
DailyMail: fifty percent drop in traffic after Google update - janpot
https://www.seroundtable.com/dailymail-hit-google-core-update-27690.html
======
Matsta
Having a brief look at their traffic on Ahrefs; They've lost a bit of traffic,
but it doesn't look like it's halved: 59 million to 49 million.
[https://i.imgur.com/fB1z5aq.png](https://i.imgur.com/fB1z5aq.png)

Having a look at what their organic search movements are, most of them are
just for celebrity names. Here's a screenshot:
[https://i.imgur.com/NvWT0Y3.png](https://i.imgur.com/NvWT0Y3.png)

It seems in this update, and Google is putting a lot less emphasis on the word
count. Instead, they are putting more emphasis on having the exact keyword in
the title tag and coming from a domain with a lot of authority.

Google could have also struck DailyMail with a Manual Action (aka a penalty
for breaking their TOS) which would vastly affect their organic traffic.
Manual action is explained here:
[https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en)

~~~
Bartweiss
> _They 've lost a bit of traffic, but it doesn't look like it's halved: 59
> million to 49 million._

The article is _very_ sloppy about this, with a clickbait framing, but the
actual claim is "we saw a massive drop in Search traffic from Google (lost 50%
of daily traffic)", which I'm almost certain means 50% _of Google search
traffic_.

~~~
Matsta
Yes - Ahrefs only measures Google search traffic.

If you were to use something like Similarweb, it will give you a estimate of
overall traffic from all platforms:
[https://www.similarweb.com/website/dailymail.co.uk](https://www.similarweb.com/website/dailymail.co.uk)

------
rchaud
This entire conversation is about the Daily Mail itself, when the facts of the
story are that in a forum post with no replies, the SEO person at the Daily
Mail complained that traffic dropped for a whole 2 days.

Numerous sites are impacted when Google's algorithms change. The Daily Mail is
not popular because of Google, it's popular because it's a low-brow tabloid
and there are many people who love low-brow tabloids.

~~~
Bartweiss
The story is also a clickbait headline from an SEO-discussion website, who
presumably know a thing or two about driving traffic to themselves. Despite
the headline and lede, this isn't a 50% traffic drop for the Daily Mail, it's
a 50% drop in Google search traffic specifically.

Without some more context, like which other sites this hit and what's changed
(ranking drop? fewer search matches?), this is basically a non-story.

------
mabbo
Google's aim in recent changes is to promote quality, reputable content rather
than tabloid, 'fake news'/propaganda and content farms.

If we take a quick look over at DailyMail.co.uk, one can quickly identify
where the problem might be located.

~~~
kofejnik
"reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias

~~~
zimpenfish
Not solely.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-
bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)

> The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily
> Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out
> fabrication”.

I'm surprised it took Google 2 years to get around to the same viewpoint.

~~~
creaghpatr
Trusting Wikipedia as a source here? Pretty ironic. Of course the Guardian (a
competitor) was happy to quote them as a reputable source.

~~~
roywiggins
The editors of an encyclopedia talking about their own rules is literally a
primary source. That's what a primary source _is_.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, surely if there's anyone who knows which sources
are worth using, it would be the editors of the world's biggest encyclopedia?

~~~
creaghpatr
>The editors of an encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a point here, it's a crowdsourced
publication that purports to be a neutral source, despite well documented
conflicts among the editors.

~~~
sam0x17
I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as
the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. Conflict is a
sign of trustworthiness here.

Even a cursory glance at how wikipedia is actually structured vs how early
2000s news media and schools portrayed it will lead you to the conclusion that
it's a significantly better primary source than any other encyclopedia
currently available.

The sort of stuff in wikipedia that traditionally might be slightly biased
(current events, very new political stuff) doesn't even appear in other
encyclopedias until a decade later, so that has to be worth something as well.

The number of eyes actively vetting and checking and re-checking every change
on a moderately trafficked wikipedia page probably dwarfs the total number of
editorial staff for even the largest of encyclopedias. The average accuracy is
just going to be higher in a situation like that, even with people
occasionally defacing pages.

~~~
creaghpatr
>I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as
the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things.

You have got to be kidding me, how can you say that with a straight face?
[https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-
edit-...](https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars)

~~~
sam0x17
The Vox article agrees with me? Better to have dissension and discourse rather
than a bunch of editors from the same camp, whatever camp that may be.

------
camillomiller
I am conflicted. I think that Daily Mail deserves it all. At the same time I
don’t think it should be Google’s duty to limit the reach of a bad publication
by means of algorithmic changes to its opaque Search product.

~~~
daleharvey
You think it should be googles duty to promote bad publications by means of
the algorithm it generated?

~~~
creaghpatr
It should be their duty to be transparent about the matter.

~~~
spookthesunset
And how to you propose this be done?

Google has to order its results somehow. How do you propose they order them?

------
cagenut
nearly all news sites, from infowars to nytimes, are borderline sharecroppers
off the daily flow of traffic from google search. its usually only a fifth to
a third of their traffic, but its their single biggest source usually. the
cornerstone of the business.

daily mail just basically got evicted by the landlord. I'm super curious to
see where they drew the line.

------
kazinator
The Google UI seems to have changed also. No more numbered pages you can
navigate back and forth, just a button to reveal more search results on one
page. So for instance, you can jump straight to the "long tail" of a search
for the less important results; you have to click through umpteen "more
results".

------
tomohawk
Some people so badly want Google to be a source of truth, and not just a
source of information.

Be careful what you wish for...

------
jonatron
How many trackers and other third party scripts are on daily mail pages?

~~~
Lev1a
The last time (~6 months ago) I was on one of their article pages (via direct
link in a new tab, not via their homepage), the uBO icon immediately showed
something like 50 or 60 elements blocked.

That value rose every other second as I scrolled, so yeah...

------
Quarrelsome
Any ideas _why_ it lost so much traffic exactly?

~~~
ptah
it's a pearl-clutching misogynistic and *phobic tabloid. wikipedia doesn't
allow citations from them either

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-
bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)

[https://stopfundinghate.info/2018/02/21/online-
advertisers-d...](https://stopfundinghate.info/2018/02/21/online-advertisers-
daily-mail/)

~~~
dev_dull
Alright sounds good. By the way where do we go to find out whether a
publication is misogynistic and *phobic? We need to make sure we keep the
internet safe!

~~~
hedora
This is one of the more reputable catalogs of hate groups, including internet
publications:

[https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-
files/grou...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups)

They’ve been around much longer than the internet, fwiw.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
You're kidding, right? SPLC is a virtue signal cesspool run by con men that
has been forced to retract multiple smears in the last year alone, including
smearing many "left leaning" journalists as Russian spies and fascists.

[https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-
multip...](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar-
spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment)

------
frou_dh
It's the premier middle-class British pastime to be forever proclaiming how
much you hate the Daily Mail.

A: No, _I_ hate it more.

B: No, _IIII_ really do despise it more.

C: Oh my gawwd, the Daily Mail. Groooan!

~~~
jacknews
The Mirror, Star, Express, etc used to be the 'awful' lower-class newspapers.

Times change. Or perhaps there's some kind of 'class inflation'.

But really, today's Mail is all celeb ad-photorials(tm) and drivel.

~~~
mft_
I always perceived that it was split along class lines (this is the UK, after
all).

The true working-class tabloids were the Sun, Mirror, and Star.

The Mail and the Express seemed to be more for people who were doing a
_little_ better, were often (correspondingly?) a bit older, but were rooted in
right-wing/small island mentality, and who would probably have been
uncomfortable with the image/implications of moving to a broadsheet.

~~~
jacknews
Ah yes, forgot the Sun! But true, the Mail was always targeted at the
'aspiring', 'twitching lace curtains' class.

------
Nursie
Good!

It's a worthless rag full of content designed to get a rise from its
readership, with scant regard for the truth.

------
jacknews
To me that demonstrates the click-baitish nature of the content that this
publication pump out

------
welly
This couldn't happen to a more deserving publication.

~~~
tialaramex
All the web sites that go with British newspapers (and for all I know, other
newspapers in the world, but I live in Britain) have been doing grey-SEO stuff
that's bound to get hit by algorithm changes.

By "grey SEO" here I'm thinking of articles that are intended to get "natural"
traffic as a result of people asking questions, e.g.

"When is the new Avengers movie out?" "Which channel is The Crown on?" "Was
Michael Jackson a Paedophile?" "Who is that girl from Stranger Things?"

An encyclopedia is often the natural result for questions like these, or some
sort of specialist fact database, IMDB for example, or a TV channel's own
listings site. But the newspapers decided they could get some of those clicks.
If some people who were wondering if that's the same girl in Godzilla (yup)
click through and see four adverts and read speculation as to whether Kate
Middleton hates her brother-in-law's new wife (probably not, also who cares?)
that's more profit for the publisher.

Anyway, Google's thing has always been trying to put the answers you wanted at
the top. In defiance of Babbage's oft-cited remark, Google wants to give you
the answer you were looking for even if you ask the wrong question. This may
often mean that a Daily Mail article trying to get you to click through to
more slop about nothing is NOT the best answer when you asked a mundane
question and Google may tweak their algorithm to prefer say, the Netflix video
trailer for this season of Black Mirror, higher than a Daily Mail article
speculating that Charlie Brooker might be gay when users ask it "When is Black
Mirror new series?" even if the Daily Mail team worked really hard setting
metadata tags and fiddling with the layout.

~~~
stordoff
> "When is the new Avengers movie out?" "Which channel is The Crown on?" "Was
> Michael Jackson a Paedophile?" "Who is that girl from Stranger Things?"

What I'm increasingly noticing in the results for these is title:"Avengers
movie release date", body:"No release date has yet been announced for the
Avengers movie" (but not in the search engine snippet).

------
sergiotapia
So is google a publisher or a search engine?

~~~
basch
google is an index of information sorted by what it thinks is most relevant to
the searcher, and always has been. pagerank was a information quality and
importance evaluater. pagerank is what made google google.

I would argue that dailymail fails the SPIRIT of the original pagerank, even
if its heavily linked to, the information they hold is paparazzi stew. They
have every right to choose to derank something so worthless.

~~~
Shivetya
worthless to who?

seriously, who decides what I value? Should I decide for you what is
worthless?

don't dismiss this is as a flippant comment because people with this belief
will walk us straight into the hands of the political class who will jump at
the opportunity to tell us what is and what is not.

You can be damn sure they will use all the marketed tested FUD to have people
climbing aboard. Punch all the right buttons, have the correct statement to
any challenge, and next were back the day of where the message is wholly
managed. We already see regimes which operate this way but many just laugh it
off "THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE", well this is how you get there , by giving
the power to decide to someone else.

~~~
mft_
Google's search is only valuable if it gives us the best results in response
to our keyword. There has and will always be a degree of choice made by
Google's algorithm in this, even for searches for things that have an
objectively right/wrong answer. It has to prioritise somehow.

In this case, if a news site ranks high in metrics that Google's algorithm
considers problematic --sensationalist, click-bait, heavily optimised, not
mobile-friendly, whatever-- wouldn't you prefer it prioritised sites which
didn't hit those metrics?

------
EGreg
Once again the problem is centralization - centralizing the power in the hands
of one corporation with one algorithm because they have all the good software
and hardware.

Facebook - social

Google - search

Amazon - shopping

And so on.

~~~
KirinDave
It's also the case that folks like those that run the Daily Mail have over-
specialized their revenues in ways that depend on Google. They didn't have to
do this, but they chose to.

I doubt it will change, but hopefully it'll be a lesson to other folks in the
business.

~~~
EGreg
This seems a lot like the “personal responsibility” talk from Republicans when
informed that many people are struggling. Well they made their choices!

Hmm, could it be that the system is set up in a certain way that most would
make these choices? And does that benefit society?

If DailyMail had not made those choices but someone else did, then THEY wouls
be the subject of the news.

Unless you are saying that there is absolutely no reason why there is a
monopoly in those areas.

~~~
KirinDave
You seem to believe that these two points of view are mutually exclusive. I
used the word "also" intentionally because I believe they are compatible.

I firmly believe we can and should build non-exclusive non-silo search engine
options. Data salary for general search use is probably a bad thing overall.
I'm excited to see a world where competitors to the major search engines that
are more open exists.

But at the same time, we're not talking about individual consumers. Individual
consumers don't have much market power and dust can't express much choice. The
daily Mail is a massive corporation and a massive publication. They could have
made other choices, and elected to use other business models. They didn't. And
to be honest I don't have much sympathy for them in this. If a single source
of revenue dominates everything else that you do you are not an effective news
organization. You're probably not even effective corporation is a whole, as
most people who run companies Tell you not to overconcentrate your income in
one source.

------
dev_dull
I see a lot of people citing their personal dislike of the site as a reason to
wipe it from polite society. Why? What test did it fail and where is the
evidence? Can you apply that test evenly to other websites?

Am I the only one here that sees these types of moves as a problem and doesn’t
dismiss them purely because of my own personal attitudes toward the content?

~~~
mft_
Well, we don't know why it happened. If it's pure censorship, sure, that's a
bad thing.

But if it's just that Google is updating its algorithm to pay less attention
to sites which are heavily optimised/click-bait/sensationalist... that's not
so bad.

