Big brands are getting the upper hand on search results – yes, this is the recent point of contention within the SEO community.
Many SEOs have shared that quality content is not performing as it should be, and all the top players are getting those coveted rankings.
Regarding this, Danny Sullivan has recently shared his stance:
"yes, we should be rewarding the best content, regardless of site size." He added that he hopes Google will get better at that, saying, "I hope we'll get better here."
His assertion that Google values content relevance over site size sounds like a utopia for many, especially following the subtle but sharp criticism of Google by House Fresh founder Gisele Navarro.
In her insightful article, Navarro discusses the concerns of small websites under Google's algorithm changes.
“Regarding Google’s E-E-A-T guidelines, I completely understand your point and the reason why you have developed them. My point was perhaps more geared towards how these guidelines have become a box-ticking exercise for many, where the focus is on 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒈 these qualities more than actually developing them.
I didn’t expect this post to magically fix all these issues, but it’s encouraging to know that you agree that there is a lack of diversity of results at the moment, with large publications cannibalising vast sections of Google results off the back of their well-known brands (and their all-encompassing factories of content) more than the quality of the content itself.”
Clarifications
Sullivan's Twitter response to Navarro was a well-planned show of corporate empathy, mixed with tech terms. He highlighted Google's guidelines as tools to measure user relevance and problem-solving skills in content, not rigid digital rules.
Navarro acknowledges the significance of E-E-A-T but worries about it creating an echo chamber, with big players defining 'quality' content. Sullivan aims to enhance content diversity in Google's documentation, but the execution of these updates remains uncertain.
Transparency
Sullivan acknowledges Google isn't rigidly enforcing guidelines but adjusting them to prioritize user needs. It's a small step towards transparency, recognizing the digital landscape isn't fair for all.
Flashbacks from SEO experts like Matt Cutts linger, calling for insights from smaller webmasters. Despite efforts, top search results often favour well-established dominance.
The Frustrated Epilogue
Disappointment is clear. Small businesses and niche websites find it tough to compete with corporate-backed online content. The internet's original purpose to support and showcase these sites is fading.
Sullivan's hopeful words are fragile like a rose in December — beautiful but detached from the practical ecosystem. Such sentiments need strong support and nurturing from the environment. Google, despite good intentions, hasn't fully built that environment yet.
The internet is a diverse space of voices and experiences that algorithms shouldn't limit. Google's search results should represent everyone's lives and questions. Transparency and diversity in search results are crucial.
