Disruptive algorithm updates have shaken up Google’s SERPs over the years.
Remember the penguin, the panda, caffeine and May Day?
Google updates usually start as a limited attempt to solve a single problem, then expand and gain names before being absorbed into the core ranking algorithms.
Despite the dynamic nature of search, Google’s commitment to tackling web spam remains unchanged.
Understanding the psyche of Google search becomes crucial as AI revolutionizes search and our lives.
We examine the common threads between past and current Google updates to understand the actions and content that Google values.
Generative Google search experience vs. Knowledge panel
This is perhaps the most obvious comparison we can make. These two updates are very similar in how the search community reacted to them.
We recently previewed Google’s generative search experience. We also have several articles from Googlebringing SGE and Bard (Google’s AI product) closer together.
Here’s one of the animated previews Google shared:
The preview caused panic among SEOs as it indicated limited space for organic search links.
Search marketers feared that SEO (and potentially paid search) would become obsolete without clickable elements.
It wasn’t long before the language became apocalyptic and people started declaring that the search was dead again:
Started some FAQ update blowing on Twitter, as Google’s documentation confirmed that Bard “rarely lists citations and links to content creators.” (More coverage from Barry Schwartz’s report)
Search professionals were concerned that Google would stop delivering traffic to the wider web with fewer organic link placements and a lack of direct citations.
It seems unlikely to me. Google’s entire revenue model is based on pay-per-click advertising.
That doesn’t mean things couldn’t work out differently. (i.e. pay for an AI to mention your brand more often in more relevant chats – forget keywords!)
However, this technology needs time to spread worldwide.
So I wouldn’t expect Google’s advertising model to change overnight.
We will go through a period of adaptation to new technologies.
Our features may involve faster creation and change of advertising approaches using AI recommendations instead of keywords and links.
Despite the changes, the search will continue, albeit in a very different way.
Does that ring a bell? In 2012, Google launched Knowledge Panels.
This was based on Google’s previously released Knowledge Graph (a behind-the-scenes system for contextualizing information and grouping it into entity form) to pull specific information directly into search results rather than linking to the hosting web page.
Since then, it has gone through many evolutions.
When the knowledge board was first published, it looked something like this:
So there were still a lot of organic links. But it was a big visual change, giving more search spaces (especially within informative query spaces) to pure information.
Currently, knowledge panels can take several forms:
In many cases, you don’t need to click on the citation link, as the knowledge panels directly provide the information you need.
While knowledge panels aren’t always that aggressive, they often override the need to click, especially for very informative queries.
Knowledge panels were released in 2012, before AI became mainstream. Even back then, there were many SEOs who predicted doom and gloom.
But here we are, 11 years later, and the search still exists.
Google still provides traffic to websites.
SEO is not dead.
So, just as the Knowledge Dashboard, even in its most advanced form, didn’t kill search, I suspect the same will be true of Google’s SGE and Bard deployments.
Still, that doesn’t guarantee a golden future.
We all have to adapt, and there may be a decline in clicks that we need to manage or find alternative advertising methods.
However, AI is not a disastrous meteor that will end our careers.
Just as the era of information retrieval (IR) came before SEO, SEO will evolve into something else.
Get the daily search newsletter marketers trust.
Useful content from Google vs. Panda
Here, we can make a very obvious comparison.
In August 2022, Google started talking about a “Useful Content” system, which had the following objectives:
“The useful content update aims to better reward content where visitors feel they’ve had a good experience, while content that doesn’t meet a visitor’s expectations won’t perform as well.
How can you make sure you’re creating content that will succeed with our new update? Following our long-standing tips and guidelines for creating content for people, not search engines. People-centric content creators focus on creating satisfying content first, while using SEO best practices to bring additional value to searchers. Answering yes to the following questions means you’re probably on the right track with a people-centered approach:
Do you have an existing or intended audience for your business or site that would find your content useful if it came directly to you? Does your content clearly demonstrate first-hand experience and deep knowledge (for example, the experience that comes from using a product or service or visiting a site)? Does your site have a primary purpose or focus? After reading your content, will someone leave feeling like they’ve learned enough about a topic to help you achieve their goal? Will someone who reads your content leave feeling like they had a satisfying experience? Have you considered our guide to core updates and product reviews?
Avoid creating content for search engines first
Our advice on having a people-centric approach does not invalidate following SEO best practices, such as those covered in Google’s own SEO guide. SEO is a useful activity when applied to people-centric content. However, content created primarily for search engine traffic is strongly associated with content that searchers find unsatisfactory.”
Many SEOs will recognize much of the above from legacy Google Panda updates.
Google still often references update by name.
this 2011 blogg post provides information about the initial release notes for the update (although Panda was not referred to by name at the time).
“Our goal is simple: to give people the most relevant answers to their queries as quickly as possible. This requires constant tuning of our algorithms as new content, both good and bad, comes online all the time.
Many of the changes we make are so subtle that very few people notice them. But in the last day or so we rolled out a pretty big algorithmic improvement to our rankings, a change that noticeably affects 11.8% of our queries, and we wanted to let people know what’s going on. This update is designed to reduce the rankings of low-quality websites: sites that add little value to users, copy content from other websites, or sites that are not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites: sites with original content and information, such as research, in-depth reporting, in-depth analysis, etc.
We cannot make a major improvement without affecting the ranking of many sites. It must be that some places will go up and some will go down. Google depends on high-quality content created by wonderful websites around the world, and we have a responsibility to foster a healthy web ecosystem. So it’s important that high-quality sites are rewarded, and that’s exactly what this change does.”
Google’s goal remains unchanged: they rely on a useful search engine for revenue.
If “made for SEO” content dominates search results, users face more spam, resulting in decreased usage and lost ad revenue.
It’s surprising how similar the rhetoric is between the original Panda release and the useful content update.
The tone of voice has changed a bit, but the key points remain the same:
Google is aware that a healthy web ecosystem benefits them. While you may not trust Google or any large corporation, it’s in their best interest not to eat their own audience (which will continue to be true as they implement AI). Produce useful and useful content for end users. Don’t produce content for the sake of SEO (or search engines). Google tries to monitor how individual updates dramatically affect its collective query spaces. Google tends to progress cautiously and incrementally, giving us time to adapt. Users have tasks to complete when online. How does your content help users achieve their goals? Focus on this when producing your content. Even with the power of AI, Google needs human-produced content to learn from the web. Without it, there will be no new material for their AI to learn and online information/news will stagnate, rendering Google’s search engine useless.
And if you think AI will learn from itself and eliminate the need for human-produced content, initial tests in this area have been unsuccessful:
It seems that when the AI feeds on itself, the integrity of the material produced degrades rapidly.
Examining the common threads between the past and the present
When disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence emerge, the naysayers are quick to jump in and declare, “Search will be over, SEO is dead!”
However, we can get a more realistic interpretation by comparing the rhetoric around Google’s past and current updates.
This approach helps us avoid panic and align with Google’s long-term vision for our sites, content, and links.
It allows us to strategically plan and adapt our businesses amid years of disruption.
Dictators’ views of rapid technology penetration are often inaccurate, as history shows that widespread adoption takes time.
AI is simply another new frontier to explore, and with the global economy in such poor shape, one that is desperately needed.
The views expressed in this article are those of the guest author and not necessarily Search Engine Land. Staff authors are listed here.
