Repost after edits, written by Sean Kaye, originally published on X.
Google has a "big publisher" problem, and I think, based on what I've seen from
@searchliaison recently… they know it.
Being the generous soul that I am, I have a potential solution.
Let's call it the "Magazine Stand Update".
I'll start by framing the situation.
Right now, large sites with significant backlink profiles have a much, MUCH easier time ranking for anything they want in Google's search results over time.
People are seeing and noticing that large publishers (a combination of "digital, web-first," and "traditional" publishers) are specifically targeting high-value keywords and commercial intent terms outside their core audience interests graph.
The complications here are twofold:
1) These sites are often not experts, authorities, or trusted advisors on these topics but will generally outrank sites that fulfill all of these requirements
2) This runs afoul of Google's position that you should create content for "users" and not search engines.
To put a finer point on it: Google admonishes normal, smaller publishers for trying to "game" or "manipulate" search results, but much of the foundations, technically and algorithmically, of how Google ascertains what should and shouldn't rank are being openly gamed (I'd say abused) by these large publishers.
This tosses up a lot of questions and even long-term ethical issues around the entire state of the web and Google's obvious stewardship position on web visibility.
Let me preface what lies ahead if you have the position of, "bUt GoOgLe Is A pRiVaTe CoMpAnY," then just go away… Stop reading right now and find something better to do with your time. I'm not interested in this low IQ take, and you're not contributing anything of value to the conversation, so move along.
Moving right along…
The big questions this situation raises are:
1) Is diversity of thought on the web important?
2) Are these publishers producing good content?
3) Should the rules be applied evenly and fairly?
4) How should/could this be dealt with?
The diversity question is pretty important.
One of the strengths of the web in my time using it since the earliest days of Mosaic is the "democratization" of information.
The web allows people to publish directly, cutting out the middleman with unprecedented ease.
It is the Gutenberg Press on steroids.
To say that it revolutionized humanity and society faster than any invention in the history of our species to date is a big call, but not something I would consider hyperbole.
The web has increasingly become a broadcast platform for large vested interests because visibility and discoverability are declining for "average" and smaller publishers.
Glen Allsopp (@ViperChill) collects some amazing data on this consolidation of visibility and discoverability down to less than two dozen significant publishing organizations.
I encourage you to look up Glen's research; it is quite staggering and alarming.
This is objectively bad for all of us in every walk of life, and Google is at the nexus of this - they are the "index of the internet."
It's a position they've earned through innovation and investment… but to offer up the Spiderman cliche, "With great power comes great responsibility."
Google has become a "steward" of the internet… and profits handsomely from that position.
They set the "rules of racing" for discoverability - there is some profit motivation on their part (which is fair enough) and, I like to think, an "opinion" about what "good looks like" for someone searching on the internet wants.
That leads nicely to question #2: are these big publishers producing good content people want?
"Yes and no" would be my short answer.
I think, generically speaking, the content many of these publishers produce is "okay."
It generally addresses the search intent, the content is often well edited, the sites are presented cleanly, and it is inoffensive to someone who lands on the page.
But does that make it "good"?
I'm going to argue, "No."
Most of these big publishers are churning out homogenized pablum written at a fifth-grade reading level where the content outlines were pumped out by their sometimes enormous SEO teams for their content farm writers to play fill-in-the-blanks with.
Google routinely says that you should add something original to the web while simultaneously favoring content that is the same ten results on the first page by the six same publishers, just worded differently.
These publishers, when you talk to their SEO teams, will tell you that for high-value keyword phrases, they incessantly look at the results, find their competitors, and if that other page adds a paragraph or a heading and has moved up, they immediately edit their content to "match" it.
You don't need advanced algorithms to detect this - you can search and read.
In the YMYL niches, in particular, this is horrific. The quality of content in these searches has declined steadily over the last two years as the consolidation has accelerated.
This is where Google's "big data" approach falls over - if every result on the first page looks and smells the same, then that's all that the audience sees, so they pick the pablum with the most sugar or smells the best.
… and then you see people adding "Reddit" to their search request or going to ChatGPT or Bing and trying to get different answers.
People don't want a bot to tell them the answer.
They certainly aren't interested in the opinion of Reddit's u/facebumrandy78 on r/EatMyShortStack to tell them what's the best waffle iron to buy for left-handed people.
(For clarity, I don't know if that's a real username or a real subreddit - LOL. Sorry if that's you, Randy)
The problem is that Google's results have become so homogenized and lacking in diversity that people are actively seeking something that's not Forbes or CNET on EVERY product, pushing them at Amazon links.
In Google's eyes, these sites are trusted and authoritative, and that's why it recommends them… but is u/facebumrandy78 a trusted source of information just for being on Reddit?
I went and looked at u/facebumrandy78's other posts, and he's not just a waffle iron expert, but he has opinions on golf, fossicking, and car detailing.
u/facebumrandy78 is a real Renaissance man.
But the woman who has spent the last six years making waffles, buying and testing out every waffle iron on the market, and trying to offer people good advice and support her site by linking to Amazon and creating lists, she's less authoritative than u/facebumrandy78 or the generic content farm worker from CNET or Forbes?
Is her content less helpful?
She's just trying to "make money with little effort" (I'm paraphrasing a quote from a Google staffer here about small, niche site publishers).
Make it make sense.
This takes us nicely into my Question #3… should the rules be applied evenly and fairly?
Most people have an inherent sense of justice intrinsic to most people in largely free and democratic societies - yes, rules should be applied evenly and fairly.
I think, through that lens, Google is failing. Badly.
Not through maliciousness or intent but because the speed of the internet has caught up to arguably the fastest-innovating company in the history of the world.
In many respects, Google is the victim of its own success here.
It has done a good job of being the "Dewey Decimal System" of the internet and has amassed such a position of authority that turning the hulking vessel that is Google Search is hard.
I also think Google is hurting itself - I could veer off into a slight side tangent here on "Google Search Results are too complex now," but I won't.
To help categorize and ensure Google is serving "good results," they've established their rules of racing and "best practices" that they look for as signals.
Big publishers have this, often by default, but they are often abusing the hell out of this.
Seriously, does an article on snoring being bad for your relationship need to be reviewed by a doctor and six registered nurses?
As a long-term sleep apnea sufferer, I'm going to say, "No, not at all."
But they know that Google is looking for these kinds of trust signals, so they buy them.
This leads us to the Google mantra of "Write for people, " not search engines."…
As a fat bloke, I don't bloke; I don't need to have a worthless listicle on "best food processor for fruit" reviewed by four leading nutritionists from Forbes.
I'd much rather see Molly from Topeka, who lost 60lbs eating strawberry smoothies and walking 5km daily, telling me how she managed that.
Here's where Google has created its own problem - it's easier for Google to say, "Well, this big publisher with all of their reviewers is probably more trustworthy than Molly, so we'll show their articles instead."
This becomes a vicious circle - big publishers start writing and creating content for Google because Google rewards them for it.
Meanwhile, they tell Molly not to write a "best blenders" listicle review because it's not helpful, and she should write for her audience, not Google.
Apply the rules fairly.
If Forbes, CNET, CNN, and the NYT are writing content for search engines, don't share their stuff, either.
Why give them the benefit of the doubt on intent?
Molly might genuinely be interested in telling her audience which blenders are best because she tried them all. In contrast, we 10000% know that Forbes and CNET are writing that article to pimp Amazon links.
According to Google's mantra, the benefit of the doubt is being placed in the wrong direction.
As a small publisher, we live in an upside-down world.
Okay, let's get to the gist of this… Question #4.
How does Google fix this?
I'm not employed by Google; I'm just a plebe who creates websites for fun on the side because I enjoy the topics or I'm interested in exploring them and seeing if I can make a bit of money off that hobby.
But I have a Twitter account, so I get my say… Democratization of the web at its finest.
I call this the "Magazine Rack Update."
Before Forbes became a trusted source for reviews on men's wallets, BBQs, and the Best Moving Companies of 2023, it was a humble business magazine you'd buy at a convenience store or in an airport lounge.
You would have to go to the magazine rack, find what you were interested in, and look at the magazine's front page to see what was inside.
Some magazines had credibility because they'd been around a long time and done good work in their particular category: Forbes, Conde Nest, Popular Mechanic, and Time Magazine are all traditional publishers that spring to mind.
Now, imagine you head over to the News Agent at the airport - you're about to board a 3-hour flight to Topeka to see Molly and u/facebumrandy78 do a live demonstration of juicers - and you decide to grab a magazine or two.
Would Forbes, if they had to print their magazine and attract their audience in that scenario, be writing the articles they are writing online and promoting that on the cover of their magazine?
Would People Magazine use that cover space for an article about Taylor Swift or "Best Portable BBQ Grills"?
Would Popular Mechanic be creating about men's wallets next to their cover story on Supersonic Jets coming in the next decade (and reviewed by noted expert on everything, u/facebumrandy78)?
No.
These trusted brands and authorities in their markets would not pollute their reputation and brands with such absurdly unrelated content.
They would not waste their cover page real estate with things that aren't "in their wheelhouse" and related to their audience.
Because there's a cost to that - an actual cost and an opportunity cost.
The web eliminates both of those costs.
Why wouldn't you write those pieces and stick them on your website if you're Forbes or People?
Google trusts you implicitly on everything, will deem you an expert in almost every category imaginable, and rewards you by holding smaller publishers who may have actual expertise back because they don't have your "pedigree."
You'd almost be stupid not to.
Which brings me back to the answer.
If Forbes had to print a magazine, stick it on the shelves of stores, and attract their audience to buy the magazine, would they be placing the titles of articles such as:
"7 Best Chest Exercises, According To Fitness Experts"
"9 Best Dating Apps Of 2023: Reviews And Costs"
Yeah, I don't see that sitting comfortably on the cover of Forbes magazine alongside :
"A Look At Tax Proposals On State And Local Ballots This Election Season"
"Why is Your Company Software Failing: Bad Budgeting Might be the Culprit"
The answer for Google is simple to say, but probably much harder to implement:
Experience, Expertise, Authority, and Trust that BRANDS have related to their category, not the name on their masthead.
That might be a bit controversial, but it's practical and true.
Nobody sensible is looking to Forbes to tell them the best dating apps to use unless they are looking for a dating app that shows their prospects' LinkedIn profile and possible credit score.
Forbes built its trust and authority by being experts and experienced in financial news and business topics.
Allowing them to leverage that into EVERYTHING seamlessly is silly and produces bad results.
Do you want to know why people are appending "Reddit" to their search?
It's not because they highly value the opinions of u/facebumrandy78 but because the results you show them for simple things like "blender reviews" are written by content farms at big publishers and "expertly reviewed" or "fact-checked" by Fiverr Premium workers who are essentially selling a link to their LinkedIn Profile to the big publisher.
So figure out an algorithm or a review process for these big, trusted publishers that says:
Would Forbes put the title of this article on the cover of their magazine in a news agent's magazine rack?
Would they spend the money to publish this piece if they had to pay for the ink?
Would their direct advertisers want their American Express Business Traveller ad next to an article on "2023 Full NFL Schedule Of Games For All 32 Teams," or would they rather that ad appear in Sports Illustrated next to that?
If the answer is "no" because it doesn't fit where Forbes has gained its authority, trust, and reputation, then they shouldn't be given that "benefit of the doubt" by Google in the search results.
They're not experts in this. They don't have experience in. They aren't a trusted source on these topics.
Stop treating them as such.
If they wouldn't put it on the cover of their magazine or even in the pages, then treat them with less authority than Molly from Topeka on her chosen topic.
You reward them for diluting their brand and attaching it at no cost.
Meanwhile, you're holding smaller publishers to a much higher standard of topical authority, trust, and expertise.
I should never outrank People Magazine on my site about Popcorn Makers for an article on Kylie Jenner.
Still, People Magazine should almost never outrank me and my 15 years of experience buying, reviewing, and using popcorn makers.
If I published a magazine about Popcorn Makers, my article "The Best Popcorn Makers for Van Life" would be on the cover. Still, People Magazine wouldn't even print that story for many sensible reasons.
Stop ranking them in search results for it then.
I challenge Google to hold big publishers to the mantra they hold smaller publishers to - "Write for readers, not Google."
If People, Time, Forbes, and others wouldn't print those articles in their physical magazine but are willing to do it on the web and attach affiliate links to it, then you know, categorically and without question, that they are writing for Search Engines and not their Audience.
So… Get a bunch of your PhDs in a room and get them to workshop and theory craft what a "Magazine Stand Update" algorithm would look like.
Push your super smart people to ask, "Would Valnet publish three different physical magazines every month for The Gamer, Game Rant, and DualShockers, all writing overlapping content, or would they consolidate that down to one?"
This simple test clarifies Expertise, Experience, Authority, and Trust.
"Do you want to be famous for this topic?"
Molly from Topeka would publish an entire magazine on losing weight by eating more fruit.
u/facebumrandy78 wouldn't publish anything if it weren't for Reddit, and NOBODY would buy a Reddit magazine if they saw it on a shelf.
And Forbes wouldn't be creating an article in their November issue and putting the title on the cover for "Best Pet Insurance Companies Of November 2023".
But Forbes will do it on their website because the CPC on "what is the best pet insurance" is ~$24/click, and Google ranks them #1 for the 74k monthly searches.
Again, hold everyone to the same standards…
Would you write this in your magazine if you had to publish it on paper and have people buy it from a magazine shelf?
If not, then you know they're writing for search engines, and that's a "no-no".
If that's the case, stop rewarding them for it.
If Google wants bonus marks, they could see those unrelated articles as diluting their authority and trust and reducing the benefit of the doubt you give them overall - that would IMMEDIATELY get a positive result.
I'm guessing CNN, the NYT, and Forbes would be a lot less interested in ranking for Food Processor reviews if it means their core news content was seen as less trustworthy because they diluted their brand writing about unrelated things.
And in context, it makes sense.
If Google places a level of trust and authority in these sites because of their pedigree but then they abuse that trust by trying to game Google's algorithms specifically by misusing that very trust, why shouldn't Google trust them less?
It's one thing to complain; it's another entirely to offer a suggestion - so there's a suggestion on how to remedy the problem.
Read the original thread here (edited it for clarity) and other comments from the users on X.