Google Algorithm Updates - 2023 Ongoing Discussion

[Trump]

Can you share the total number of keywords prior to the update? In other words, 20-30 tanked and 10-15 gained out of how many total keywords prior to the update?

Something like that. Might even be 40 keywords tanked. In total around 150 keywords. Informational and other posts are not included nor tracked.

Also, are you talking SEM or Ahrefs or Search Console?

I don't know what you are asking here. How I am tracking keywords? If so, SEMrush and Serprobot. Also looking in GW and manually.

Out of curiosity, roughly how many sites did you look at in your research?

What you quoted referred to the comparison between the pages that dropped and increased on that specific domain.

For this update I have probably looked at 60-80 domains.

Based on CCarter's assessments in this thread, would you point to brand signals in the sites looked at as contributing factors? Or are you blanket saying you don't think they matter in this update?

I rarely read his posts. I just skimmed through one of them, so I'm not sure what his assessment is.

"Brand signals" is a broad term, and I definitely think "brand signals" are ranking factors. I assume you just mean activity and engagement on social media platforms. If so, then yes, I believe it affects rankings in SE.

However, from what I've seen, social media activity/presence isn't what caused people to rank or tank in these two recent updates.

 

[CCarter]

This is neonmusic.co.uk graph from Ahrefs:

I'm on mobile ATM, wikipedia. They get quoted in wikpedia from an artist named Diplo, and it gets copied in different languages across different wikipedia clones.

They profile music artist and those get picked up with dofollow links from major sites - high DR.

Their Ahrefs DR is 58, which is pretty high quickly, domain registered in 2018. They gained authority through profiling new music artist that in turn got them massive powerful links. Smart.

 

[chubes]

I'm on mobile ATM, wikipedia. They get quoted in wikpedia from an artist named Diplo, and it gets copied in different languages across different wikipedia clones.

They profile music artist and those get picked up with dofollow links from major sites - high DR.

Their Ahrefs DR is 58, which is pretty high quickly, domain registered in 2018. They gained authority through profiling new music artist that in turn got them massive powerful links. Smart.

I see, so essentially they are being propped up by all those high authority backlinks.

So, if you have high authority backlinks, you can get away with having a broken website, low social presence, the works.

Back full circle on this one. Explains the big brand authority stuff too. Everybody links to the big brands because it's easy and they're already at the top of Google.

The key then, as @bernard says, is to create content that authority sites will want to link to, and eventually you will become that authority site. Part of this also comes with fleshing out your brand presence, networking via social, etc, so that people who might link to your blog are more likely to do so.

While also taking care of housekeeping on your site. It's not one single thing, but more of a combination of many factors, and to give yourself the best chance at success you might as well do everything within your power to succeed.

I've been that journalist looking for a site to link to, so I understand that point. I'm much more likely to drop a link when a site has a social media presence and is actively being managed and maintained by real people within the industry.

I would personally never link to that Neon Music site because of the factors I've mentioned but apparently Wikipedia is okay with it.

Diplo is a HUGE electronic artist.

 

[tziahs]

So it's basically "Just be a big brand, bro". Yeah, just have a DR90 blog about growing succulents.
But wait, Forbes will go for those succulent keywords too (juicy, juicy keywords).
But wait (again) - they already wrote about that.
So what's the secret?

PS - I really appreciate the value in this thread, absolutely amazing. Thanks, guys!

 

[CCarter]

It's not one single thing, but more of a combination of many factors, and to give yourself the best chance at success you might as well do everything within your power to succeed.

Yeah. That's what I think we've all been eluding to. Social media is massive factor, but if you got Wikipedia links and massive dofollow link, then you are good, for now.

It's a fucking soup guys. Google likes brand signals in majority of their soups, but if no one else is talking about these new artists except NeonMusic, well they'll get the traffic. If they start getting serious Wikipedia links and clone sites, that's just their USP, unique advantage they have over the industry.

You guys want me to tell you the exact recipe of the soup, I can't do that. I can just tell you there are certain ingredients that most soups have. Are there outliers, sure. We've found one.

But now, I am thinking, what's going to happen to this site in 1-2 years once the backlinks settle? Will it tank because it's not taking advantage of social media aspect of it's niche? My money is on probably.

But for now they are flying high due to Diplo, and their independent artists they feature. It's a very smart move to get in on the ground level. Long term they'll need to turn up the social media.

I mean can you actually imagine a music/entertainment site NOT being mentioned on social? Seems off.

They are getting traction because they interview new artists that then have become big.

Now here is my question, how does one capitalize on this? I would go heavy into social and post about each new artists, so the artist reposts and creates validation for themselves.

Seems like an exciting project. You have to have a UPS, otherwise you are going to be dead.

 

[chubes]

Let's say you already have some big wikipedia links and authority links... it would be wise to create more content related to the things that already have link power. That can help tighten the focus of your niche, in a sense.

Just spitballing here but it seems to make sense.

Editing to add more: Let's say you have a wiki link from Diplo, like this site. Then you go and write about more Diplo topics, to add more weight to that. Since Google already trusts your Diplo content it will rank that content.

If you're getting fucked by Google but your Diplo content still has the wiki backlink, perhaps your path to recovery is to make more Diplo content.

 

[Smith]

If Google has become better at sniffing out the difference between an editorial newspaper links and a paid one, then watch as they drop.

I believe one of the Google folks (Mueller?) recently said that they can detect "bought" links...

Since you said that you think this update is about links, do you think this could be true?

And if so, do you think the algo will be able to distinguish between high-quality links that are organically embedded in content from other sites/publishers/ecommerce blogs from spammy link building?

For example, if a DR 40 site gets a link from a DR 90 site, is the algo just going to assume it's not earned and instead say "aha we caught you, penalty!"?

 

[bernard]

For example, if a DR 40 site gets a link from a DR 90 site, is the algo just going to assume it's not earned and instead say "aha we caught you, penalty!"?

I hadn't considered that, but it could be.

I would think on-page factors would be easier, but less precise. A lot of stuff would be different between your typical advertorial vs a real post, such as internal links, other outlinks and so on. Length of content, distance from front page, topic diversity etc.

Remember that Google had this tag they asked webmasters to use: rel="sponsored"?

They probably never used that directly in their algo, but they did probably train a machine learning model on it. Like how the Disavow tool was largely believed to be the same, a way to train the spam algorithm.

Could just be conspiracy theories, but we know machine learning has been the big thing for a few years already with Google.

They already use Rankbrain, which I attribute to why I am back 1st for a number of keywords that dropped in the HCU (the user metrics were simply better for my site).

 

[bernard]

Maybe this video from grey/blackhat Matt Diggity will show the compromise of how to approach social media, even from a strictly SEO perspective:

Personally I think Diggity is easily the best SEO "guru" who makes public videos. He's very ingeneous in how he approaches EEAT and similar, which is usually from a "blackhat" perspective, aka faking the social signals, faking the EEAT.

 

[Smith]

@bernard I like a lot of what Matt has to say and I've pulled a lot of value from his content over the years. I generally think he does a good job of sharing practical advice instead of broad-stroke strategies like many of the "gurus".

But, I also feel like he pushes a lot of shortcuts and quick wins, which I don't see working in an AI-driven hyper-competitive environment. At least it's not an approach I see working for the kind of sites I'm trying to build, which are ultimately businesses with authority and staying power in their respective niches.

The more time I spend reflecting on the last few pages of this thread, the current state of search, and my main site in particular, I'm starting to feel that there are two really simple solutions to winning...

Solution 1: Do everything necessary and do it better than the competition.

What those "things" are will be different for each site/niche/group of competitors... but I think that's what it comes down to.

And, I think that's the sort of approach that you, CCarter, Ryuzaki, and others have been suggesting. Basically, plug all the holes in the Swiss cheese.

So, while I think Matt and a lot of the other "gurus" have valuable tactics to offer, I don't see those tactics working long-term as search continues to evolve... unless they are part of a much bigger strategy.

... though the "SEO gurus" probably won't tell us to dive deep into TikTok since... you know... courses.

Solution 2: Find cheaper fucking eyeballs

This is what CCarter has been telling all of us to do in the $8 Twitter/X thread... at least that's my interpretation of it.

Find new channels, opportunities, and mediums to push that are faster, cheaper, and easier to drive conversions from compared to slogging it out on content and competing with Forbes...

This is a tough one for me for a few reasons... not the least of which is I don't want to learn something new... But I'm also not ready to die, so time to buck the fuck up.

In fact, this solution (solution 2) feels necessary regardless of whether you build out a site to compete with the likes of Forbes (or the Forbes in your niche) or not... either way, you need to be on these platforms and signal to Google that you're the real deal... otherwise, Core Update May 2024 will come in like a wrecking ball and force you to start all over again.

Speaking of Core Updates: Does anyone know when these October updates will be over?

 

[bernard]

@Smith

I agree, but I think there's room for cheap-and-easy SEO plays still, it all depends on the competiton. We have to remember that this is a zero sum game. If there are no affiliate/info competitors, you can still rank very easily.

My point, like yours, is that you have to understand what kind of business you are. Are you a lifestyle long term business? Or a short term hustle? Do you want to be a publisher? Or a blogger? Maybe a tool site?

It's perfectly ok to be a hustle, make some good money, but then I recommend selling while the going is good. Don't wait around for your plan to launch 1000 more outsourced filipino articles. Have the realism to see your business plan for what it is. Sell it while there's still upside. Like the guy said with stock trading: There has to be something for the next guy.

If you want to keep holding on to your site, for years and years, I do recommend like you say, do anything and everything, take it seriously, be a real face, promote your site.

 

[CCarter]

I don't see those tactics working long-term as search continues to evolve... unless they are part of a much bigger strategy.

Right now most people are looking for some magical singular variable of what this or that update impacted. Maybe it's video embedded - or not.

What about all the people that got hit which didn't have any videos? These are all short-term thinking to potentially recover in the short-term. That's not a long-term strategy if you are honest with yourself.

Every single update you'll be looking for the one magic variable that can "FIX IT ALL". How long can you keep that up?

The reality is you need to become a brand and the ONLY way to do that is a long-term strategy.

Otherwise you'll be trying to hustle your way through the SEO Hill, for how many more years?

A lot of people talk a lot of shit, but when it comes down to it, don't believe anyone. Especially me.

Believe your own eyes. What do you see working in your niche? Not some gurus, not some people talking shit on a forum. When you do similar analysis like I did, what do you see? YOUR EYEBALLS.

And if you find a strategy working from one of your competitors, can you mimic it and out do them?

All the websites we evaluated are swiss cheese that had glaring social and off-page traffic problems.

We found one with small social footprint - rising in the rankings finally. But it turns out they are banking off of strong wikipedia references, wiki-clones, and massive media backlinks.

Will they last without turning up social? My money is on No.

They need to get it together real soon. And that means becoming a serious brand.

Serious brands have footprints all around the internet on different platforms where their audience spend their time.

Do with that information what you will, but that's a long-term strategy instead of these drive-by Tit-for-tat tactics.

All my advice are about long-term game plans built for brands that want to be around in 5-10 years.

If you are looking for an easy 1-3 year only SEO strategy, don't waste your time listening to me. I see that as a losing method based off of where Google has continued to move for several years.

@Ryuzaki said this was the biggest update he's ever seen, bigger than Panda and Penguin combined. Well if you were around for Panda and Penguin, where all these hotshot SEOs were talking shit - similar to today, 80% of them gave up on SEO and went and got corporate jobs, NEVER TO BE HEARD FROM AGAIN. They are gone. They can't even come back and say why they lost, they're just gone.

Panda was on-page and Penguin was off-page if I'm not mistaken.

The crazy part of those updates were we warned them they need to improve the structure of the websites, rely less on spammy tactics, and move towards a more white hat long-term strategy. They said "cheap spam was going to last forever". It didn't.

You still got the TOP TOP TOP blackhat and greyhats around because they are deep in the trenches not listening to gurus but doing the weird experiments. But other than that, the "easy SEO money" people - 80% wiped out.

Do you guys even remember people selling GSA SER spam lists? A list of domains that auto-accepted user-generated comments which had dofollow links enabled, which you could spam and increase ranking quickly if done right. Rinse and repeat after 6 months once your site tanked.

It was the wild west back then. AND we warned them, it's not sustainable. ALL GONE. ALL DEAD. WIPE OUT.

And now THIS HCU is even a BIGGER update. So what's the advice coming out now? You have to become a brand - cause it's already too late for a lot of you, PERIOD. FUCK YOU.

zero sum game

Now we are in situations where Google is the one getting the sum of that game. If more A.I., rich media, and other elements continue to be added, only Google benefits, so it's no longer guaranteed someone in the top 10 blue links will get the traffic.

It's now Google wants to absorb 40-60% of the traffic and a majority of it going to their AD revenue, leaving the rest to compete not only amongst the other top ~10 player but other Google features.

 

[Politico]

What's increased in the last 2-3 years is brand signals.

I feel like most people will miss this link in the lengthy replies Carter's posting.

Not only is it a top-notch example of a traffic leak (Carter out here practicing while he's preaching) and the type of mentality we need to adopt as marketers, but it's a fantastic article that will get you in the headspace of genuine marketing.

Honestly - read it. It's required reading for anyone in this thread still worried about SEO traffic moving forward in time from now on.

In reality, we continue to see ourselves as simply SEOs, not business owners, because we only focus on that "free/easy" traffic source because of all the success stories and it's mythical status from the early-middle days of digital marketing

And honestly... nowadays it's neither free, nor easy... stop kidding yourself.

We're like some fuckin gambling addicts - addicted to the intermittent reward and reinforcement (and ultimate loss) from the Big G slot machine.

When it comes down to it, in 2023 even the ROI of SEO isn't the golden goose it used to be.

The ONE CAVEAT is the churn and burn model that emerged post-penguin/panda. Build a site, rank a site, watch it die, repeat.

If that's what you do, more power to you keep banking - but from the replies in this thread THAT'S NOT MOST OF US.

If it was, we wouldn't be in here crying about being hit by XYZ update and trying to decode how to recover.

If that was us, we wouldn't even pay a lot of attention to this thread, because we'd be out building the next site to rank highly until it didn't. Rinse and repeat.

That's what modern, successful SEOs do.

If you're afraid to lose an asset and start from scratch every few months/years, you're in the wrong game.

Most people here are in the content game. But that does NOT mean you're an SEO.

You don't have a content site, YOU OWN A MEDIA COMPANY.

You're a fuckin actual business owner. Let's start acting like it.

That means doing actual marketing, genuine marketing. Not solely RELYING on SEO, but having it as a single piece in a much larger strategy to drive ATTENTION (i.e. traffic).

Now admittedly, I have for too long fallen into the very thing I'm railing against here.

But my mindset has shifted. And yours should too.

Otherwise, go and churn/burn. Don't build long-term assets. Forget about updates. Test linking and content strategies, do experiments and then scale up what works.

But if you're trying to decode an update in order to "recover" your penalized or de-ranked site, you're doing it wrong.

You should still be able to survive even if Google stops sending 100% of its traffic to you. You should be able to survive even if your site gets de-indexed from Google.

Real businesses aren't reliant solely on SEO traffic from Google.

Can you imagine trying to run a legit business - clothing store, beer company, HVAC contractor, business consultant, MEDIA COMPANY - and only relying on SEO traffic?

You either wouldn't get off the ground, or you wouldn't last very long. We see it time and time again.

You're a business owner. Even if you think you just have a content site with display ads or affiliate links, you're a BUSINESS OWNER.

YOU OWN A MEDIA COMPANY.

Now start acting like it. I know I'm about to practice what I preach or die trying...

 

[freshpeppermint]

Right now most people are looking for some magical singular variable of what this or that update impacted. Maybe it's video embedded - or not.

What about all the people that got hit which didn't have any videos? These are all short-term thinking to potentially recover in the short-term. That's not a long-term strategy if you are honest with yourself.

Every single update you'll be looking for the one magic variable that can "FIX IT ALL". How long can you keep that up?

The reality is you need to become a brand and the ONLY way to do that is a long-term strategy.

Otherwise you'll be trying to hustle your way through the SEO Hill, for how many more years?

A lot of people talk a lot of shit, but when it comes down to it, don't believe anyone. Especially me.

Believe your own eyes. What do you see working in your niche? Not some gurus, not some people talking shit on a forum. When you do similar analysis like I did, what do you see? YOUR EYEBALLS.

And if you find a strategy working from one of your competitors, can you mimic it and out do them?

All the websites we evaluated are swiss cheese that had glaring social and off-page traffic problems.

We found one with small social footprint - rising in the rankings finally. But it turns out they are banking off of strong wikipedia references, wiki-clones, and massive media backlinks.

Will they last without turning up social? My money is on No.

They need to get it together real soon. And that means becoming a serious brand.

Serious brands have footprints all around the internet on different platforms where their audience spend their time.

Do with that information what you will, but that's a long-term strategy instead of these drive-by Tit-for-tat tactics.

All my advice are about long-term game plans built for brands that want to be around in 5-10 years.

If you are looking for an easy 1-3 year only SEO strategy, don't waste your time listening to me. I see that as a losing method based off of where Google has continued to move for several years.

@Ryuzaki said this was the biggest update he's ever seen, bigger than Panda and Penguin combined. Well if you were around for Panda and Penguin, where all these hotshot SEOs were talking shit - similar to today, 80% of them gave up on SEO and went and got corporate jobs, NEVER TO BE HEARD FROM AGAIN. They are gone. They can't even come back and say why they lost, they're just gone.

Panda was on-page and Penguin was off-page if I'm not mistaken.

The crazy part of those updates were we warned them they need to improve the structure of the websites, rely less on spammy tactics, and move towards a more white hat long-term strategy. They said "cheap spam was going to last forever". It didn't.

You still got the TOP TOP TOP blackhat and greyhats around because they are deep in the trenches not listening to gurus but doing the weird experiments. But other than that, the "easy SEO money" people - 80% wiped out.

Do you guys even remember people selling GSA SER spam lists? A list of domains that auto-accepted user-generated comments which had dofollow links enabled, which you could spam and increase ranking quickly if done right. Rinse and repeat after 6 months once your site tanked.

It was the wild west back then. AND we warned them, it's not sustainable. ALL GONE. ALL DEAD. WIPE OUT.

And now THIS HCU is even a BIGGER update. So what's the advice coming out now? You have to become a brand - cause it's already too late for a lot of you, PERIOD. FUCK YOU.



Now we are in situations where Google is the one getting the sum of that game. If more A.I., rich media, and other elements continue to be added, only Google benefits, so it's no longer guaranteed someone in the top 10 blue links will get the traffic.

It's now Google wants to absorb 40-60% of the traffic and a majority of it going to their AD revenue, leaving the rest to compete not only amongst the other top ~10 player but other Google features.

Hey, what would you suggest to people who don't want to show their face, use their voice, or make calls?

The only other way I can think of to make it big is to create amazing software. I was looking at the most followed Instagram accounts and I couldn't find any social media created by a small little individual who wasn't showing their face, I think there was like 9Gag but that's like a big company.

I was also looking at this one girl who made decent money, then I realized had she not shown her face in videos and such, she wouldn't be making the kind of money she was. (She was part of my niche, she didn't even have a blog but, she was THE brand so to speak so it made sense to grow Pinterest, IG, TikTok, and YouTube for her.) Most of the people making it big from what I have seen on YouTube and tiktok and stuff, are showing their faces.

 

[zak]

I was looking at the most followed Instagram accounts and I couldn't find any social media created by a small little individual who wasn't showing their face, I think there was like 9Gag but that's like a big company.

Yea, most of the big social accounts are run by big companies. Just like most big sites are run by big companies and most big softwares are owned by big companies.

Why would you expect to see "small little individuals" when you are looking at a list of big players?

You can find little guys succeeding in any of those spaces, but if they've got any ability to turn that into a real biz, they won't be little guys for long. They'll either hire a team and go big themselves or they'll get bought out by someone bigger.

 

[DanielS]

Hey, what would you suggest to people who don't want to show their face, use their voice, or make calls?

Outsource.

The only other way I can think of to make it big is to create amazing software.

How on earth would creating "amazing software" substitute from having a presence on social media?

I was looking at the most followed Instagram accounts and I couldn't find any social media created by a small little individual who wasn't showing their face, I think there was like 9Gag but that's like a big company.

Most companies started off not having a face. It wasn't until later on that their owners wanted to grow their "personal brand" off the back of their company that faces started getting shown.

I was also looking at this one girl who made decent money, then I realized had she not shown her face in videos and such, she wouldn't be making the kind of money she was. (She was part of my niche, she didn't even have a blog but, she was THE brand so to speak so it made sense to grow Pinterest, IG, TikTok, and YouTube for her.)

Okay, so, the market seems to be giving you a clear indication as to what needs to be done to grow a following in your niche, wouldn't you say?

Most of the people making it big from what I have seen on YouTube and tiktok and stuff, are showing their faces.

I know plenty who aren't showing their face. I got to 100K on Instagram back in 2017 not showing my face, using my name, etc. There are people who've made millions of dollars creating gaming content.

It seems like you're just trying to justify not doing what @CCarter is suggesting, which is literally just marketing - its business 101.

 

[Smith]

Okay, so, the market seems to be giving you a clear indication as to what needs to be done to grow a following in your niche, wouldn't you say?

Well said!

I know plenty who aren't showing their face. I got to 100K on Instagram back in 2017 not showing my face, using my name, etc. There are people who've made millions of dollars creating gaming content.

Do you have any example accounts that come to mind that are doing this well now?

 

[Encrypted]

I agree, but I think there's room for cheap-and-easy SEO plays still, it all depends on the competiton. We have to remember that this is a zero sum game. If there are no affiliate/info competitors, you can still rank very easily.

I disagree. I think the "cheap and easy" stuff has died and the little remaining crumbs will be killed in the next couple of updates, unless big G makes a U-turn.

The keyword here is cheap AND easy.

I think there are still "easy" SEO plays if you're smart & paying attention to what Google is currently favouring.

For me, there are only 2 ways forward and both options require a mindset shift:

1. Stay on the SEO hill...For this, your mindset has to shift from trying to please Google with your niche site to milking whatever the loophole is per time per season. You'll be wasting your time to think "Real photos", "expert content", e.t.c will guarantee you don't get hit. There's NO GUARANTEE. The web is too big for Google to accurately measure or give a F about these things, especially if its not increasing their profit.
2. Think like a marketer, and actually care about your niche/readers. This will open your mind to better ways to serve them.

 

[CCarter]

It seems like you're just trying to justify not doing what @CCarter is suggesting, which is literally just marketing - its business 101.

You guys have to understand the macro on this.

Do you know how crazy it is, to have to convince people on an "online marketing forum", to do marketing? Do you guys understand how mind-boggling that is? What are we doing here guys?

This is me after every update:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1574946477881040896

"You see this, this Google Update. If you're not a big brand you're not going to survive this. One or two more updates and you and everyone you know are dead. All of you. You can't survive without brand signals. Unless you are very very lucky. And your kids die too."​

Come on guys. What are we doing here?

 

[freshpeppermint]

Well said!


Do you have any example accounts that come to mind that are doing this well now?

Yes there are: here is one https://www.instagram.com/wealth/

There were some more I forgot them but wealth really grew it well.

I had one of my friends who ran one of these accounts to almost 500k followers. He was making like 8-15k per month. He probably could have made more considering he was in the finance niche.

And yes social works, I just don't know how to do it without showing my face and stuff in my own niche.

 

[chubes]

And yes social works, I just don't know how to do it without showing my face and stuff in my own niche.

Find some things that interest you and are relevant to your niche and just start talking about it on the internet. Have some fun making eye catching graphics on Canva or whatever and just share it. Go around and find accounts in your space and follow them. Comment on their posts, and build a rapport with them over time.

While you do this, you keep posting your own content. Just keep doing it even if it feels like shouting into a void. Like your blog you are building an archive of social posts.

If some of the posts suck it truly doesnt matter as long as you don't offend anybody. Go ahead and delete them later if you don't like them.

Over time you will gain traction. The more followers you have, the easier it is to gain followers. Just like with SEO, except with social consistency is key.

 

[tziahs]

Mediavine reports that only 6 percent of their websites were negatively affected by the recent HCU.

They manage over 10,000 websites, so there must be some kind of truth to it. Ezoic reported something similar.

Of the 10,302 sites represented by Mediavine ad management — as of the writing of this article — 607 were identified as having been negatively impacted by Google’s Helpful Content Update.

That’s 5.8% of sites.

We also discovered 1,170 sites which saw positive increases to their Google referral traffic coming out of the HCU.

So, what do you guys think?

 

[MrMedia]

Mediavine reports that only 6 percent of their websites were negatively affected by the recent HCU.

They manage over 10,000 websites, so there must be some kind of truth to it. Ezoic reported something similar.

Of the 10,302 sites represented by Mediavine ad management — as of the writing of this article — 607 were identified as having been negatively impacted by Google’s Helpful Content Update.

That’s 5.8% of sites.

We also discovered 1,170 sites which saw positive increases to their Google referral traffic coming out of the HCU.

So, what do you guys think?

PR and spin. Data could be easily massaged to present a positive news story.

 

[makoloko]

Ezoic reported something similar.

Don't believe anything they say.

 

[Biggy]

Mediavine reports that only 6 percent of their websites were negatively affected by the recent HCU.

They manage over 10,000 websites, so there must be some kind of truth to it. Ezoic reported something similar.

Of the 10,302 sites represented by Mediavine ad management — as of the writing of this article — 607 were identified as having been negatively impacted by Google’s Helpful Content Update.

That’s 5.8% of sites.

We also discovered 1,170 sites which saw positive increases to their Google referral traffic coming out of the HCU.

So, what do you guys think?

Why would they lie about this? That's not true! PR spin.