So, here’s the problem I’m seeing with the current theories on the HCU, says Chrisy.
And anyone can feel free to jump in and correct me –
Every topic has a certain amount of “known” information about it.
And for this example, let’s just say that up until this point, all sites on the Internet typically cover the same “known” information on a topic.
The current algorithm favors well-known sites to deliver this “known” information, apparently because users gravitate toward brands they know and trust more than a small publisher site.
This is why the search results are filled with names like Forbes, New York Times, Times Magazine, etc.- because Google assumes they’re trustworthy and is allowing them to collect the easy marks of “known” information.
So what is a small publisher to do?
I repeatedly hear that for small publishers to rank, we must now offer fresh, unique, or helpful content beyond the “known” information already available.
That without name recognition, we need to be churning out the equivalent of ground-breaking viral information that hasn’t been spoken of in the history of the world yet.
Well, okay.
Let’s say I do just that.
And I manange to outrank Forbes, the New York Times, and Times Magazine.
What are those big brands going to do about that?
They are going to edit their article with my new ground-breaking viral information, just like every other site will that covers this topic.
Because that’s why so many sites currently have all the same “known” information – it’s just what happens on the web.
The minute you publish something unique, someone is going to take it and duplicate it.
Many someones.
Thousands of someones.
So now there are 1000s of sites featuring my ground-breaking viral information, effectively changing it from something special to something “known.” And worse yet, AI has scraped my site, so now someone can use a Chatbot and get my once ground-breaking viral information from a prompt without ever knowing I had anything to do with it.
After all this, my site has lost its rankings again.
Forbes, the New York Times, and Times Magazine are in a featured snippet for my once ground-breaking viral information because they are most trusted for the “known” information.
So what am I supposed to do now?
Put more time and effort into creating something else that’s amazingly unique just so it can be stolen by sites with higher authority than me, resulting in more $$ for them?
Does this not sound like just another richer-get-richer system?
The thing that has ALWAYS made the internet an amazing place is that you COULD have a seat at the table with these big players.
Glass ceilings didn’t exist; the only hurdle that existed was your own limitations of talent, effort, and commitment.
But if the above is at all true about how the HCU works, the best we can hope for is a 1-hour visitor’s pass to the table – if we’re even let into the building at all.
And the price of that pass is HIGH.
Truly unique content on a known topic is NOT as easy to create as some of the comments being thrown around suggest it is.
For some topics, that’s like asking them to find a new letter in the alphabet.
It’s like the internet is finally going old-school boy’s club corporate.
Or, at least, that Google is using its power to try to make it that way.
With what we’re seeing in search and what we’re being told to do to fix it, I struggle to see how this plays out in any other way.