Google's March 2019 Base Update – Losses and Findings

March 15, 2019

Google has again launched a "Central Update" with major changes to the server. According to my observations, it began Wednesday, March 13, 2019, others assume that it has been operating since the beginning of March. Even if you can not know for sure if it's done – I guess the timing only refers to keywords / domains. What happens after the update will stay that way. I think that some kind of "Google Dance" with leaps tables that jump days is unrealistic. My pages have (almost) all massively lost – so I have at least to slaughter the loss in a blog post: -)

What is the amount of the loss?

I manually check every day the most important keywords – it's me noticed the update very early. Many tools will not really scale before the next few days or weeks. But anyone who has his Analytics or Adsense numbers in mind will notice it in case of a change. For me, this is …

  • on almost all areas
  • about 60-70 traffic loss (total on all areas)
  • approx. Loss of income of 50 to 60%

What are the areas involved

Here are some examples (if you want to write on the subject, you can analyze the examples and make the figures public from the tools.) This is about what to learn: -))

In short: virtually everything I've written together in the last 10 years.

The only exception : the homepage of my artist https: //www.martin-missfeldt. – after all! This should be a clue …

Here is some of the drama in image form (Sistrix Toolbox screens):

  Visibility losses - for today: -)
Losses of visibility – for today: -) [19659015] All those who think that these are only SI numbers – in reality, it is not so serious. Here is a look in my Adsense account (of course, I can not call the real numbers, but based on the traffic figures, it will probably be already clear:

<img src = "https : //www.tagseoblog.de/images23/google-update-verluste-adsense.png "alt =" Revenue Losses with Google Update (Adsense) [19659014] Revenue Losses from Google Update (Adsense)

What's behind the basic update of March 2019?

The name " from March 2019 Basic Update " comes from Google itself (see Danny's Tweet Sullivan ) According to Danny, it's " third major update " – (see article on Barry Schwarz) .The other two were probably the "Phantom Update" "and the" Medic Update [Dernière mise à jour]

During the ghost update, some of my pages had lost a lot of time – and had gained a lot in the update of Medic, I'm coming back now to the losers, of course, the root cause research is back. [19659011] In my opinion – and many others – Phantom Update was about "Intention of the user" – so what do users expect to get a result?
This also affected the type of site and the preparation. It was not the weighting of individual pages, but Google Serps itself.

The Medic Update was probably about trust. What are users expecting from certain keywords regarding the reliability of a website or an author? As there are some topics for which this confidence bonus is particularly relevant, it has touched many sites in the health sector.

Here is the simplified graph that I created for the Medic update:

 ] Google Medic Update Infographic
Google Medic Update: move the factor "trust" to the heart, so this is a question of research intent

: "Update of March 2019". I have three theses which are of course too short – but when many ideas come together, maybe the right thing will be revealed in the end. Perhaps it is also a mixture of the two …

Thesis 1: Expert Status

There was the status of author on which rested the reliability of 'a page. In the Medic Update, I was granted expert status and my pages greatly benefited.

The status of this update has been strengthened. This would be a "development" of the Medic update. In that case, I would have (as a person and author) lost that "expert status" – for whatever reason. As a result, my pages would no longer be reliable and would be pushed back in the ranking.

Plausible, I think. This coincides with my observations. This would have nothing to do with the content, the profile of the link or other relevant criteria for the page.

On the other hand, it is only said that an "expert status" is of course difficult to measure and, in many cases, can hardly refer to individual persons. Fundamental criterion that can change so much, I find it unlikely

Thesis 2: Networks of Content and Links

The other thesis comes from a completely different angle, rather from a SEO theme. I manage a lot of domains because I think the domain name is an important click argument. So I try to focus my content. But of course there are a lot of connections – especially if you – like me – are working on topics to create new images and graphics.

Of course, I linked these areas one to the other where it makes sense. Not for Google, but for those who use it (the most often clicked external links usually come from my own pages). However, this also implies that Google can be a thorn in the side.

The potentials have now been interpreted and sanctioned as " Content Networks " as " Link Networks ." 19659011] If all the links that I had almost myself were invalidated, a decline in the areas – as observed – would be quite conceivable. Of course, there are still a lot of links, but the total amount would have gone down.

I think it's still unlikely because the links are not something "bad" in themselves.

Thesis 3: The Whole Domain

The following scenario is also conceivable: the "confidence bonus" mentioned above – which I consider to be an important feature of "Google The Core" does not exist. is not measured by an expert, but by " Total Volume " of the proposed content. In other words, a page covering virtually all subtopics (such as Wikipedia or some other portals) earns a confidence bonus ("mass expert status"). This no longer refers to the content of individual pages, but to an evaluation of the entire domain.

In other words: the more mass there is, the better he is and the more he is trustworthy.

It must be shown if this is true in the analysis of the winners. For me, that would be true, because many of my domains have only 200 to 400 subpages. The range of subjects was therefore quite small and limited.

If the mass became a criterion of quality, it would surely have fatal consequences. Therefore, I think it is unlikely – but perhaps the mass of sub-pages is a constituent part of the assessment of reliability.

Conclusion: We must continue …

As always, when Google publishes such updates with profound changes in the readers, there are winners and losers. Of course, it must continue. But: everything shows again that you can not rely on Google (-Traffic) .

Especially if you only have guide pages like me – with the agreement: free, publicly, in exchange, there are banner ads – so it's amazing. I will therefore reduce my commitment to consulting sites and think more about the transformation of into a real "product"

Google, basic update of March 2019 [19659047] Read more?

Nico Sacotte has already blazed at Dynapso About: Codename CORE3: New Google Core Update March 2019

Sistrix has his database interviewed and winners and losers determined: the first update of the main algorithm of the year is here