I hate to say this, but my team of over 30 SEO specialists and I have just analyzed several examples of websites claiming to have super helpful content, yet were unfairly penalized by the HCU update, says Lily Ray.
What’s the consensus?
The majority of the content on these sites turned out to be… pretty unhelpful.
Remember, Google evaluated site-wide patterns with this update, not individual articles.
I’m not saying this situation applies to every site, but it’s crucial to remember that just because you believe your content is helpful doesn’t mean the majority of your readers agree.
I recently read an article about traveling to Barcelona and the best sights to see there?
Yawn.
Having been to Barcelona many times, I completely disagree with the author’s examples.
I found them overly generic, lacking any real indication that the author recently visited those places, how crowded they are, how terrible the queues can be, etc.
To me, THAT’s helpful content.
We examined product review examples where the content was indeed written by people, but aside from stating “I tested this,” it lacked any actual firsthand guidance, original ideas, personal anecdotes, or genuine experience or advice beyond what’s available on other review sites.
I see so much complaining from people saying “but my content is helpful,” says Jay Ratkowski.
It’s either a lack of honesty or people have blinders on.
I always pose some variation of these questions:
- What unique information can someone get from you that they can’t find elsewhere (including directly from Google, without clicking)?
- Why is it worth someone’s time to get that information specifically from you?
- Can you objectively say that you clearly communicate the answers to questions 1 & 2 through your webpage?
Most people can’t honestly get past question 1.
Let’s talk about “content”, shall we?
We’ve been living in a world for a solid decade where there are no barriers to creating things online.
And it’s evident.
It’s not just evident in the output, but also in our standards for evaluating our own output.
For example, some SEO person will vehemently defend the quality of their article on how to install a toilet because they believe it’s just as good as the Wikihow article.
Well, for starters, any plumber will tell you not to rely on Wikihow for advice on installing a toilet, partly because it only covers the most ideal circumstances.
Anyone who has worked on their own home knows it’s never ideal.
So, we’re in a world where, yes, many giant sites thrive despite having endless pages of junk.
And yes, many of these sites have been immune to Google’s updates.
I’d argue they remain immune because of the strength of their brand.
People know Wikihow (or Forbes, or Reddit, etc.). They don’t know your local plumbing company’s blog.
And people have internalized the belief that they’ll mostly get accurate answers from Wikihow.
You can’t come in and say “we’re going to be as good as this site that we think is bad AND we don’t have any of the brand caché they have.” and expect to succeed.
But here we are.
Maybe that means you don’t write 30 blogs a month.
Heck, maybe you shouldn’t write ONE blog every month.
The internet would be a better place if you made fewer pages.
If you’re going to write something, write something that matters.
Or write something that entertains.
Or offer an honest perspective.
Just stop churning out the same mediocre content as everyone else and patting yourself on the back for it.
