Simplistically Living

Mom of 3. Wife of Gamer. Creative Crafter. Geek Goddess. Coffee Addict. Live Simply.

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Dollar Tree’s Newest Find Is Even Cheaper Than Amazon https://t.co/SwrVb8u1cc via @simplistcliving

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Finally dropped! After all the hold... this reward thing is live. Diamond hands paying off fr.
@robertgarcia334 @NaweeREADYY @Lumieredivinefr

[PurpIeBTC @PurqleBltcoin]

Attention $PBTC Holders , Your Loyalty Just Got Rewarded🟪

Introducing the $50,000 Monthly Raffle , the fattest drop yet for Purple Bitcoin believers!
Top 784 performers from last month (long-term holders, volume kings, diamond hands who stayed strong) are officially Eligible.

Scroll down for instant claim instructions! 👇

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Finally dropped! After all the hold... this reward thing is live. Diamond hands paying off fr.
@alex7371398573 @Amirgjdley @pardleymasese1

[PurpIeBTC @PurqleBltcoin]

Attention $PBTC Holders , Your Loyalty Just Got Rewarded🟪

Introducing the $50,000 Monthly Raffle , the fattest drop yet for Purple Bitcoin believers!
Top 784 performers from last month (long-term holders, volume kings, diamond hands who stayed strong) are officially Eligible.

Scroll down for instant claim instructions! 👇

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Finally dropped! After all the hold... this reward thing is live. Diamond hands paying off fr.
@angyreinhart @sallylamin251 @Elonmuskpr4650

[PurpIeBTC @PurqleBltcoin]

Attention $PBTC Holders , Your Loyalty Just Got Rewarded🟪

Introducing the $50,000 Monthly Raffle , the fattest drop yet for Purple Bitcoin believers!
Top 784 performers from last month (long-term holders, volume kings, diamond hands who stayed strong) are officially Eligible.

Scroll down for instant claim instructions! 👇

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Finally dropped! After all the hold... this reward thing is live. Diamond hands paying off fr.
@LeeJonSuk389254 @Bigdaddy79797 @miguelx11_

[PurpIeBTC @PurqleBltcoin]

Attention $PBTC Holders , Your Loyalty Just Got Rewarded🟪

Introducing the $50,000 Monthly Raffle , the fattest drop yet for Purple Bitcoin believers!
Top 784 performers from last month (long-term holders, volume kings, diamond hands who stayed strong) are officially Eligible.

Scroll down for instant claim instructions! 👇

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Finally dropped! After all the hold... this reward thing is live. Diamond hands paying off fr.
@MrKlen002 @EliteExclusivi1 @obalize322

[PurpIeBTC @PurqleBltcoin]

Attention $PBTC Holders , Your Loyalty Just Got Rewarded🟪

Introducing the $50,000 Monthly Raffle , the fattest drop yet for Purple Bitcoin believers!
Top 784 performers from last month (long-term holders, volume kings, diamond hands who stayed strong) are officially Eligible.

Scroll down for instant claim instructions! 👇

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

@HasibStrevio I needed to see this today. It was quite refreshing. Do you have any key takeaways regarding Google Discover?

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

@haleynroach But wasn't that song with Nelly not Usher?

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Did not understand one word Travis Scott just said. #GRAMMYs

[Sean Kaye @SeanDoesLife]

Google has a "big publisher" problem and I think based on what I've seen from @searchliaison recently... they know it.

Being the generous soul that I am, I have a potential solution.

Let's call it the "Magazine Stand Update".

I'll start by framing the situation.

Right now, large sites with significant backlink profiles over time have a much, MUCH easier time ranking for anything they want in Google's search results.

People are seeing and noticing that large publishers (a combination of "digital, web-first" and "traditional" publishers) are specifically targeting high-value keywords and commercial intent terms outside their core audience interests graph.

The complications here are twofold:

1) These sites are often not experts, authorities, or trusted advisors on these topics but will generally outrank sites that fulfil all of these requirements

2) This runs afoul of Google's position that you should create content for "users" and not search engines.

To put a finer point on it: Google admonishes normal, smaller publishers for trying to "game" or "manipulate" search results, but much of the foundations technically and algorithmically of how Google ascertains what should and shouldn't rank, are being openly gamed (I'd say abused) by these large publishers.

This tosses up a lot of questions and dare I say, even long-term ethical issues, around the entire state of the web and Google's obvious position of stewardship on web visibility.

Let me preface what lies ahead with, if you have the position of, "bUt GoOgLe Is A pRiVaTe CoMpAnY" then just go away... Stop reading right now and go find something better to do with your time. I'm not interested in this kind of low IQ take and you're not contributing anything of value to the conversation, so just move along.

Moving right along...

The big questions this situation raises are:

1) Is diversity of thought on the web important?
2) Are these publishers producing good content?
3) Should the rules be applied evenly and fairly?
4) How should/could this be dealt with?

The diversity question is pretty important.

One of the strengths of the web in my time using it since the earliest days of Mosaic is the "democratization" of information.

The web allows people to publish directly, cutting out the middleman, with unprecedented ease.

It is the Gutenberg Press on steroids.

To say that it revolutionized humanity and society faster than any invention in the history of our species to date is a big call, but not something I would consider hyperbole.

Increasingly though, the web has become a broadcast platform for large vested interests because visibility and discoverability are declining for "average" and smaller publishers.

Glen Allsopp (@ViperChill) collects some amazing data on this consolidation of visibility and discoverability down to less than two dozen significant publishing organizations.

I encourage you to look up Glen's research, it is quite staggering and frankly, alarming.

This is objectively bad for all of us in every walk of life and Google is at the nexus of this - they are the "index of the internet".

It's a position they've earned through innovation and investment... but to offer up the Spiderman cliche, "With great power comes great responsibility".

Google has become a "steward" of the internet... and profits handsomely from that position.

They set the "rules of racing" for discoverability - there is some profit motivation on their part (which is fair enough) and, I like to think, an "opinion" about what "good looks like" for someone searching on the internet wants.

I think that leads nicely to question #2, are these big publishers producing good content that people want?

"Yes and no" would be my short answer.

I think generically speaking, the content a lot of these publishers produce is "ok".

It generally addresses the search intent, the content is more often than not well edited, the sites are presented in a clean way, and it is basically inoffensive to someone who lands on the page.

But does that make it "good"?

I'm going to argue, "No".

Most of these big publishers are churning out homogenized pablum written at a fifth-grade reading level where the content outlines were pumped out by their sometimes enormous SEO teams for their content farm writers to play fill-in-the-blanks with.

Google routinely says that you should be adding something original to the web while simultaneously favouring content that is basically the same 10 results on the first page by the 6 same publishers, just worded differently.

These publishers, when you talk to their SEO teams, will tell you that for high-value keyword phrases, they incessantly look at the results, find their competitors and if that other page adds a paragraph or a heading and has moved up, they immediately edit their content to "match" it.

You don't need advanced algorithms to detect this - you can search and read.

In the YMYL niches, in particular, this is horrific. The quality of content in these searches has declined steadily over the last two years or so as the consolidation has accelerated.

This is where Google's "big data" approach falls over - if every result on the first page looks and smells the same, then that's really all that the audience sees, so they just pick the pablum that has the most sugar or smells the best.

... and then you see people adding "Reddit" to their search request or going to ChatGPT or Bing and trying to get different answers.

People don't want a bot to tell them the answer.

They certainly aren't interested in the opinion of Reddit's u/facebumrandy78 on r/EatMyShortStack to tell them what's the best waffle iron to buy for left-handed people.

(For clarity, I don't know if that's a real username or a real subreddit - LOL. Sorry if that's you, Randy)

The problem is that Google's results have become so homogenized and lacking in diversity that people are actively seeking something that's not Forbes or CNET on EVERY product pushing them at Amazon links.

In Google's eyes, these sites are trusted and authorities and that's why it recommends them... but is u/facebumrandy78 a trusted source of information just for being on Reddit?

I mean, I went and looked at u/facebumrandy78's other posts and he's not just a waffle iron expert, but he has opinions on golf, fossicking, and car detailing as well.

u/facebumrandy78 is a real renaissance man.

But the woman who has spent the last 6 years making waffles, buying and testing out every waffle iron on the market, and trying to offer people good advice and support her site by linking to Amazon and creating lists, she's less authoritative than u/facebumrandy78 or the generic content farm worker from CNET or Forbes?

Her content is less helpful?

She's just trying to "make money with little effort" (I'm paraphrasing a quote from a Google staffer here about small, niche site publishers).

Make it make sense.

This takes us nicely into my Question #3... should the rules be applied evenly and fairly?

Superficially, most people have an inherent sense of justice that's intrinsic to most people in largely free and democratic societies - yes, rules should be applied evenly and fairly.

I think, through that lens, Google is failing. Badly.

Not through maliciousness or intent, but because the speed of the internet has caught up to arguably the fastest-innovating company in the history of the world.

Google is in many respects the victim of its own success here.

It has done such a good job of being the "Dewey Decimal System" of the internet and has amassed such a position of authority itself that turning the hulking vessel that is Google Search is hard.

I also think Google is hurting itself - I could veer off into a slight side tangent here on "Google Search Results are too complex now" but I won't.

To help categorize and ensure Google is serving "good results" they've established their rules of racing and "best practices" that they look for as signals.

Big publishers have this, often by default, but a lot of the time, they are abusing the hell out of this.

Seriously, does an article on snoring being bad for your relationship need to be reviewed by a doctor and six registered nurses?

As a long-term sleep apnea sufferer, I'm going to say, "No, not at all."

But they know that Google is looking for these kinds of trust signals, so they essentially buy them.

This leads us back to the Google mantra of, "Write for people and not search engines"...

As a fat bloke, I don't bloke, I don't need to have a worthless listicle on "best food processor for fruit" reviewed by 4 leading nutritionists from Forbes.

I'd much rather see Molly from Topeka who lost 60lbs eating strawberry smoothies and walking 5km a day telling me how she managed that.

Here's where Google has created their own problem - it's easier for Google to say, "Well, this big publisher with all of their reviewers is probably more trustworthy than Molly, so we'll show their articles instead."

This then becomes a vicious circle - big publishers then start writing and creating content for Google because Google is rewarding them for it.

Meanwhile, they tell Molly not to write a "best blenders" listicle review because it's not helpful and she should write for her audience, not Google.

Apply the rules fairly.

If Forbes, CNET, CNN, and the NYT are writing content for search engines, don't share their stuff either.

Why give them the benefit of the doubt on intent?

The reality is, Molly might genuinely be interested in telling her audience which are the best blenders because she tried them all, whereas we 10000% know that Forbes and CNET are writing that article to pimp Amazon links.

Literally, the benefit of the doubt is being placed in the wrong direction according to Google's own mantra.

As a small publisher, it feels like we're living in the upside-down world.

Ok, let's get to the gist of this... Question #4.

How does Google fix this?

I'm not employed by Google, I'm just a plebe who creates websites for fun on the side because I enjoy the topics or I'm interested in exploring them and seeing if I can make a bit of money off that hobby.

But, I have a Twitter account, so I get my say... Democratization of the web at its finest.

I call this the "Magazine Rack Update".

Before Forbes became a trusted source for reviews on men's wallets, BBQs, and the Best Moving Companies of 2023, it was a humble business magazine that you'd buy at a convenience store or find in an airport lounge.

You would have to go to the magazine rack, find what you were interested in, and look at the front page of the magazine to see what was inside.

Some of the magazines had credibility because they'd been around a long time and done good work in their particular category: Forbes, Conde Nest, Popular Mechanic, and Time Magazine, are all traditional publishers that spring to mind.

Now, imagine you head over to the News Agent at the airport - you're about to board a 3-hour flight to Topeka to go see Molly and u/facebumrandy78 do a live demonstration of juicers - and you decide to grab a magazine or two.

Would Forbes, if they had to print their magazine and attract their audience in that scenario be writing the articles they are writing online and promoting that on the cover of their magazine?

Would People Magazine use that cover space for an article about Taylor Swift or "Best Portable BBQ Grills"?

Would Popular Mechanic be creating about men's wallets next to their cover story on Supersonic Jets coming in the next decade (and reviewed by noted expert on everything, u/facebumrandy78)?

No.

These trusted brands and authorities in their markets would not pollute their reputation and brands with such absurdly unrelated content.

They would not waste their cover page real estate with things that aren't "in their wheelhouse" and related to their audience.

Because there's a cost to that - both an actual cost but also an opportunity cost.

The web eliminates both of those costs.

If you're Forbes or People, why wouldn't you write those pieces and stick them on your website?

Google trusts you implicitly on everything, is willing to deem you an expert in just about every category imaginable, and rewards you by holding smaller publishers who may have actual expertise back because they don't have your "pedigree".

You'd almost be stupid not to.

Which brings me back to the answer.

If Forbes had to print a magazine, stick it on the shelves of stores, and attract their audience to buy the magazine, would they be placing the titles of articles such as:

"7 Best Chest Exercises, According To Fitness Experts"

"9 Best Dating Apps Of 2023: Reviews And Costs"

Yeah, I don't see that sitting comfortably on the cover of Forbes' magazine alongside :

"A Look At Tax Proposals On State And Local Ballots This Election Season"

"Why is Your Company Software Failing: Bad Budgeting Might be the Culprit"

The answer for Google is, simple to say, probably much harder to implement:

Experience, Expertise, Authority, and Trust that BRANDS have related to their category, not the name on their masthead.

That might be a bit controversial, but it's practical and true.

Nobody sensible is looking to Forbes to tell them the best dating apps to use unless they are looking for a dating app that shows their prospects' LinkedIn profile and possible credit score.

Forbes built their Trust and Authority by being Experts and Experienced in financial news and business topics.

Allowing them to seamlessly leverage that into EVERYTHING is silly and produces bad results.

You want to know why people are appending "Reddit" to their search?

It's not because they highly value the opinions of u/facebumrandy78 but because the results you show them for simple things like "blender reviews" are written by content farms at big publishers and "expertly reviewed" or "fact-checked" by Fiverr Premium workers who are essentially selling a link to their LinkedIn Profile to the big publisher.

So figure out an algorithm or a review process for these big trusted publishers that says:

Would Forbes put the title of this article on the cover of their magazine in a news agent's magazine rack?

Would they spend the money to publish this piece at all if they had to pay for the ink?

Would their direct advertisers want their American Express Business Traveller ad appearing next to an article on "2023 Full NFL Schedule Of Games For All 32 Teams" or would they rather that ad appear in Sports Illustrated next to that?

If the answer is "no" because it doesn't fit where Forbes has gained its authority, trust, and reputation, then they shouldn't be given that "benefit of the doubt" by Google in the search results.

They're not experts in this. They don't have experience in. They aren't a trusted source on these topics.

Stop treating them as such.

If they wouldn't put it on the cover of their magazine or even in the pages, then treat them with less authority than Molly from Topeka on her chosen topic.

You are rewarding them for diluting their own brand and attaching no cost to it.

Meanwhile, you're holding smaller publishers to a much, much higher standard of topical authority, trust, and expertise.

I should never outrank People Magazine on my site about Popcorn Makers for an article on Kylie Jenner, but People Magazine should almost certainly never outrank me and my 15 years experience of buying, reviewing, and using popcorn makers.

If I published a magazine about Popcorn Makers, my article about "The Best Popcorn Makers for Van Life" would be on the cover but People Magazine wouldn't even print that story for a plethora of sensible reasons.

Stop ranking them in search results for it then.

I challenge Google to hold big publishers to the mantra they hold smaller publishers to - "Write for readers, not Google".

If People, Time, Forbes, and others wouldn't print those articles in their physical magazine but are willing to do it on the web and attach affiliate links to it, then you know, categorically and without question, that they are writing for Search Engines and not their Audience.

So... Get a bunch of your PhDs in a room and get them to workshop and theorycraft what a "Magazine Stand Update" algorithm would look like.

Push your super smart people to ask the question, "Would Valnet publish three different physical magazines every month for The Gamer, Game Rant, and DualShockers all writing overlapping content or would they consolidate that down to one?"

This simple test adds clarity around the entire Expertise, Experience, Authority, and Trust.

"Do you want to be famous for this topic?"

Molly from Topeka would publish an entire magazine on losing weight by eating more fruit.

u/facebumrandy78 wouldn't publish anything if it weren't for Reddit and NOBODY would buy a Reddit magazine if they saw it on a shelf.

And Forbes wouldn't be creating an article in their November issue and putting the title on the cover for, "Best Pet Insurance Companies Of November 2023".

But Forbes will do it on their website because the CPC on "what is the best pet insurance" is ~$24/click and Google ranks them #1 for it and the 74k monthly searches.

Again, hold everyone to the same standards...

Would you write this in your magazine if you had to publish it on paper and have people buy it from a magazine shelf?

If not, then you know they're writing for search engines and that's apparently a "no no".

If that's the case, stop rewarding them for it.

If Google wants bonus marks, then they could see those unrelated articles as diluting their authority and trust and actually reducing the benefit of the doubt you give them overall - that would IMMEDIATELY get a positive result.

I'm guessing CNN, the NYT, and Forbes would be a lot less interested in ranking for Food Processor reviews if it means their core news content was seen as less trustworthy because they diluted their brand writing about things unrelated.

And in context, it makes sense.

If Google places a level of trust and authority in these sites because of their pedigree but then they abuse that trust by trying to game Google's algorithms specifically by misusing that very trust, why shouldn't Google trust them less?

It's one thing to complain, it's another entirely to offer a suggestion - so there's a suggestion on how to remedy the problem.

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Starbucks Copycat Pumpkin Scones https://t.co/8UMff7k5sI via @simplistcliving

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

The Best Food Items To Buy at Dollar Tree in May https://t.co/PrSzUtVJpK via @simplistcliving

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

These Pool Party Jello Shots Will Take Your Next Summer Party to The Next Level https://t.co/w7DeUVaPiK via @simplistcliving

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Accept my invite to score 3 free swag! https://t.co/HdMbR1ktTl

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Here's How to Make A Starbucks Pink Drink at Home https://t.co/DOrZTa7xKx via @simplistcliving

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Here's How to Make The Perfect Lemonade Slushie at Home Using Just 3 Ingredients https://t.co/RhdeLRiwQO via @simplistcliving

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

I just entered to WIN tickets to the Mountain America premiere of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse  and you can too!    https://t.co/J0UHHbV53i

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Accept my invite to score 3 free swag! https://t.co/EE80o9jmUm

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Accept my invite to score 3 free swag! https://t.co/63jXH44953

[Simplistically Living @simplistcliving]

Plz, Plz, Can you accept my invitation so that I can get free cash?
https://t.co/uJ91qmqIFX