Google Search Essentials Replaces The Google Webmaster Guidelines

Google has replaced the Google Webmaster Guidelines with the Google Search Essentials. The name change is Google’s ongoing efforts to remove the term “webmaster” so that these tools and documentation do not narrow the focus to just “webmasters,” but expands it to publishers, site owners, developers, creators, and so on.

Before I even started blogging (which was in 2003), Google launched the Google Webmaster Guidelines back in 2002 – yes, two decades ago. The name stuck for 20 years but now Google decided it was time to change the name and refresh the guidelines in a very big way.

What changed

Google changed more than just the name, Google also changed the overall format, added clearer terms and examples and also tried to simplify them for easier consumption. Google explained they updated the:

• Technical requirements: It is a new section to help people understand how to publish content in a format that Google can index and access.
• Spam policies: Google updated its guidance for its policies against spam, to help site owners avoid creating content that isn’t helpful for people using Google Search. Google explained that most of the content in these spam policies has already existed on Google Search Central in the “Quality Guidelines”, Google did make a few additions to provide clearer guidance and concrete examples for issues like deceptive behavior, link spam, online harassment, and scam and fraud.
• Key best practices: Google published new guidance with key best practices that people can consider when creating sites, to create content that serves people and will help a site be more easily found through Google Search.

The new spam section has content on:

• New deceptive behavior related topics such as misleading functionality
• New section on other behaviors that can lead to demotion and or removal, such as online harassment, and scam and fraud
• Consolidated topics related to link spam and thin content

Drilling in, here is the list of changes from Google:

SEO Community Diving In

Here are some of the observations made from the SEO community on the changes here, mostly from Marie Haynes and Glenn Gabe:

Under technical requirements:
“There are actually very few technical things you need to do to a web page; most sites pass the technical requirements without even realizing it.” pic.twitter.com/toF3W6cBxm

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

Nice that Google added “Spammy” to autogenerated content. It used to just say “autogenerated content intended to manipulate search rankings. Again, this is a tough area for Google with AI writing software on the move. 🙂 pic.twitter.com/YppvHrEg0i

— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) October 13, 2022

Spam policies can lead to an entire site being ranked lower or completely omitted from Google search. pic.twitter.com/ud80KOAfRh

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

Google also included “Thin” in the guideline for affiliate pages. They did have “thin” in the description in the past, but I think it’s a good idea they added “thin” in the specific guideline title. Avoids confusion with affiliate content vs. thin affiliate content. pic.twitter.com/aWGdMCQH2Y

— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) October 13, 2022

Also, “Misleading functionality” is new. “Site owners intend to manipulate search ranking by intentionally creating sites w/misleading functionality & services that trick users into thinking they would be able to access some content or services but in reality can not.” pic.twitter.com/h6yPyUxosM

— Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) October 13, 2022

The first key best practice is to create helpful, reliable people first content.https://t.co/F8Xnaclkzs

Looks like this document is the former core update questions questions plus more😍 pic.twitter.com/kJc9pLrZDO

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

They added new questions
-do you have an existing audience?🤔
-does your content clearly demonstrate expertise? pic.twitter.com/k14KiKxNZF

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

Does your site have a primary focus?

Does content fulfill searcher’s goal?

Will the reader leave feeling satisfied? pic.twitter.com/9ceRXni5Dp

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

And more questions to ensure we’re not creating content just for search engines.

These look like they are the helpful content update questions. pic.twitter.com/yYRKw5Cmcv

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

Do not worry. Google doesn’t hate SEO. pic.twitter.com/EYn2NTmsJh

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

“our systems give even more weight to content that aligns with strong EAT for topics that could significantly impact the health, financial stability, or safety of people, or the welfare or well-being of society.”

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

There are more key best practices

Use words ppl would use.
Place them in prominent places.

Make links crawlable.

Tell people about your site, like in forums related to your topic. pic.twitter.com/pdwKGxI8h3

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

And lastly
Follow best practices for images, videos, structured data and JavaScript
There’s a lot more under “how your site appears” as well. pic.twitter.com/YqS4U2rraJ

— dr Marie Haynes🐼 (@Marie_Haynes) October 13, 2022

That nothing’s changed. pic.twitter.com/cqBl7IYvM6

— Rohan Ayyar (@searchrook) October 13, 2022

Relevant new section about what G considers spam:

“A site that claims to provide certain functionality (for example, PDF merge, countdown timer, online dictionary service), but intentionally leads users to deceptive ads rather than providing the claimed services”

— Lily Ray 😏 (@lilyraynyc) October 13, 2022

it’s essential you look at this 👀 https://t.co/l1r31o38Ix

— Lizzi (@okaylizzi) October 13, 2022

An update on Google’s Webmaster Guidelines…

… they’re now called Search Essentials, and split into technical requirements, spam policies, and key best practices. The content is largely the same as before. Check them out, & update your links :-). https://t.co/gOTnj7QvC0

— ⛰ johnmu is not a cat ⛰ (@JohnMu) October 13, 2022

It wouldn’t be a bad thing, but regardless, pretty much nobody in the corporate world calls themselves a “webmaster” anymore. It’s outdated terminology. https://t.co/6hSMsNSm7v

— ⛰ johnmu is not a cat ⛰ (@JohnMu) October 13, 2022

Yeah, some of those have a lot of historical significance, I think “webmaster” never really got there, people moved on fairly quickly. (That said, even things of historical significance can be improved – just because something’s old doesn’t mean it’s still appropriate today)

— ⛰ johnmu is not a cat ⛰ (@JohnMu) October 13, 2022

How does that contradict that?

— ⛰ johnmu is not a cat ⛰ (@JohnMu) October 14, 2022

(and first good morning, and the statement that you are not a cat must be true, as you are an early bird 😀)

— Ruediger Dalchow (@RuedigerDalchow) October 14, 2022

thanks that clarfies it for me. 🙂 Never really understood why to waste time on chasing low-quality links anyway.

— Ruediger Dalchow (@RuedigerDalchow) October 14, 2022

Forum discussion at Twitter.