Why Google Can’t Tell You About Every Ranking Drop

Intro

In a recent Twitter exchange, Danny Sullivan, Google’s Search Liaison, shed light on the challenges Google faces in providing transparency about algorithmic ranking changes and manual reviews. The discussion began when a website owner complained about a significant traffic loss and the inability to request a manual review.

Sullivan explained that a site could be affected by an algorithmic spam action or simply not ranking well due to other factors. He noted that many site owners mistakenly attribute ranking drops to algorithmic spam actions when other reasons might be at play.

“I’ve looked at many sites where people have complained about losing rankings and decide they have an algorithmic spam action against them, but they don’t.”

Challenges in Transparency and Manual Intervention

Sullivan acknowledged the potential benefits of more transparency in Google Search Console, similar to notifications for manual actions. However, he highlighted two main challenges:

1. Revealing Algorithmic Spam Indicators This could enable bad actors to game the system.

2. Non-Specific Algorithmic Actions Algorithmic actions are not site-specific and cannot be manually lifted.

Sullivan expressed sympathy for site owners' frustration when they cannot determine the cause of a traffic drop or communicate with someone about it. He also warned against the desire for manual intervention to override automated rankings, as it may not be as beneficial as it seems.

“You don’t really want to think, ‘Oh, I just wish I had a manual action, that would be so much easier.’ You really don’t want your individual site coming to the attention of our spam analysts. First, it’s not like manual actions are somehow instantly processed. Second, it’s just something we know about a site going forward, especially if it says it has changed but hasn’t really.”

Determining Content Helpfulness and Reliability

Sullivan discussed various systems that assess the helpfulness, usefulness, and reliability of content and sites. He acknowledged that these systems are imperfect, and some high-quality sites may not be recognized as they should be.

“Some of them ranking really well. But they’ve moved down a bit in small positions enough that the traffic drop is notable. They assume they have fundamental issues but don’t, really — which is why we added a whole section about this to our debugging traffic drops page.”

He also mentioned ongoing discussions about providing more indicators in Search Console to help creators understand their content’s performance. However, he noted the challenges in sharing this information without allowing systems to be gamed.

Advocacy for Small Publishers and Positive Progress

In response to a suggestion from Brandon Saltalamacchia, founder of RetroDodo, about manually reviewing "good" sites and providing guidance, Sullivan shared his thoughts on potential solutions. He mentioned exploring ideas like self-declaration through structured data for small publishers and learning from that information to make positive changes.

“I have some thoughts I’ve been exploring and proposing on what we might do with small publishers and self-declaring with structured data and how we might learn from that and use that in various ways. Which is getting way ahead of myself and the usual no promises but yes, I think and hope for ways to move ahead more positively.”

Sullivan concluded by expressing hope for finding ways to move forward positively, even though he couldn't make promises or implement changes overnight.