Our site dropped by April 2018 Google update about content relevance: How to recover?
-
Hi all,
After Google's confirmed core update in April 2018, we dropped globally and couldn't able to recover later. We found the update is about the content relevance as officially stated by Google later. We wonder how we are not related in-terms of content being ranking for same keywords over years. And we are expecting to find a solution to this. Are there any standard ways to measure the content relevancy? Please suggest!
Thank you
-
Hi,
Thanks a TON for all the analysis and insights. Just mind blowing info.
Unfortunately we switched to different versions of the site and the recent one will be stable for years and further changes will be handled very carefully without complete transformation.
Our open source crm page dropped from April this year; but the link from capterra was removed in 2018 only. They removed our product from the list and they no more link directly to the websites (you can see the page now). Not sure why we lost traffic for this page all of a sudden even though there is no much ranking difference for main keywords of high search volume. We are going to investigate this and bring back the page to the normal traffic.
Yes, we are trying to rank for "crm" as primary keyword. Do you think that we are not doing well for "crm" as we dropped for "open source crm" page?
Thanks
-
You kind of dropped a bit but not in a way which affects you very much (apparently, according to Ahrefs)
https://d.pr/i/HBzKpj.png (screenshot of estimated SEO keywords and traffic according to Ahrefs)
You did lose a lot of keywords, but many seem to have since recovered and it didn't seem it actually impact your SEO traffic estimates much at all
SEMRush has a neat (relatively) new tool which looks at more accurate traffic estimates across the board (not just limited to SEO):
Again it does show a bit of a dent around April 2018. If I was going to use SEMRush data to look at this, I'd use the traffic analytics tool not the 'normal' SEO estimate charts from SEMRush (which IMO aren't very good, hence using the Ahrefs one in place of that)
This is what your site looked like in Feb 2018 before the keyword drops:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180224042824/https://www.vtiger.com/
This is what your site looked like later in June 2018:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180606021616/https://www.vtiger.com/
Completely different!
This is what your site looks like now: https://www.vtiger.com/
Again radically different. Maybe you just have a bad case of 'disruptive behavior' where Google is unwilling to rank you well, because the site keeps radically changing in terms of design and content. Sometimes doing too many changes too fast can really put Google off! 3 different designs inside of 1 year is pretty crazy
After each change, your home-page's Page Title was completely different:
Feb 2018 version: Customer Relationship Management | CRM Software - Vtiger
June 2018 version: Vtiger CRM | Customer Relationship Management Software
Current version: CRM | Customer Relationship Management System - Vtiger CRM
In my opinion everything that was done around June 2018 was a huge mistake that you are suffering for now and recovering from gradually. The June 2018 design was horrible, way worse than the Feb 2018 or current one (both were better). If a designer doesn't do a good job, don't just 'go ahead' with a terrible site design just because you paid for it
In addition to that in June 2018 your page title didn't 'begin' with the term (or a synonym of the term) "CRM". In Feb 2018 and on the current version, you either opened with "CRM" or a synonym of "CRM" which is better for SEO. The June 2018 version of the site was really bad and also less well optimised as well (that seems really obvious to me)
Part of me actually feels that the Feb 2018 version of the site was best for SEO. It did a better job of making your USPs (value propositions) stand out to the user and search engines. It blended nice, app-styled UX with functionality that was more than just 'button links'
The current version isn't bad, it certainly looks nicer visually - but the June 2018 version was a bit of a house of horrors. It makes sense it would have been active within the boundaries of the times you got dented because, it's just a bit shocking to be honest. In the Feb 2018 version of your site, more of the individual product links were listed in the top-line nav. Now they are still there but 'hidden' in drop-downs, that could be affecting things too
If I look at the technical SEO of the Feb 2018 site I can see it was relatively streamlined in terms of resource deployment:
... but by June 2018, there were way too many resources for one homepage to be pulling in. Not only did it look plainer and uglier than before (and less helpful, with worse SEO) it was probably also laggier to boot:
Ugh! 89 HTTP requests!? Get outta' here
Now things seem a lot better on that front:
So I think this is more evidence that the short-lived June 2018 site was pretty sucky and you guys bailed on it at light-speed (rightly so it was terrible!)
The question: did you see ranking drops for "CRM" related keywords in the period surrounding April 2018? Say for example, in April, May, June and July of 2018?
I'd say that you did, according to an (extremely rough) ranking movements export from Ahrefs:
Actual data export (formatted) here: https://d.pr/f/pwnrIF.xlsx
So which CRM related URL, was responsible for the most CRM related ranking losses which Ahrefs happened to pick up on?
https://d.pr/i/rCQ8LF.png (table image)
https://d.pr/i/7SJPbt.png (ugly bar chart)
Clearly the URL most responsible for all the drops was this one:
https://www.vtiger.com/open-source-crm/
... so how has this URL changed?
Infuriatingly, the Wayback Machine has barely any records of this URL, so closest I can get to ... just before the end of April 2018, is actually December 2017:
https://web.archive.org/web/20171226021957/https://www.vtiger.com/open-source-crm/
... it looks basically the same as it looks now. No major changes. But wait! On the old version of your homepage, the footer links to the open source CRM were bigger and more prominent than they are now. Another thing, those footer links used to be marked up with itemprop=url, now they are not (could that be making a difference? All I can say is that the coding is different)
Another question would be, between April and July 2018 - did you lose any CRM related links that were worth a lot?
Actually, apparently you did lose a few. Check some of these out:
https://d.pr/i/Zg5XER.png (MEGA screenshot, but first page of results only)
https://d.pr/f/NetqVM.png (full export, lost links which may be about 'CRM', April through July 2018 - raw and unformatted export, open the CSV file in Excel!)
Losing a CRM related link from Capterra, online peer review software experts? Yeah that could hit you hard. Most of the Mashable ones are still there, they are just redirected - but the Capterra one:
https://blog.capterra.com/free-and-open-source-crm/
... that could sting. You used to have a link with anchor text like this:
"for a price starting at about $700" - but now it's gone!
You might be thinking, aha Effect - you silly sausage! Clearly it was a comment link that got pushed down or removed by admins / mods, not a 'real' link Google would have been counted. But no I say, and I have proof to back up that denial:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170930101939/http://blog.capterra.com/free-and-open-source-crm/
That is the same post in April 2018, if you Ctrl+F for "for a price starting at about $700" - you will FIND the in-content link, which actually did matter, which Capterra have removed from their content
I am sure that in the link data you will find other such examples of lost quality links. Some will be duds and false-positives (like the Mashable ones) but some will be legit removals
By the way, although the Mashable links to you are still live, Mashable have 302 redirected the old URLs for the blog posts instead of 301 redirecting them. This means those posts, if they were valued and accrued a lot of backlinks - have been cut off from their own backlinks (as 302s pass no SEO juice). As such links contained inside of them are largely nullified (d'oh! Thanks Mashable)
What this illustrates is that, your site changed too much, the way links are formed changed, the design went through a really bad patch and also you've lost some high quality backlinks. An SEO legacy doesn't last forever, links get removed over time
In the end, these convergence of issues are almost assuredly leading your site through a tough spot. That's what I'd imagine, from a very very top-line look into this issue
-
Had a quick look at semrush..
-
Thanks for looking into this. We have dropped post April 18 update as per the historical data we have; and not around Jan/Feb 18.
Could you please let me know where did you get the data? So, I will look into and try to correlate with what we have.
Thank you.
-
Hi
Why do you believe a penalty in April 18. The site looks like a penalty of some sorts in the UK, in Jan/Feb 18 and the US etc. is clear.
Not clear on why April?
Regards
-
We dropped for "crm". Site is vtiger.com. Could you please give some clue on this? It'll be really grateful and helpful.
-
Difficult to say without seeing the site, the content and the keywords. Because different query-spaces and search entities are thematically different, the ways to 'become relevant' to each of them can be highly variable in nature. If I could just see an example, it would be much easier to assess why Google has changed its mind in terms of your site's perceived relevance
What you should know about Google is that they truly believe, all of their updates make Google's search results generally more accurate (and better for users) on average, so a roll-back is extremely unlikely. If you have been pinned by a certain algorithm change, it's likely to keep hurting you until you adhere to Google's 'new standards' (which you might argue are lower in your particular niche, but regardless they're not listening)
Sometimes fairy-tales come true and 'Google glitches' get 'undone', resulting in some sites regaining their lost rankings. This is 0.001% of most situations. Usually what happens is, people get red in the face and angry with Google, argue the toss and see their sites disintegrate as a result. Mathematical algorithms don't care if you're mad or not, they don't care what you expect
With an example, I could give an un-biased 3rd party opinion on why Google is 'doing this' to your site, but it won't result in a quick fix. It will likely result in some weeks of hard graft and further investment
All of the 'standard' ways to measure content relevancy are things like, see how many times your keyword(s) are mentioned in your content. But the highest relevancy you can demonstrate is nothing to do with keyword deployment, it's matching your site's unique 'value proposition' with Google's perception of the values which the searchers (within your query-space) hold
Maybe there's been a shift and they suddenly value price over service, thus Google shakes up their results to suit. I'm not saying keyword deployment isn't part of the issue, what I'm saying is that the most 'relevant' site is the one which the largest proportion of connected searches, wish to find. It's more than just linguistic semantics and keyword-play (hope that makes sense)
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Google Mobile Algorithm update
Hi there, On April the 21st Google seems to going to update their Mobile algorithm. I have a few questions about this one. Our current mobile website is very mobile friendly. We block all mobile pages with a noindex, so the desktop pages have been indexed on mobile devices. We use a redirect from desktop page to mobile page when someone hits a result on a mobile device. My gut tells me this is not April 21st-proof so I'm thinking about an update to make this whole thing adaptive. By making the thing adaptive, our mobile pages will be indexed instead of the desktop pages. Two questions: Will Google treat the mobile page as a 100% different page than the desktop page? Or will it match those two because everything will tell Google those belong together. In other words: will the mobile page start with a zero authority and will pages lose good organic positions because of authority or not? Which ranking factor will be stronger after April 21st for mobile pages: page authority or mobile friendliness? In other words: is it worth ignoring the 21 April update because the authority of the desktop pages is more important than making every page super mobile friendly? Hope to get some good advice! Marcel
Algorithm Updates | | MarcelMoz0 -
Creating Content for Semantic search?
Need some good examples of semantic search friendly content. I have been doing a lot of reading on the subject, but have seen no real good examples of 'this is one way to structure it'. Lots of reading on the topic from an overall satellite perspective, but no clear cut examples I could find of "this is the way the pieces should be put together in a piece of content and this is the most affective ways to accomplish it". **What I know: ** -It needs to answer a question that precludes the 'keyword being used' -It needs to or should be connected to authorship for someone in that topic industry -It should incorporate various social media sources as reference to the topic -It should link out to authoritative resources on the topic -It should use some structured data markup Here is a great resource on the important semantic search pieces: http://www.seoskeptic.com/semantic-seo-making-shift-strings-things/ ,but I want to move past the research into creating the content that will make the connections needed to get the content to rank. I know Storify is an excellent medium to accomplish this off page, but only gives no follow attribution to the topic creator and links their in. I am not a coder, but a marketer and creating the backend markup will really take me out of my wheel house. I don't want to spend all of my time flailing with code when I should be creating compelling semantic content. Any helpful examples or resources welcome. Thanks in advance.
Algorithm Updates | | photoseo10 -
Rankings drop
Hi! Since the new Penguin rollout, we've seen rankings drop for http://www.leanonturkey.co.uk/ for the terms 'turkey recipes' (UK) and 'low fat recipes' (UK) from #4 and #15 respectively. This may be down to very strong competition, but I'm also concerned over the on-page content, which may not be detailed enough. Any tips would be much appreciated!
Algorithm Updates | | neooptic0 -
How to follow up Google search in a Joomla website
Hello ! I'm facing a stupid issue but cannot solve it. Google Analytics can track the seach into a website. When I try to activate it I need to add some more parameters that I do not know. http://awesomescreenshot.com/03f1bnau8d Has anyone ever tried to configure Google analytics search for a Joomla website ? Tks a lot !
Algorithm Updates | | AymanH0 -
Dropped from Universal Result: Local
For quite some time our Google Places listing has been in the Universal Results...(for this keyword there is a 7-pack result). Which was great, we had a PPC ad at the top of the page, we were 3rd in the Universal Results (there was 3 places listings before the natural results)...and we were 6th in the natural results - meaning we were on the first page 3 times...which means a happy boss....and lots of traffic. The old places listing was linked to our new Google+ Page pending the eventual demise of places and the merge. The merge has happened, all information from the places listing has migrated (apart from reviews and photos??) and the places listing has been deleted (URL returns 404 error). Problem is now my Google + Page is not even within the first 2 or 3 pages of places results never mind in the Universal results. So it would appear the rank / authority that the places listing had...hasn't been transferred to the Google+ page. My competitors...who were in 1 + 2 in the universal results above the natural results and who have Google+ Pages with NOTHING on...bar their name, are still there! Why would I be dropped when my Google+ Page, has more info, more followers, more photos, more relevant content (they don't have any content ) than my 2 competitors. It seems I've been penalised....somebody suggested that I had the keyword twice in my "About" and twice in my "Introduction" info and that could be it. I thought the loss of the review might be it too...but neither of the businesses now occupying the first 3 spots..have any reviews at all. Anybody else suffered from this? Anybody any other suggestions to why I might have been dropped so dramatically in the places listings? (My SERP listing is unaffected for this keyword) Keyword being mentioned twice hardly seems like "stuffing"! I'm actually not too concerned about the places ranking....not a great driver of traffic...but appearing in the Universal Results did obviously drive traffic...and to appear in the Universal Results...I've now got about 30 positions to climb...... The whole Google+ Local / Google Places thing has been a nightmare from start to finish.... Thanks in advance for any help or advice!
Algorithm Updates | | MarbellaSurferDude0 -
Google Multiple Results
With Google's penchant for listing at times many results - one on top of the other - from the same domain, is it now advisable to not worry about having multiple pages in the same site targeting the same or very similar keywords? Is this (keyword/page internal competition) one less thing that I have to worry about or worry about less or what? Thanks! Best... Jane
Algorithm Updates | | 945010 -
Google Dropped 3,000+ Pages due to 301 Moved !! Freaking Out !!
We may be the only people stupid enough to accidentally prevent the google bot from indexing our site. In our htaccess file someone recently wrote the following statement RewriteEngine On
Algorithm Updates | | David_C
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mysite.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.mysite.com/$1 [L,R=301] Its almost funny because it was a rewrite that rewrites back to itself... We found in webmaster tools that the site was not able to be indexed by the google bot due to not detecting the robots.txt file. We didn't have one before as we didn't really have much that needed to be excluded. However we have added one now for kicks really. The robots.txt file though was never the problem with regard to the bot accessing the site. Rather it was the rewrite statement above that was blocking it. We tested the site not knowing what the deal was so we went under webmaster tools then health and then selected "Fetch as Google" to have the website. This was our way of manually requesting the site be re-indexed so we could see what was happening. After doing so we clicked on status and it provided the following: HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Content-Length: 250
Content-Type: text/html
Location: http://www.mystie.com/
Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5
MicrosoftOfficeWebServer: 5.0_Pub
MS-Author-Via: MS-FP/4.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:27:49 GMT
Connection: close <title>301 Moved Permanently</title> Moved Permanently The document has moved here. We changed the screwed up rewrite mistake in the htaccess file that found its way in there but now our issue is that all of our pages have been severely penalized with regard to where they are now ranking compared to just before the indecent. We are essentially freaking out because we don't know the real time consequences of this and if or how long it will take for the certain pages to regain their prior ranks. Typical pages when down anywhere between 9-40 positions on high volume search terms. So to say the least our company is already discussing the possibilities of fairly large layoffs based on what we anticipate with regard to the drop in traffic. This sucks because this is peoples lives but then again a business must make money and if you sell less you have to cut the overhead and the easiest one is payroll. I'm on a team with three other people that I work with to keep the SEO side up to snuff as much as we can and we sell high ticket items so the potential effects if Google doesn't restore matters could be significant. My question is what would you guys do? Is there any way we can contact Google about such a matter? If you can I've never seen such a thing. I'm sure the pages that are missing from the index now might make their way back in but what will there rank look like next time and with that type of rewrite has it permanently effected every page site wide, including those that are still in the index but severely effected by the index. Would love to see things bounce back quick but I don't know what to expect and neither do my counterparts. Thanks for any speculation, suggestions or insights of any kind!!!0 -
Duplicate Content
Hi guys, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOvNtPGGeHc http://themovies2012.info/wanderlust Will google know what site copy the content and what site own the content? The description on youtube is exactly the same as my review on themovies2012.info, but in the description on youtube i put link to my website... Will google know the difference?
Algorithm Updates | | prunarevic0