There's an ongoing issue with serving some features in Google Search. We've identified the issue and we're working on a fix. status.search.google.com/inc…

Two different things. A site could have an algorithmic spam action. A site could be not ranking well because other systems that *are not about spam* just don't see it as helpful. I've looked at many sites where people have complained about losing rankings and decide they have a algorithmic spam action against them, but they don't. That's why I'm supportive of the idea we'd perhaps share as much in Search Console. That maybe you could go into Search Console and if you have an algorithmic action, you'd see a notice just like if you have a manual action. I was just talking about this with some folks on the search team last week, and I expect to revisit the idea. It's not a new idea, either. It's challenging, however, in two key ways. First, there are some sites that do really bad spamming. Anyone who thinks that's not them -- you're right, it probably isn't. Those that do, they know. And if you tell them what the algorithm thinks is spam, then they can adjust and try to game it -- not good for anyone, searchers or other sites. Second, there's no way to "manually" lift an algo action. It's the algorithm. It's not focusing on a specific site. It doesn't have a list of sites added to it. It's automatically understanding patterns that make it think "across all this content, I see these patterns, and this makes me think generally I see spam here." So there's no way to go in and somehow "remove" a site, if that makes sense. With an actual manual action, we can -- because an action was placed against a specific site. And ... I'm greatly sympathetic to the idea that with a manual action, you can file for reconsideration and get the manual action removed versus with the algo, a sense of not only do I not know, but if I did, I can't even talk to someone about it. One thing I'm wondering is if there's a way, at least as a start, that we could let people who got notifications say "Not spam!" kind of like with email. And maybe we could use those reports in aggregate to better improve the automated spam systems overall. Of course, the challenge is actual people who are knowingly spamming might say the same thing, so it takes some thinking about how we might come up with a system that would be useful. Part of what I'm hoping to talk to folks more internally about. Before I leave the spam thing -- you don't really want to think "Oh, I just wish I had a manual action, that would be so much easier." You really don't want your individual site coming the attention of our spam analysts. First, it's not like manual actions are somehow instantly processed. Second, it's just something we know about a site going forward, especially if it says it has change but hasn't really. Moving away from spam, we do have various systems that try to determine how helpful, useful and reliable individual content and sites are (and they're not perfect, as I've said many times before, anticipating a chorus of "whatabouts....." Some people who think they are impacted by this, I've looked at the same data they can see in Search Console and ... not really. Some of them ranking really well. But they've moved down a bit in small positions enough that the traffic drop is notable. They assume they have fundamental issues but don't, really -- which is why we added a whole section about this to our debugging traffic drops page: developers.google.com/search… But some clearly have had large drops. Another thing I've been discussing, and I'm not alone in this, is could we do more in Search Console to show some of these indicators. This is all challenging similar to all the stuff I said about spam, about how not wanting to let the systems get gamed, and also how there's then no button we would push that's like "actually more useful than our automated systems think -- rank it better!" But maybe there's a way we can find to share more, in a way that helps everyone and coupled with better guidance, would help creators. Which is a lot of words. But I'll end on this, I've spent a huge amount of time looking at the feedback over the past few months, diving deep into sites, writing up thoughts and talking with people internally. I fully recognize that there are "small" or "independent" or whatever you want to call them sites that are diligently producing great content but our systems aren't recognizing it as well as they should (there's also a lot of really poor content that our systems are indeed recognizing, and there's also great content that is doing very well -- but those doing very well with great stuff tend not to talk about that on the socials). I'd like to see us do better with that subset I mentioned, the great content not well recognized. Better in helping to guide away from maybe unhelpful things that have been learned by others? By better guidance. Maybe better reporting. And some other things I'm pondering we might try. I just can't do that overnight, nor can I do it myself, nor is is the primary thing I'm responsible. I work with other teams and suggest, encourage, recommend -- but other teams have to go-ahead on stuff. And they also have to balance various trade-offs and other things. But why I can do -- have been doing and will continue to do -- is take the external feedback, channel that back to various teams and provided advocacy and recommendations in ways that I think would help all around.

I wouldn't recommend people start adding carts because it "shows Google" any more than I would recommend anyone do anything they think "shows Google" something. You want to do things that make sense for your visitors, because what "shows Google" you have a great site is to be ... a great site for your visitors not to add things you assume are just for Google. Also Lily, I don't mean this toward you in particular or negatively. It's just shorthand common thinking that so many understandably deal with. Doing things you think are just for Google is falling behind what our ranking systems are trying to reward rather than being in front of them. Everything I said here: xitter.cf/searchliaison/st… Stop trying to "show Google" things. I have been through so many sites at this point (and I appreciate the feedback), and the patterns are often like this: - Something saying an "expert" reviewed the content because someone mistakenly believes that ranks them better - Weird table-of-content things shoved at the top because who knows, along the way, somehow that became a thing I'm guessing people assume ranks you better - The page has been updated within a few days, or even is fresh on the exact day, even though the content isn't particularly needing anything fresh and probably someone did some really light rewrite and fresh date because they think that "shows Google" you have fresh content and will rank better. - The page end with a series of "hey, here are some frequently asked questions" because someone used a tool or other method to just add things they think people search for specifically because they heard if you add a bunch of popular searches to the page, that ranks you better not because anyone coming to your page wants that - I can barely read through the main content of pages because I keep getting interrupted by things shoved in the middle of it. Which isn't so much a "show Google" think as much as it is just an unsatisfying experience And yes. A million times yes. You will find pages that are still ranking, both from big sites and small sites, that do these things. Because our ranking systems aren't perfect, and after this current update, we'll continue to keep working at it, which I also covered before: xitter.cf/searchliaison/st… And I very much hope our guidance will get better to help people understand that what Google wants is what people want. I'm pushing for us to have an entire new help page that maybe makes this point better. Part of the current draft says things like: "The most important key to success with Google Search is to have content that’s meant to please people, rather than to be whatever you might have heard that 'Google wants.' For example, people sometimes write content longer than is helpful to their readers because they’ve heard somewhere that 'Google wants' long content. What Google wants is content that people will like, content that your own readers and visitors find helpful and satisfying. This is the foundation of your potential success with Google. Any question you have about making content for Google will come back to this principle. 'Is this content that my visitors would find satisfying?' If the answer is yes, then do that, because that’s what Google wants." Some expectation setting. I'm not @googlesearchc and I don't work primarily on creator issues. So I can't guarantee what pages we will have, what gets approved and so on. My primary role is to communicate feedback back about search quality into the search quality team and communicate back. And so much of the feedback people have been sharing, I have taken that back. "But what about big sites!" Yes, taken back. Sites that I can see are diligently working on real quality content and don't seem as rewarded as they should, taken that back. Will continue to do so. You are heard. Those providing quality experiences, I personally want you to succeed. But please. If you want to succeed, stop doing a lot of the things you've heard second, third, whatever that are supposed to "show Google" something and show your visitors a great, satisfying experience. That's how you show Google's ranking systems that you should do well.