HTTPS, Mobilegeddon, etc, etc

There is a tendency for Google to make the most noise about what is least important. I have a theory as to why.

Industry colleague Michael Wahlgren shows today that the effect of ‘Mobilegeddon’ is, at least for the keywords they monitor, not as significant as it initially seemed. The median value is a lost position (e.g., from 6th place to 7th) for 33% of the search results for the non-mobile-friendly pages. Sure, 33% is a large proportion, but a lost position is hardly comparable to the devastating effects of Panda, which caused massive companies to collapse. Sure, dropping from first to second would sting a little, but this is just mobile search, which, as we know, converts worse anyway.

Why did Google choose to give a heads-up about the mobile update? Why did they do this with the HTTPS update, which can almost be described with a ‘meh’! Google makes a lot of updates, all with varying levels of impact. Is it just because these updates happened to get catchy names and are easy to latch onto, which is why they’ve been written about so much, or are there other reasons?

A good friend has long, in closed rooms, argued the thesis that everything Google can’t actually handle with the algorithm is regulated in the Webmaster Guidelines. All that is difficult for Google to manage algorithmically, the things they can’t get the algorithm to handle well, they solve through PR instead. Let me show you an example.

In the U.S., a few years ago, guest posts became perhaps the primary weapon in a link builder’s arsenal. By writing posts on other people’s blogs, one could quickly build a long list of quality links. Google reacted to this. It’s likely that it had been done so successfully that it created distortions in search results. Pages that weren’t the best took the best positions thanks to the strength of guest posts, and this happened on a large scale. A significant portion of the search results, in Google’s eyes, was too influenced by guest posts. Now, this is admittedly speculation, but it seems reasonable.

Let’s assume it’s very difficult for an algorithm to recognize guest posts. Let’s assume that Google then decides to activate its PR machinery. Guest posts, moreover, are not only used by SEO professionals—they are a tool in content marketing, even when SEO is not involved, and in many other areas as well. The easiest way to reduce the effect of guest posts on search results is to convince people that it’s dangerous or wrong. Google has long been saying that if you’re going to guest post, you should add a nofollow attribute to any links.

Consider the implications of that. Google wants you to tell them not to follow the links. Why do they want that?

Is it because:

• They know they shouldn’t follow the links?
• They don’t know they shouldn’t follow the links?

About the post

I often have the desire for articles I write about search engine optimization to be well-supported rather than speculative. Sure, it’s difficult to always stick to that, but it’s at least the goal. The main reason for this is that I don’t want to contribute to the many myths circulating in and around the industry about all sorts of strange things.

That’s why I want to be as clear as possible about what is speculation and what isn’t (does it get too repetitive when I write that?). The question here is whether you like this type of post? Should we ponder and philosophize on this blog, or should we stick to hard facts? Feel free to get back to me with your thoughts.