I'll start by saying that was a hard title to write and I hope it makes sense. In short, Google's John Mueller said on X, when it comes to fixing your site that was hit by the helpful content update, "it's not relative to previously, it's basically a re-evaluation of the whole site in the new / current online world & users expectations."
What John is saying is that just because you improved the helpfulness of your content on your site by a specific amount, it still might not be good enough based on how you compare to those in your industry.
So you shouldn't compare where you are today to where you are now, with your specific site. You need to compare yourself today to where you are with the current space you are in today.
Of course, you can always look at poor examples of sites outranking you that shouldn't - so I am not sure how good this statement is when you look at specifics. But in general, it is a nice statement for any site owner.
Here is that post:
I don't know your site, but I'm happy to take a look if you want to DM. One thing with updates like these is that it's not relative to previously, it's basically a re-evaluation of the whole site in the new / current online world & users expectations.
— John (@JohnMu) April 1, 2024
This is part of a much larger discussion on X:
Def an interesting one… HCU is a site wide assessment however. So worth keeping in mind that if you have been classified then looking at results for individual pages is not going to tell you anything other than which sites have not had the classifier applied to them.
— Callie Scott (They/Them) (@callumscott_seo) March 31, 2024
I have seen no correlation between how genuine and helpful a travel website is and being hit by these updates. Some sites that I love as a user have disappeared from SERPs entirely, which has made traveling more difficult.
— Katie RC (@Katie16282772) April 1, 2024
It's worth reviewing the quality of a website across the whole website. One way a site-owner can check whether an effect is site-level or not is to look at the data in their Search Console account. Picking a page that's a tiny fraction of the site's impressions is not as useful.
— John (@JohnMu) April 1, 2024
Callie, you said:
— The World Travel Guy (@aworldtravelguy) April 1, 2024
"Good sites do get wiped out, but if ‘overall user satisfaction went up’ in the serps then that’s a better algorithm."
We're talking about a shadowban that's affected virtually every travel blog on the internet. And when this same type of content is posted on…
And well known brands (commerce sites?) ‘Naturally’ generate signals that can be interpreted as ‘yeah, people seem to dig this’.
— Callie Scott (They/Them) (@callumscott_seo) April 1, 2024
The lonely planet guide I had as a paper back while travelling SE Asia is a great example…
Rarely great. I def missed some cool shit when I defaulted to using it. But I also didn’t get bed bugs from the places it told me to stay. It always got me to an experience I was satisfied with… even if not as good as it could have been.
— Callie Scott (They/Them) (@callumscott_seo) April 1, 2024
Can't compare website user signals to hindsight from getting travel advice from strangers - Google doesn't know if someone reads a whole article to completion and then goes and has a bad experience, they just know they read the article.
— Katie RC (@Katie16282772) April 1, 2024
So they don’t.
— Callie Scott (They/Them) (@callumscott_seo) April 1, 2024
Again. Approximation is what is going on here. Which is why it’s a risky business to be building a business that relies on such a system.
Personally I think g has been at least decently clear with that over the last few decades.
I don't know your site, but I'm happy to take a look if you want to DM. One thing with updates like these is that it's not relative to previously, it's basically a re-evaluation of the whole site in the new / current online world & users expectations.
— John (@JohnMu) April 1, 2024
So that is all the context - take from it what you want.
Forum discussion at X.
