI powered) Google.
1. Monster site, no older than 10 years though, aggressive SEO but also very popular among users:
2. Monster site, older than 10 years, very popular among users, covers just one sport. NO agressive SEO, I would say no SEO at all:
3. Aggressive newcomer (big budget, I would say six figures at least):
4. Not-so-old site, aggressive SEO (including GSA generated links), not quite popular in branded searches. No big budget, this one grew almost without spending, but implementing anything you can think of:
5. Not-so-old site, no aggressive SEO, got hit in May, recovered in December, not quite popular among users. Big budget from promotion but not aggressive in terms of SEO.
6. Biggest winner of December update, got hit in May, for some unknown reasons the AI decided in 6 months the site is in fact a good one, recovered in December. No aggressive SEO, quite popular among the users and webmasters.
Backlink profile for #6:
.edu links are plenty, but they all come from just 4 domains and are organic.
Sorry for posting so many screenshots
Knowing what each site is doing, I would focus on #6 and I can say what is distinctive:
1. Page speed sucks.
2. Content (as in correct English) is very far from what it should be, but data is accurate and plenty.
3. HUGE link popularity across the Internet, all gained organically, there's nothing forced.
Conclusion?
Natural gained links seem to matter the most. There's nothing new here, right? There's also no clear explanation for the May hit and December recovery. One would be the site gained a lot of new links, which can be seen in Ahrefs, but they were all due to increased popularity.
In the end:
All these sites above deserve to be on the top 10. Even more, there are still at least 20 sites that deserve the same places. I think Google knows that. The difference is made by little things or just by... link popularity.
I would not exclude the possibility of "rotation", so each site gets top positions for top keywords for a very short period of time. Even in the top 10, #1 can be shared among many, and during each time Google gathers data on increased/decreased link popularity, user behavior (even though they say it's not "on the menu") and other things, in order to prepare the next core update.
Hope this helps somehow in understanding the new (AI powered) Google.
Alot to learn from you buddy.My traffic is stable. Here are some stats from my competition.
1. Monster site, no older than 10 years though, aggressive SEO but also very popular among users:
View attachment 158436
2. Monster site, older than 10 years, very popular among users, covers just one sport. NO agressive SEO, I would say no SEO at all:
View attachment 158437
3. Aggressive newcomer (big budget, I would say six figures at least):
View attachment 158438
4. Not-so-old site, aggressive SEO (including GSA generated links), not quite popular in branded searches. No big budget, this one grew almost without spending, but implementing anything you can think of:
View attachment 158439
5. Not-so-old site, no aggressive SEO, got hit in May, recovered in December, not quite popular among users. Big budget from promotion but not aggressive in terms of SEO.
View attachment 158440
6. Biggest winner of December update, got hit in May, for some unknown reasons the AI decided in 6 months the site is in fact a good one, recovered in December. No aggressive SEO, quite popular among the users and webmasters.
View attachment 158441
Backlink profile for #6:
View attachment 158446
.edu links are plenty, but they all come from just 4 domains and are organic.
Sorry for posting so many screenshots
Knowing what each site is doing, I would focus on #6 and I can say what is distinctive:
1. Page speed sucks.
2. Content (as in correct English) is very far from what it should be, but data is accurate and plenty.
3. HUGE link popularity across the Internet, all gained organically, there's nothing forced.
Conclusion?
Natural gained links seem to matter the most. There's nothing new here, right? There's also no clear explanation for the May hit and December recovery. One would be the site gained a lot of new links, which can be seen in Ahrefs, but they were all due to increased popularity.
In the end:
All these sites above deserve to be on the top 10. Even more, there are still at least 20 sites that deserve the same places. I think Google knows that. The difference is made by little things or just by... link popularity.
I would not exclude the possibility of "rotation", so each site gets top positions for top keywords for a very short period of time. Even in the top 10, #1 can be shared among many, and during each time Google gathers data on increased/decreased link popularity, user behavior (even though they say it's not "on the menu") and other things, in order to prepare the next core update.
Hope this helps somehow in understanding the new (AI powered) Google.
jarjarb52
Newbie
- Nov 3, 2020
- 29
- 11
I would say that is a smart way to ultimately find vwho deserves to be in the top positions BUT what if a niche is seasonal? Whichever sites are rotated to higher positions during the prime time for that niche will naturally receive more natural links and thus be deemed as a winner. Unless there is some way to account for this, I see it as a big flaw in the rotation way of ranking sitesMy traffic is stable. Here are some stats from my competition.
1. Monster site, no older than 10 years though, aggressive SEO but also very popular among users:
View attachment 158436
2. Monster site, older than 10 years, very popular among users, covers just one sport. NO agressive SEO, I would say no SEO at all:
View attachment 158437
3. Aggressive newcomer (big budget, I would say six figures at least):
View attachment 158438
4. Not-so-old site, aggressive SEO (including GSA generated links), not quite popular in branded searches. No big budget, this one grew almost without spending, but implementing anything you can think of:
View attachment 158439
5. Not-so-old site, no aggressive SEO, got hit in May, recovered in December, not quite popular among users. Big budget from promotion but not aggressive in terms of SEO.
View attachment 158440
6. Biggest winner of December update, got hit in May, for some unknown reasons the AI decided in 6 months the site is in fact a good one, recovered in December. No aggressive SEO, quite popular among the users and webmasters.
View attachment 158441
Backlink profile for #6:
View attachment 158446
.edu links are plenty, but they all come from just 4 domains and are organic.
Sorry for posting so many screenshots
Knowing what each site is doing, I would focus on #6 and I can say what is distinctive:
1. Page speed sucks.
2. Content (as in correct English) is very far from what it should be, but data is accurate and plenty.
3. HUGE link popularity across the Internet, all gained organically, there's nothing forced.
Conclusion?
Natural gained links seem to matter the most. There's nothing new here, right? There's also no clear explanation for the May hit and December recovery. One would be the site gained a lot of new links, which can be seen in Ahrefs, but they were all due to increased popularity.
In the end:
All these sites above deserve to be on the top 10. Even more, there are still at least 20 sites that deserve the same places. I think Google knows that. The difference is made by little things or just by... link popularity.
I would not exclude the possibility of "rotation", so each site gets top positions for top keywords for a very short period of time. Even in the top 10, #1 can be shared among many, and during each time Google gathers data on increased/decreased link popularity, user behavior (even though they say it's not "on the menu") and other things, in order to prepare the next core update.
Hope this helps somehow in understanding the new (AI powered) Google.
I am also not sure about this thing, but I imagine some kind of rotation can occur when more than 20 sites are good enough for the first 10 spots. Even if the people at Google know that, I am not sure how they handle it. It's a normal, human supposition to think you should have at least 20-30 good sites for a certain keyword.
There's also parasite spam which takes sometimes 2-3 positions from the top 10. Again, people working at Google are aware of that - but nothing happened so far, parasites seem to find their way into the top 10.
My guess is that rotation occurs all the time, except for 2-3 "locked" sites that are moving only on core updates. So I am not worried about going up and down.
In the end, we all think about our niches and we deal with a very limited number of keywords. We can't see the bigger picture, just patterns. We follow the ones which we understand, trying to discover as much as we can about each one.
There's also parasite spam which takes sometimes 2-3 positions from the top 10. Again, people working at Google are aware of that - but nothing happened so far, parasites seem to find their way into the top 10.
My guess is that rotation occurs all the time, except for 2-3 "locked" sites that are moving only on core updates. So I am not worried about going up and down.
In the end, we all think about our niches and we deal with a very limited number of keywords. We can't see the bigger picture, just patterns. We follow the ones which we understand, trying to discover as much as we can about each one.