• About Us
  • Contributors
  • Guides
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Write for The SEM Post
  • Submit a tip or contact us!
  • Newsletters

The SEM Post

Latest News About SEO, SEM, PPC & Search Engines

  • Google
  • SEO
  • Mobile
  • Local
  • Bing
  • Pay Per Click
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • State of the Industry
You are here: Home / Google / Recent Google Core Search Update Brand Keyword Related?

Recent Google Core Search Update Brand Keyword Related?

January 14, 2016 at 5:19 am PST By Jennifer Slegg

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
  • Evernote
  • SMS

google core algo brand keywordsNow that the drama over “it must be Penguin!” and “it must be Panda!” has died down, we are finally hearing some more specifics about what people are seeing in regards to the recent core search results fluctuations that have been going on for just over a week.

There were definitely signs that these changes were quality related in someway.  But one analysis seems to be pointing to the fact that is is related to brand keywords and how websites that are NOT the brand are ranked for them.

Bartosz Góralewicz has a look at not just the winners and losers – something that is easy to discover – but also what those winners and losers have in common.  And the one common denominator seems to be that the keywords gained and lost by the winners and losers are mostly brand keyword specific.

However, this isn’t just a case of “brands ranking higher for their keywords and other sites not ranking for those brand keywords as well.”  Interestingly, some of these websites increased some brand keyword terms while dropping in others.

He also notes that there wasn’t a seemingly overall downranking of any of these particular sites.  Looking the WashingtonPost.com example, while their visibility dropped, namely due to the power of brand related keywords, they actually gained more organic keywords overall.

washingtonpost-lost_visibility-keywordsSo this shows that even though some sites lose some of the big search keywords, overall they have significantly more keywords than previously.  But obviously, how this translates into actual traffic remains to be seen.

SEMRush shows a tiny drop in traffic, but nothing significant.

washingtonpost semrush1The other thing noteworthy is the number of news sites impacted.  You can find the full list of losers at Goralewicz’ site, but look at all the major news sites on this list.

losers list core update

There isn’t quite a full week’s of data yet, and there is definitely some fluctuations continuing, which could either be this core update being tweaked, or Google could be tweaking something else too, to keep us all on our toes.  But I am sure SEOs will have a closer look at some of these brand keyword changes and seeing what else can be found on likely reasons why these brand keyword rankings changed so much.

For his full analysis, with many specific examples, you can find it here.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
  • Evernote
  • SMS
The following two tabs change content below.
  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
My Twitter profileMy Facebook profileMy Google+ profileMy LinkedIn profile

Jennifer Slegg

Founder & Editor at The SEM Post
Jennifer Slegg is a longtime speaker and expert in search engine marketing, working in the industry for almost 20 years. When she isn't sitting at her desk writing and working, she can be found grabbing a latte at her local Starbucks or planning her next trip to Disneyland. She regularly speaks at Pubcon, SMX, State of Search, Brighton SEO and more, and has been presenting at conferences for over a decade.
My Twitter profileMy Facebook profileMy Google+ profileMy LinkedIn profile

Latest posts by Jennifer Slegg (see all)

  • New Google Quality Rater Guidelines, Update Adds Emphasis on Needs Met - October 16, 2020
  • Google Updates Experiment Statistics for Quality Raters - October 6, 2020
  • Analyzing “How Google Search Works” Changes from Google - July 8, 2020
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines Update: New Introduction, Rater Bias & Political Affiliations - December 6, 2019
  • Google Updates Quality Rater Guidelines: Reputation for News Sites; Video Content Updates; Quality for Information Sites - September 13, 2019

Filed Under: Google, SEO

Sign up for our newsletter


Comments

  1. Michael Stricker says

    January 14, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Thanks, Jennifer, this is the first notice I’ve read that goes beyond superficial observations. It’s quite possibly the first, “combo” of multiple overlapping updates. Personal observation: Looking like QDF may be involved, (Ecomm items for sale are subject to freshness because of price volatility.) must dig deeper and broader. Thanks for the mention!

  2. Aaron Bradley says

    January 14, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Goralewicz’s analysis is yet another treatment where there’s not even been a cursory effort to define what a “brand query” or “brand keyword” is, rendering the article’s conclusions at best dubious.

    Among the queries identified as “brand keywords” by Goralewicz are: maps, horoscope, calendar, pretty little liars, grey’s anatomy, robin williams, justin bieber, katy perry, angelina jolie, tom brady, barack obama, elvis presley, arnold schwarzenegger, miranda kerr, michael jackson, liam neeson, happy birthday, frozen, the walking dead, and mad max fury road.

    People who happen to be celebrities are “brands”? Movies are “brands”? TV shows are “brands”?Video games are “brands”? Songs are “brands”? And omitted from my list are a huge thwack of organizations that, simply by virtue of being organizations, are “brands”: cbs news, pbs, npr, espn, fox news, nfl, ncaa.

    What aren’t brands to Goralewicz? Common nouns (e.g. “dictionary”) and named geographical entities (e.g. “greece”).

    It’s accurate to call everything on Goralewicz’s “brand” list a named entity, but ridiculous to pretend that anything useful is to be gleaned about “brand keywords” when a “brand keyword” is so broadly defined.

    That these are named entities suggests a taxonomic scheme that might actually bear useful analytical fruit. That is, to look at the type of entities involved: say named personal entities, named corporate entities, named geographic entities, named product entities, common entities (and possibly non-entities – “things that are not nouns”). Or even to break things into the broad but readily understandable categories of “things that are proper nouns (named entities), just things (common entities) and non-things.”

    But to say “brand queries” when that refers to any named Thing that’s not on a motoring roadmap is hardly helpful. 🙂

    • Bartosz Goralewicz says

      January 15, 2016 at 12:44 am

      Aaron, thank you for your comment.

      I see that I marked a little bit too much on my screenshots. It is my mistake obviously and I will correct them today.

      My understanding of “brand queries” includes names of the BRANDS as Google would understand it. This includes names of companies (eBay, Amazon etc.), but also names of celebrities like “Justin Bieber”. This is the pattern I see and this is what I had in mind.

      Thanks for heads up Aaron.

  3. Majidy says

    January 14, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    Jennifer

    After core ranking update, first traffic spike was higher with over all 20% now it has started downwards. What is it actually? Any specific reason?

    Best,

    • Jennifer Slegg says

      January 14, 2016 at 11:40 pm

      Some people reported seeing a drop yesterday. Whether it is the same change or a different one, we don’t know 🙂

Founder & Editor

Jennifer Slegg (2049)

Sign up for our daily news recap & weekly newsletter.


Follow us online

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter

Latest News

New Google Quality Rater Guidelines, Update Adds Emphasis on Needs Met

Google has released a brand-new Google quality rater guidelines, coming close to a year after the … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • New Google Quality Rater Guidelines, Update Adds Emphasis on Needs Met
  • Google Updates Experiment Statistics for Quality Raters
  • Analyzing “How Google Search Works” Changes from Google
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines Update: New Introduction, Rater Bias & Political Affiliations
  • Google Updates Quality Rater Guidelines: Reputation for News Sites; Video Content Updates; Quality for Information Sites
  • Google Makes Major Changes to NoFollow, Adds Sponsored & UGC Tags
  • Google Updates Quality Rater Guidelines Targeting E-A-T, Page Quality & Interstitials
  • Google Local Service Ads Display Pricing Estimates for Specific Locations
  • Google Testing “Relevant History” Section in Mobile Search Results
  • Google Converts PDFs, DOCs, XLS etc into HTML for Indexing

Categories

  • Affiliate Marketing
  • Amazon
  • Apple
  • Bing
  • Branding
  • Browsers
  • Chrome
  • Content Marketing
  • Design
  • Domains
  • DuckDuckGo
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Firefox
  • Foursquare
  • Google
    • Analytics
    • Google RankBrain
    • Quality Rater's Guidelines
  • History of Search
  • Industry Spotlight
  • Instagram
  • Internet Explorer
  • Links
  • Local
  • Mobile
  • Native Advertising
  • Other Search Engines
  • Pay Per Click
  • Pinterest
  • Publishers
  • Security
  • SEO
  • Snapchat
  • Social Media
  • State of the Industry
  • The SEM Post
  • Tools
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • User Experience
  • Video Marketing
  • Week in Review
  • Whitepapers
  • Wordpress
  • Yahoo
  • Yelp
  • YouTube
February 2021
MTWTFSS
« Oct  
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2021 · News Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in