[xamuel]

>If you're seeing lower traffic on your site and don't feel like you need to improve the content or do something different, you deserve to be losing that traffic to someone else who does.

I disagree. Suppose you're unquestionably the world expert in some niche field, and you write a site with high-quality, timeless content. It would be really infuriating if some SEO knocked you out of the search results with an adfarm full of SEO gibberish. Or to use a common example, suppose you make a no-nonsense site with some nifty, original cooking recipes. You fall out of the search results because you aren't padding your recipes with pages of irrelevant anecdotes and other filler material. How is that "deserved"?

[cbsmith]

You're missing the point here. Regardless of the causes of the decline, there are invariably things you can do to improve your content or just generally change your approach.

[ClumsyPilot]

Improving your content to optimise for SEO is not the same as improving it for the user. I hope that fact was made bloody obvious by SEO-hugging websites full of garbage occupying top spot of many google searches.

In fact i might google a spesific product, like a Monitor, and the top result will be "but Monitor XYZ on Amazon". When i click on the link, turns out they don't actually sell or stock that product at all!

[weisbaum]

There is absolutley a blend that the smartest marketers understand how to activate. In fact, id argue that the advent of adding 'reddit' to the end of a query signals a change is necessary in order to really surface the best content for a given result. Even Quora is filled with spam these days. Spammers will get into anything wherever they can.

With that being said, in any marketing tactic, the right way isn't always the best way - however - understanding why some garbage site ranks for your query is incredibly helpful in figuring out how you can improve your content to do the same.

[sowbug]

You clicked an ad. Amazon is happy to have paid for you to land there.

[ClumsyPilot]

Please, I not a genius but even I can tell apart an ad from a search result.

[ALittleLight]

This seems a bit backwards to me. If you have the best website for a subject, and Google doesn't rank it, the problem is not that your SEO is bad, it's that Google is failing. You have the best website for the query and Google's job is to find the best websites for a query. If Google fails to do that, that shouldn't mean you need to do more work. It should mean Google needs to make some kind of change.

[ghaff]

>How is that "deserved"?

It may be deserved because that's what many people want rather than a plain vanilla list of ingredients and instructions.

[tehjoker]

I haven't met a single person that prefers the current state of things. Every time my friends and I search for a recipe we are constantly annoyed by having to scroll through a story that appears to be there simply for ad placement or SEO.

[ozfive]

This is a common issue for more people than you may imagine. Having to scroll through stories and ads is beyond deplorable. My wife and I have gone back to books as they are timeless curated sources of information.

[ghaff]

I have zero issue with finding a basic recipe if that's what I want. I prefer background and context.

[tehjoker]

I don't mind background and context, I just mind them being placed in a way that makes it difficult to locate and use the other information.

[heavenlyblue]

You prefer, but is it useful?

[weisbaum]

That assumes there is no progress, convergent thought, or evolution in your field and its entirely static. As an expert you should want to figure out and identify new ways to explain or communicate your field - again - sitting static is never a good idea, in any industry, ever.

With that being said, google can recognize brands, influencers and leaders in a given industry - but if they dont actually explain their content or choose to do it in textbooks rather than online, why do you feel that their overly complicated expert opinion deserves to rank over some new site who tries to approach and explain the topic in a more simple way? Furthermore how can this unquestionable expert prove to a new user on their site they actually are an expert? Who cares if the other academics in a field look to this person as a leader, the general user needs to be convinced in a way that leverages experience, authority and trust.

You have to DESERVE to rank. It has always been that way. Yes there will be people who try and game the system, and that game will work for a set period of time, but not forever. They want to display the best content to the user. Just because someone is an expert does NOT mean they automatically have the best content or explain it in the most user friendly way. This has always been Google's M.O. and will be and is also how it should be.

EDIT: Content farm gibberish can outrank unoptimized better content - because its created specifically to game the system, and often those content farms spend more time building links or promoting the content. The bigger worry here is GPT3 and how that begins to erode the trust of content as a medium over time.

[throwaway2048]

You are ignoring the point about how content farm adcram jibberish regularly beats out actual good content, SEO wise.

Not new cutting edge ideas that have passed your old ideas by, and Google is doing the world a favour.

A pile of garbage.