30 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Galleta's avatar

Yeah sure, got a program that can calculate the odds of all those alternative explanations happening in conjunction with a seldom implemented update to the search algorithm?

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

You're missing the point. This article is of such poor quality that it's not even clear what USRTK is complaining about. Did they get bumped off of the first page for organic search? If so, for what terms specifically (if you google "usrtk", you get their page as the first result)? What results are being returned organically now? Did they lose placement for their ads? Is somebody paying more? Are they paying less? Again, for what search terms specifically? What results have taken their place?

Expand full comment
Galleta's avatar

I think you’re missing the point. The article indicates there is no way to get Google to provide the details to be able to discern what happened.

They weren’t tracking their traffic and didn’t notice the change, but obviously a change was implemented, their traffic plummeted and most of us don’t need to imagine a genius Dr No that implemented their own changes in conjunction with Google’s seldom performed update in order to camouflage the likely cause.

Google changed their algorithm. Their traffic plummeted it should be Google you demand these answers from, not USRTK.

Expand full comment
Pat's avatar

But was the change explicitly against them or was it spread over multiple sites that had the same type of research? The only way to find that answer is to do a broad based study of all the sites that could be considered to have content relative to this one site. And Matt isn’t in a position to do that kind of extensive study. Without knowing how other sites were harmed or helped, this is an article that doesn’t inform, so, on a much smaller scale than the awful stories Matt has highlighted before, it is it’s own form of misinformation.

Expand full comment
Galleta's avatar

Or people could be demanding Google explain it.

Expand full comment
Alistair Penbroke's avatar

Google and others provide many tools for web masters that can be used to explain exactly that! This is why some of us are calling foul - RTK could easily find out what happened in far greater detail than they have provided here, nothing is being withheld from them, but they appear to have provided a misleading screenshot as "evidence" which actually isn't.

Look, fundamentally, if they care about their Google traffic so little they can't even be bothered to install Analytics and look at how people are finding them, they just aren't in any position to squeak about censorship. Finding out the answers to the questions posed by this story is *easy* as long as you own the website in question, and yet they claim there's some nefarious conspiracy that stops them installing Analytics or setting up Webmaster Tools and finding out where their traffic was coming from? They didn't care enough a few months ago to spend half a day on this stuff and now it's a scandal? It's just not something that rises the same level as the other stuff that's going on.

Expand full comment
Charlie Balfour's avatar

The graph shown is literally from Google Search Console (used to be Web Master Tools). So, they are using those tools! It shows the big drop in traffic, but it is not telling them why. Plus, unless they completely changed their site, there is no reason that their traffic plunged that much overnight. The algorithm changed, and neither Google, nor the tools that Google provides, which they are using, is telling them why. The entire point of the article.

Expand full comment
Galleta's avatar

Again, I don’t know enough to say you’re wrong, surely what you say is plausible.

Maybe one of you familiar with the way to follow the data needs to pull up with them and Matt for an update,

Expand full comment
Pat's avatar

Why demand Google explain a normal process? Again, we don’t know if the update effected just this one site or all sites that could be similar to this site. I’m willing to say the site did see a drop in search traffic. But assigning the cause of the drop to nefarious deeds doesn’t naturally follow. More research should be done before implying Google acted in bad faith. And this is coming from someone that doesn’t think Google is anyone’s friend.

Expand full comment
Galleta's avatar

A “normal” process? This is Google we are talking about.... home to the search engine that can’t return images of straight, white heterosexual couples in a country within which they constitute a majority.

Expand full comment
Pat's avatar

There you have it, then. Incompetence, not maliciousness.

Expand full comment
Galleta's avatar

Hahahahahaha. What an idiot

Expand full comment
Charlie Balfour's avatar

You're "willing to say the site did see a drop in site traffic"? How generous of you. Of course, they literally show the graph from Google Search Console giving definitive evidence that it did. Are you also "willing to say" that the force of gravity is keeping you anchored in place?

Expand full comment
Pat's avatar

According to other posters, that isn’t their site traffic. It is clicks on an ad campaign. Now address that part about cause and effect.

Expand full comment
Charlie Balfour's avatar

Other posters are wrong. I have a bunch of sites I work on, none of which a running ad campaigns, and I have the same graph in Google Search Console. It has nothing to do with ads. Those other posters are wrong. Don't just repeat what some rando is saying. Don't just repeat what I am saying. You could, oh I don't know....Google it? You can get an explanation of the chart here: https://youtu.be/wTwnFcWUM3k?t=152

Look down to the section of this page that describes "Metrics": https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/7576553#choosingmetrics?hl=en

Impressions and clicks have to do with search results, ... not Ad results.

And now you know.

Expand full comment
Pat's avatar

Thanks, Charlie.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

USRTK is not simply entitled to traffic from google.

Where was this traffic (traffic they "weren't" monitoring) coming from? Google doesn't simply generate traffic to the website that it can take away. Google drives traffic to sites based on people clicking on ads and organic search results. If you search for "usrtk" using google today, you get usrtk.org as the first result. So, the question is where was the traffic they lost coming from? What ads or search terms were people using? What is being returned for those search terms now?

Answers to these questions will help to better understand the problem. Otherwise it's not at all clear what USRTK is talking about.

Expand full comment
Galleta's avatar

Google changed their algorithm. USRTK’s traffic plummeted.

Google is the only possible source for your answers. A demand the user explain what was done to them is a deflection as they can’t possibly know.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

In what context is USRTK "the user"?

Without the details I'm asking about, we have to accept the possibility that USRTK had a heavily search optimized page that was highly ranked for search terms where they were not relevant to the people doing the searching. Or that USRTK cut their advertising budget which lead to their ads not being shown as often or in worse placements. Or that some other site increased their budget. Or that some other site has always had more relevant information for specific search terms and the updated algorithm now identifies them as such.

Expand full comment
Sevender's avatar

Does this drivel typically work for you in other contexts?

Expand full comment
Galleta's avatar

Googles algorithm in all cases prioritizes the results. USRTK is maybe not the user. You have a point. That’s not clear, that would be the query user, but they still can’t be expected to prove how Googles proprietary algorithms affected their traffic. It is Google manipulating search results.

We know this for sure because we have seen how many “straight white couples” in America turn out to be very happy, well adjusted looking mixed race couples.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

But google algorithm is demonstrably prioritizing usrtk.org for organic results using searches like "usrtk" and "usrtk monstanto papers" (at least according to my profile). So, what is USRTK accusing them of exactly? This is important information and it's missing from the article.

Expand full comment
Galleta's avatar

Haha it’s not missing. There was a precipitous drop in traffic immediately after a Google algorithm update. It’s up to Google to explain what they did.

Expand full comment
Steve's avatar

What does the graph that follows the following paragraph in the article mean to you?

"As a nonprofit, USRTK isn’t terribly click-conscious, and director Gary Ruskin wasn’t aware initially that its traffic went off a cliff in December, 2020, dropping nearly 60% overnight:"

Expand full comment
Galleta's avatar

It means they weren’t tracking their traffic and weren’t aware of the results of Google’s algorithm changes til later.

Expand full comment
Lucas Corso's avatar

Agree. Seems pretty straight forward.

Expand full comment
ErrorError