Google makes close to two updates per day. Most of them pass by unnoticed, while a few are discussed quite a lot. The vast majority make little or no difference for most sites, while some completely shake up the search results.
Google often claims that it owns the search results and can do whatever it wants with them. That is a truth with modifications. Its position in the market (for example, a 96% market share in Sweden) means that it cannot do exactly whatever it wants. For instance, there are a number of lawsuits against Google where lawyers argue that it has favored its own products. Another example is that it must clearly distinguish between ads and organic results.
In many ways, Google is something of its own universe, in the same way that Sweden is. Many companies operate on Google, just as many companies operate in Sweden. You market yourself on Google, you get your customers from Google, and you are dependent on Google. If you compare this to Sweden, Sweden as a marketplace has certain advantages over Google, primarily one of democracy’s greatest strengths: inertia.
For entrepreneurship to flourish, rules are needed that do not change too lightly. Even though business owners in Sweden may complain about a poor business climate, we at least always know that the rules do not change quickly, and we are always warned well in advance. Restaurant VAT or employer contributions for young people are not changed overnight without warning; there is time to adapt.
When HubPages, on May 3, lost 22% of its traffic, it happened without warning and was roughly equivalent to suddenly having to pay double VAT. You might be one of many who worry about interest deductions. Consider what would happen if 22% of your net salary were suddenly deducted tomorrow as an extra tax. There are plenty of examples like this, and it is not about HubPages deliberately cheating to achieve better rankings; it is about the rules changing. Or take Mobilegeddon as an example. While it was not quite as devastating for an individual site, it still shows that when Google introduces a new ranking factor (albeit with a small amount of warning), many are affected. The rules change, and all e-commerce businesses and other online companies are expected to invest in a mobile version or a responsive site within 30–60 days. This is often a fairly large investment, especially for a small business.
The mobile update did come with a short warning, but if you work in a more sluggish organization, you know that two months for a completely new design or site is not very much time. Many have had to work extremely hard, and many web agencies have been overwhelmed with clients because Google carried out an update.
Those of us who work with search engine optimization naturally have it easier than many others. We keep up with what is happening because, in a way, it is the core of our business. But a small e-commerce retailer, who often relies on Google as their primary sales channel, usually already has their hands full sourcing the right products, packing and shipping them, trying to build their brand, and taking care of their customers. Is it reasonable, then, for Google to completely shake things up once a year? Should every e-commerce business need to have an expert in the field? The result is that to reduce risk, costs must be increased. Whether it involves using a wholesaler’s product texts, JavaScript navigation, or something else that Google suddenly reacts strongly to makes no difference; it is difficult to be prepared for everything.
I personally believe that Google should recognize the power it holds and choose to use it sparingly. As in a democracy, everyone benefits a little from inertia. Not that updates should not be made, but perhaps they should be announced well in advance, or even pass through some form of consultation process. Google affects our economy—quite significantly—and perhaps it should contribute to stability rather than the opposite.
