Inside Google's Search Insights: Addressing Publishers' Concerns and the Quest for 'People-First' Content

Danny Sullivan, Google's Search Liaison, recently shed light on how he conveys public feedback within Google. On X (formerly Twitter), Sullivan shared a glimpse of a document submitted to Google's search team, highlighting his interactions with users, encompassing their thoughts, concerns, and suggestions. This rare peek into Google's inner workings underscores the company's awareness of the challenges faced by publishers following recent core updates. It also underscores the need for Google to enhance its communication of recommendations to publishers and clarify the concept of creating "people-first" content.

Key Issue #1: What Constitutes People-First Content?

One prominent issue raised by users, according to Sullivan, is the dilemma of creating "people-first content" that genuinely caters to users rather than solely appeasing Google:

"They want to be found on Google, so they want to please Google, and the concept that the best way to please us is to actually not think about us is difficult to grasp."

Sullivan suggests that the Google Search team explore fresh approaches to convey this message effectively:

"... it would be well worth the effort for us to find new ways to approach this and reiterate this guidance."

Furthermore, Sullivan proposes that Google revises its guidance regarding publishers comparing themselves to top-ranking sites:

"We also need to recognize that our search results are, indeed, an effective part of our documentation. People do look at them to see what works – or what they can get away with.

Our guidance even encourages people to compare themselves to other pages in our results – something we probably need to amend to say something like I covered in this post: Do a search, look at the sites that come up. Those are what our systems find helpful. That said, the systems aren’t perfect. So if you see a site that seems to be doing things against our guidelines, it might not be successful in the future."

Key Issue #2: Dominance of Large Publishers in Search Results

Another concern shared with the Google Search team is the prevalence of major publishers in search results. Some publishers appear to be able to cover diverse topics and still rank well in Google Search, which has given rise to the phenomenon known as "parasite SEO":

"Over and over, people noted large publishers that seem like they can write about anything and get rewarded…

Related is the idea that “parasite SEO” sites win, sites that lease themselves out to third-parties and then content ranks on these sites that would never succeed on a different site.

This is different from big sites winning for original (but not necessarily people-first) content, but the two get conflated."

Key Issue #3: The Absence of a 'Helpful Content Tool'

Another pressing matter for Sullivan is dispelling misconceptions surrounding Google's definition of "helpful content." He suggests the creation of a tool to assess whether a publisher's content aligns with Google's "helpful content" standards:

"Can we have a helpful content tool?

… there’s a desire for some type of tool or examples to help people better understand what we mean by helpful content or something that identifies if a page or site has been impacted by the helpful content update.

I’ve had publishers worried that one single page of whatever 'unhelpful' content is will cause them to drop in rankings.

Some are fearful they can’t have anything that’s 'off-topic' for what their blog or site is about. Some think even having a part of a page be unhelpful might doom their entire site.

All this is despite our page saying that a site needs to have 'relatively high amounts' of unhelpful content to be impacted and that things are weighted."

Sullivan notes that Google's ambiguous guidance is causing unnecessary stress for publishers, who struggle to determine which pages should be altered or removed to meet Google's standards.

Sullivan's report underscores Google's dedication to incorporating user feedback to enhance its search functionality. Transparent communication and the development of content evaluation tools could help publishers adapt to Google's evolving algorithm. Providing greater clarity regarding the definition of "helpful" content remains a crucial demand from websites aiming to prioritize their audience over algorithms.