How good is Google’s New Update?
Some say change is a good thing, but Google’s most recent update is decidedly a mixed bag. I decided to try to understand the impact of this update by carrying out a little analysis myself. Google’s new update has been given the name Maccabees update. But this scrutiny revolves around a particular site only. It’s possible my breakdown of the update may not be relevant to other sites.
So let’s begin the dissection and see what came up -
The website I checked did not show shifty content, so the update is fine on this score.
The update dod does not have less meaningful or low-value content either.
I thought a faulty indexing problem might be occurring with the update, but it didn’t seem that way.
The site I was looking into could probably be more easy to use and convenient, but this was not a significant drawback of the Maccabees update.
The site did not show overloaded advertisements or earning portals.
So everything looked good so far on basic fronts. It was time to dig deeper. I tried to see if the site was able to function well as per internet ideology.
To begin with, I checked if the Maccabees update gave priority to a mobile interface as opposed to desktops. But it didn’t appear to be so. Second, the update did not seem to be favor business sites either. The only potentially applicable internet doctrine could be related to the update focusing on web pages with a large number of repetitive content. This could be in the form of excess user comments or entry points.
The next step was to look at information in Search Console. Much of our data is stacked in the BigQuery section. This is cloud storage. So I made a simple check through this system to identify the keywordswords which were affected by the Maccabees update.
My investigation gave me the impression that specific web pages and keywords words were not ranked the same way as previously. The pages seemed to be overtaken by other similar pages. Cannabilization or user inputs were affecting the position of pages on the Google search engine now, following its latest update.
I was certain that these variations were due to the Google amendment only, and not other reasons such as internal site transformation.
These were the problem I identified so far. Now the challenge was to look for solutions to these problems. Here’s what I came up with-
Less focus on user inputs
It makes sense not to highlight matter that is initiated by users. This helps to avoid the negative impact of this highlighting, in the form of these sections cannibalizing the site.
Using the About premise judiciously -
if you implement premise correctly, you can create structured sites that being in larger volumes of traffic to your site.
Should you adopt a two-in-one strategy?
Previously, I felt that the facts and business section of a site functioned better if given their separate domains. However, I now have the impression that it may work better for the site if these two areas (fact and business related) are combined in the same space. I still don’t have the final verdict on this. Time will tell which choice is better.
To summarize, I feel that the Maccabees update has changed the way it understands keywordswords and site rankings. A resulting decrease in site flow may have occurred, which was visible on the site I have reviewed.