Open letter to Google reveals challenges faced by Small Publishers post-updates

A small publisher specializing in online dating reviews this week released an open letter addressed to Google, shedding light on the challenges faced by niche content creators in the wake of recent algorithm updates. The letter, penned by the Healthy Framework team, details their experiences with Google's Helpful Content Update (HCU) and subsequent core updates, offering insights into the struggles of small publishers in maintaining visibility and traffic in an evolving search landscape.

The open letter begins by acknowledging the rollercoaster ride that many publishers have experienced since the introduction of the Helpful Content Update. While some small publishers saw glimmers of hope with recent core updates, the Healthy Framework team found themselves among those left behind. The letter aims to provide a different perspective on the situation, exploring various aspects of the current search ecosystem and its impact on niche content creators.

Healthy Framework, a website dedicated to writing about and reviewing dating apps, has been operating in the online dating industry for over seven years. The team describes their passion for the subject matter and their genuine desire to help people find joy in their search for love. However, their journey took a dramatic turn in September 2023 when the first HCU update was rolled out.

The impact of the update was severe for Healthy Framework. The team reports that they took an initial hit with the first HCU update, followed by a "slow death by a million cuts" that culminated in their traffic essentially dropping to zero with the September 2023 HCU update. This drastic reduction in visibility has had significant consequences for the business, forcing them to let go of most of their team members and make substantial life changes to cope with the financial impact.

The open letter delves into several key areas of concern for small publishers, offering insights into the challenges they face in the current search landscape. These topics include:

The prevalence of review aggregating sites in search results

One of the primary issues highlighted in the letter is the dominance of review aggregating sites like Trustpilot and Consumer Affairs in search results for product and service reviews. The Healthy Framework team argues that while these sites may seem like reliable sources of user reviews, they often present a skewed perspective.

According to the letter, the majority of people who take the time to write reviews on these aggregator sites are those who had terrible experiences. As a result, looking up almost any company on these platforms tends to yield overwhelmingly negative results. To illustrate this point, the team provides examples of Trustpilot scores for ten of the largest dating apps, showing consistently low ratings across the board.

For instance, on Trustpilot, the dating app Tinder received a score of 1.4 out of 5, while Bumble scored 1.3, and OkCupid 1.2. Even Plenty of Fish, which received a relatively higher score of 3.3, is questioned by the team as potentially being manipulated, given the app's recent changes in ownership and functionality.

The letter argues that this prevalence of negative reviews on aggregator sites may not provide an accurate representation of user experiences, potentially misleading searchers looking for balanced information about products or services.

The challenge of brand awareness for niche publishers

Another significant issue raised in the open letter is the difficulty small, niche publishers face in building brand awareness. The team references an analysis by Tom Capper, a Senior Search Scientist at Moz, which suggests that having strong brand awareness was a key trait among sites that recovered from recent algorithm updates.

While this correlation makes sense from a trust perspective, the Healthy Framework team argues that it presents a unique challenge for small publishers in niche industries. They point out that for many product or service categories, such as toasters or dating apps, consumers are unlikely to have a favorite review team or to remember the name of the site that provided a helpful review.

The letter states, "You don't buy a new toaster or join a new dating app every month. Why on earth would you have a favorite review team in these spaces?" This infrequency of use means that even if a review site provides excellent recommendations, users are unlikely to return frequently or to build a strong brand association with the site.

Furthermore, the team argues that if a review site is doing its job well by providing accurate and helpful recommendations, users may not need to return for a long time, if ever. This dynamic makes it challenging for small publishers to build the kind of brand awareness that seems to be favored by recent algorithm updates.

The impact of returning visitor metrics on rankings

The open letter also touches on the potential use of metrics such as "returning visitor percentage" as ranking factors. The Healthy Framework team expresses concern that if such metrics are indeed used to determine site quality, niche publishers like themselves may be at a significant disadvantage.

According to the letter, the nature of their content means that most visitors get what they need from a single visit and don't return, at least not for a long time. The team shares a graph of their returning visitor percentage, describing it as resembling "a right angle." They argue that this low rate of return visits is not necessarily an indicator of poor quality content, but rather a reflection of successfully meeting user needs in a single interaction.

The letter poses the question: "If you come to us looking for a dating app recommendation and we give you a great one...or if you come looking for some guidance on how to address an issue you're dealing with and we give you sound counsel...why would you need to come back?"

This situation creates a dilemma for niche publishers. If returning visitor rates are indeed a ranking factor, it could incentivize sites to provide less comprehensive information in order to encourage repeat visits, potentially at the expense of user experience.

The credibility of reviews from brands within the industry

The open letter also addresses the issue of brands within an industry writing reviews about their competitors or the industry at large. The team argues that while Google may consider these brands to be authoritative sources, their reviews may not always be unbiased or comprehensive.

To illustrate this point, the letter provides an example from the matchmaking industry. The team analyzed several reviews written by a matchmaking service called Tawkify about their competitors. In each case, regardless of the competitor being reviewed, the "takeaway" section at the end of the review recommended Tawkify's own services.

This example highlights the potential conflict of interest that can arise when brands review their competitors or provide industry overviews. While these brands may indeed have deep knowledge of their industry, their reviews may be biased towards their own products or services.

The dominance of large publishers across diverse topics

Another concern raised in the open letter is the tendency for large, well-known publishers to rank highly for a wide range of topics, even those outside their primary areas of expertise. The team uses Forbes as an example, noting that it frequently appears as the top result for reviews of various products and services, including dating apps.

According to the letter, while these reviews from large publishers may appear comprehensive at first glance, they often lack the depth and firsthand experience that niche publishers can provide. The team contrasts a Forbes review of a dating app with their own, highlighting the difference in detail, personal testing, and industry-specific insights.

The letter argues that this situation creates a challenge for small, specialized publishers who may have deeper expertise in specific areas but lack the overall domain authority of large, general interest publications.

The complexities of affiliate relationships for niche publishers

The open letter also touches on the challenges that niche publishers face regarding affiliate relationships and how these might be perceived by search algorithms. The team acknowledges that there are indeed unethical practices in the affiliate marketing world, such as ranking products based solely on commission rates rather than quality.

However, they argue that for many niche publishers, affiliate relationships are a natural outcome of providing valuable recommendations, rather than the driving force behind those recommendations. The letter poses a hypothetical scenario: "Let's say you recommend that mainstream dating app to farmers because it's the right answer. A while later you find that the mainstream app will pay you some money if you refer people to them. Because you're not a moron, you accept the free money and get paid for a recommendation you're already making."

The team expresses concern that algorithms might not be able to distinguish between sites that let affiliate relationships drive their recommendations and those that develop affiliate relationships as a result of their honest recommendations. This situation could potentially penalize niche publishers who are providing valuable content and recommendations, simply because they also have affiliate relationships with some of the products or services they review.

The challenge of providing niche recommendations

The open letter also highlights the complexities of providing recommendations in niche areas, using the example of dating apps for farmers. The team explains that while there are dating apps specifically targeted at farmers, these niche apps often lack the user base and features to be truly effective.

In such cases, the best recommendation might actually be a mainstream dating app with good search filters and a large enough user base to include rural members. However, this creates a dilemma for niche publishers. If they consistently recommend the same mainstream app for multiple niche categories (because it truly is the best option in each case), they risk appearing as though they're promoting a single product across the board, potentially triggering spam detection algorithms.

This situation puts niche publishers in a difficult position. They must choose between providing what they believe to be the best recommendation (even if it's the same across multiple categories) and diversifying their recommendations to avoid appearing spammy, potentially at the expense of providing the most helpful information to their readers.

The impact on the diversity of online content

Throughout the open letter, there's an underlying concern about the long-term impact of these challenges on the diversity and depth of online content. The team expresses worry that as small, niche publishers struggle to maintain visibility and traffic, many may be forced to shut down.

They argue that this could lead to a less diverse online ecosystem, where in-depth, specialized content is replaced by more general overviews from large publishers or AI-generated content. The letter suggests that while this might solve some problems in the short term, it could ultimately lead to a reduction in the quality and depth of information available online, particularly for niche topics.

The open letter concludes with an acknowledgment of the challenges Google faces in maintaining search quality while combating attempts to game the system. However, the team urges Google to consider the unintended consequences of their algorithms on small, niche publishers who are producing valuable content.

They express concern that if the current trends continue, many passionate experts in less-popular topics will vanish from the online landscape, leaving a void that may be difficult to fill. The team suggests that at some point, Google may realize that what they're serving for reviews and specialized content "is not great," but by then, the experts may be gone.

Google's response to the challenges faced by small publishers

Google's response to the challenges faced by small publishers has been multifaceted. The August 2024 core update, which concluded on September 3, 2024, after a 19-day rollout, was partly aimed at addressing these issues. Danny Sullivan, Google's Search Liaison, acknowledged that some high-quality sites from smaller, independent publishers may have been negatively affected by previous updates. He stated that Google has been working to improve its systems to better reward valuable content from these publishers. Sullivan emphasized that Google has made changes specifically aimed at helping "smaller independent sites" and indicated that further improvements in this area are expected with future updates. Additionally, Google implemented a feedback form following the March 2024 core update, which received over 12,000 individual submissions from 1,300 unique domains. This feedback has been instrumental in helping Google understand the challenges faced by content creators and website owners, particularly those running smaller, independent sites. Sullivan personally reviewed all the submissions and described the feedback as "really, really helpful" in providing insights into the diverse world of content creators.

Key points from the open letter

The Healthy Framework team, specialists in online dating reviews, saw their traffic drop to near zero following Google's Helpful Content Update.

Review aggregator sites like Trustpilot often present overly negative views due to self-selection bias in reviewers.

Niche publishers struggle to build brand awareness, a factor that seems to be favored in recent algorithm updates.

Low returning visitor rates, common for niche content, may be unfairly penalizing helpful sites.

Reviews from brands within an industry may not always provide unbiased information.

Large, general-interest publishers often outrank niche experts across a wide range of topics.

Affiliate relationships, even when ethical, may be causing issues for niche publishers in search rankings.

Providing consistent recommendations across niche categories can be misinterpreted as spam.

There's concern about the long-term impact on the diversity and depth of online content if small, niche publishers continue to struggle.

The letter calls for Google to consider the unintended consequences of their algorithms on valuable niche content.