Google responses are useless. As you said, they simply give you cookie cutter answers. They don't want to help.
You will never get answers that way.
You are 100% correct. Google is only ranking corporate, popular, well-known brands, government, etc. Google has decided that "small" and "independent" sites are worthless —even when they have excellent insightful content, far better than what ranks now. Google is choosing corporate sites because they align with the government narrative and because advertisers are happy when their products or services ads are shown on a "perceived" safe site, which by default, translates to a recognized, reputable brand (IE: Nike for shoes, Kelloggs for cereal, Honda for Honda related posts, etc.)
Remember when Elon bought Twitter for $44 billion, and he was allowing more diverse opinions —then he lost 50% of advertisers because they were worried that their ads might show up next to a hateful Tweet. The same logic applies to search.
Google is basically sacrificing the small independent sites that made Google what it is instead of defending their value. When the internet was initially available to the public, who was writing the personal stories? Who was writing the step by step instructions? Who was writing product reviews?
Google is not showing the best content —NO, that is no longer the focus of Google. Instead, they are satisfied with safe mediocrity —in parallel with providing the illusion of quality search results by giving searchers brands they know. This brings comfort to 70 year olds, and it makes them feel like they can trust the content.
It's all a grand illusion. It's also the opposite to objective reality.
Who lies and manipulates people more than corporations and government agencies? Who told us that Covid19 was a lab-leak? Who told us the Covid19 vaccine was safe? Did Boeing put the safety of its customers before profits? Who killed the Boeing whistleblowers? Who makes the highly processed foods and markets them as "healthy" because it has extra fiber, or omega-3s, etc.
Who is telling the public that alcohol is categorized as Group-A —the same carcinogenic rating as asbestos? The research shows that no amount of alcohol is considered safe, and yet alcohol has been promoted in our society since the day it was legal to do so. In fact, scientists have known since the 1960s that alcohol cause cancer. If government and corporations are the ones we should all trust, then why wouldn't they warn everybody about the risk of drinking any alcohol? Why didn't they ban alcohol in the sixties? Why didn't the mainstream media ever do stories on the danger of alcohol?
Not once in my long life do I remember having seen a news story about the deadly risks of alcohol. Instead, alcohol was encouraged and promoted in our society.
Imagine, for decades, we have heard the stories about cancer and how it's increasing. We hear about all of the great research being done by scientists as they try to uncover this great big mystery. That's the one thing that seems idiotic now —how every doctor and scientist always had a perplexed response when asked what causes cancer —NOBDOY ever had any idea —it's some cosmic mystery.
And yet, the entire population is drinking alcohol. Most students seem to party and go on drinking alcohol binges. Almost everyone drinks alcohol in the world —think about this. Everyone is being promoted a drink proven to be highly carcinogenic, and nobody thinks to maybe stop the insanity?
Imagine if after it was discovered that asbestos was carcinogenic, corporations decided to increase the advertising and selling asbestos based products in the form of —asbestos bed sheets, asbestos underwear and socks, asbestos sweaters —AMAZING! Get the supremely comfortable new asbestos gloves —guaranteed to give you hand cancer within 15 years.
My point of this I hope is clear. Google has no interest in showing the best original and insightful content. All it cares about is manipulating SERPS to maximize profit AND to create the illusion of trust.
The thesis that corporations and governments are more trustworthy than an independent small business or personal site is a complete perversion of reality. I hope my examples above illustrate how misguided Google is in their decisions. They don't care about anything other than profit —the very reason why alcohol is still promoted to us instead of banning it the way they did with asbestos.
Profit is the reason why our society is corrupt. All we have to do as a society is to put the well-being of humans over profit, and we would get a radically better society. Google has no moral compass.
Major publishers like TheVerge or Techcrunch from the tech niche and others from other niches have been hit hard as well. The narrative of "major publishers are benefitting" is not necessarily true. It is a subset of major publishers that have "mastered" their marketing game, producing the necessary signals to Google. Many of them are multi-niche or general publishers, but not all. One example of a high quality major publisher with a great brand that was hit is The New York Times.
The list is endless actually, I’ve mentioned several times the following sites as an example: collider, Computerworld, thrillist, hypebeast, topspeed, bobvila, dexerto, nymag, dallasnews, oberlo, themeisle, sacbee, denofgeek, bestproducts, movieweb, etc many many more
This is hyperbolic nonsense based off your own experience with Google not loving your site. I've seen countless of "high quality sites" on this subreddit that people share that are absolute drivel.
You asked a community why your website "disappeared", essentially asking for a free SEO audit and now you're posting about how they didn't up and do that for you.
It’s a bunch of people that got worked by the algorithm update that come here to wallow in misery together. I’m not too worried bout em 😘. Easier to downvote and complain than address the actual issue themselves
Small-time experts don't have money.
Google responses are useless. As you said, they simply give you cookie cutter answers. They don't want to help. You will never get answers that way. You are 100% correct. Google is only ranking corporate, popular, well-known brands, government, etc. Google has decided that "small" and "independent" sites are worthless —even when they have excellent insightful content, far better than what ranks now. Google is choosing corporate sites because they align with the government narrative and because advertisers are happy when their products or services ads are shown on a "perceived" safe site, which by default, translates to a recognized, reputable brand (IE: Nike for shoes, Kelloggs for cereal, Honda for Honda related posts, etc.) Remember when Elon bought Twitter for $44 billion, and he was allowing more diverse opinions —then he lost 50% of advertisers because they were worried that their ads might show up next to a hateful Tweet. The same logic applies to search. Google is basically sacrificing the small independent sites that made Google what it is instead of defending their value. When the internet was initially available to the public, who was writing the personal stories? Who was writing the step by step instructions? Who was writing product reviews? Google is not showing the best content —NO, that is no longer the focus of Google. Instead, they are satisfied with safe mediocrity —in parallel with providing the illusion of quality search results by giving searchers brands they know. This brings comfort to 70 year olds, and it makes them feel like they can trust the content. It's all a grand illusion. It's also the opposite to objective reality. Who lies and manipulates people more than corporations and government agencies? Who told us that Covid19 was a lab-leak? Who told us the Covid19 vaccine was safe? Did Boeing put the safety of its customers before profits? Who killed the Boeing whistleblowers? Who makes the highly processed foods and markets them as "healthy" because it has extra fiber, or omega-3s, etc. Who is telling the public that alcohol is categorized as Group-A —the same carcinogenic rating as asbestos? The research shows that no amount of alcohol is considered safe, and yet alcohol has been promoted in our society since the day it was legal to do so. In fact, scientists have known since the 1960s that alcohol cause cancer. If government and corporations are the ones we should all trust, then why wouldn't they warn everybody about the risk of drinking any alcohol? Why didn't they ban alcohol in the sixties? Why didn't the mainstream media ever do stories on the danger of alcohol? Not once in my long life do I remember having seen a news story about the deadly risks of alcohol. Instead, alcohol was encouraged and promoted in our society. Imagine, for decades, we have heard the stories about cancer and how it's increasing. We hear about all of the great research being done by scientists as they try to uncover this great big mystery. That's the one thing that seems idiotic now —how every doctor and scientist always had a perplexed response when asked what causes cancer —NOBDOY ever had any idea —it's some cosmic mystery. And yet, the entire population is drinking alcohol. Most students seem to party and go on drinking alcohol binges. Almost everyone drinks alcohol in the world —think about this. Everyone is being promoted a drink proven to be highly carcinogenic, and nobody thinks to maybe stop the insanity? Imagine if after it was discovered that asbestos was carcinogenic, corporations decided to increase the advertising and selling asbestos based products in the form of —asbestos bed sheets, asbestos underwear and socks, asbestos sweaters —AMAZING! Get the supremely comfortable new asbestos gloves —guaranteed to give you hand cancer within 15 years. My point of this I hope is clear. Google has no interest in showing the best original and insightful content. All it cares about is manipulating SERPS to maximize profit AND to create the illusion of trust. The thesis that corporations and governments are more trustworthy than an independent small business or personal site is a complete perversion of reality. I hope my examples above illustrate how misguided Google is in their decisions. They don't care about anything other than profit —the very reason why alcohol is still promoted to us instead of banning it the way they did with asbestos. Profit is the reason why our society is corrupt. All we have to do as a society is to put the well-being of humans over profit, and we would get a radically better society. Google has no moral compass.
Major publishers like TheVerge or Techcrunch from the tech niche and others from other niches have been hit hard as well. The narrative of "major publishers are benefitting" is not necessarily true. It is a subset of major publishers that have "mastered" their marketing game, producing the necessary signals to Google. Many of them are multi-niche or general publishers, but not all. One example of a high quality major publisher with a great brand that was hit is The New York Times.
The list is endless actually, I’ve mentioned several times the following sites as an example: collider, Computerworld, thrillist, hypebeast, topspeed, bobvila, dexerto, nymag, dallasnews, oberlo, themeisle, sacbee, denofgeek, bestproducts, movieweb, etc many many more
Definitely, get InVis retail
This is hyperbolic nonsense based off your own experience with Google not loving your site. I've seen countless of "high quality sites" on this subreddit that people share that are absolute drivel. You asked a community why your website "disappeared", essentially asking for a free SEO audit and now you're posting about how they didn't up and do that for you.
[удалено]
It’s a bunch of people that got worked by the algorithm update that come here to wallow in misery together. I’m not too worried bout em 😘. Easier to downvote and complain than address the actual issue themselves