At the beginning of 2024, we said Google was killing independent sites with its bias towards established media outlets, even in cases where these trusted publications were publishing crap AI content.
Three months later, we shared how Google’s March 2024 algorithm update had finished the job by taking away 90% of search traffic to HouseFresh, with spammed Reddit threads and old Quora posts drowning our pages in search results.
In August 2024, Google rolled out another update to its algorithm that benefited some independent web publishers like HouseFresh while nuking countless others out of Googlexistence.
This is the trade-off with every algorithm update: Some sites win while other sites lose. On the surface, you might think there is a balance in this trade-off. Unfortunately, the balance has been broken by the sea of bad actors taking advantage of the fact that Google’s algorithm is reaching peak enshittification.
It has become clear that a large percentage of those consistently winning in Google Search are doing so through a mix of brand popularity signals, vast amounts of content and various forms of spammy and deceitful practices.
The dichotomy between Google’s spam policies and Google’s search results intensified.
Within a few weeks of publishing our second article, we attended an hour-long video call with Google, in which we shared our process for creating content by and for humans. Google Search engineers asked us the following question(s):
“What advice would you give to a user who is looking for reviews to distinguish between high- and low-quality content? How can a user tell if the reviewer actually tested the products, compared with other products, or if they are just trying to push users to buy bad sponsored products?”
You trust Google to show you good information, but Google doesn’t know the difference between good and bad information because algorithms and AI are pattern-seeking, probability-calculating machines that don’t actually know anything.
However, it is easy for people like us to spot bad information because we know our stuff. That is why we collaborated with other independent web publishers to answer this question clearly and loudly.
ERideHero + That Fit Friend + The Shortcut + Ready Steady Cut + Healthy Framework + Mountain Weekly News + Going Awesome Places + GIANT FREAKIN ROBOT + Retro Dodo + WalletHub + Housewife How-Tos + TestCoches + Yellow Chili’s
There is a lot of money to be made at a time when Google’s algorithm opts for the ‘goog enough’ approach. So, today we will expose the cookie-cutter methods followed by many of those who are winning in Search to fool the most widely used search engine in the world.
Read on for seven actionable tips to help you find helpful content in a sea of made-for-Google bullshit.
Tip 1. Pay attention to the images used throughout the article
Just one look at the featured image sitting at the top of the page can show you a lot.
Let’s start with an obvious one that will take you just a few seconds to assess. This is a red flag that was highlighted by nearly everyone who helped us with this article.
Beware of images provided by manufacturers as part of marketing materials:
Whenever you find a featured image like the ones above, go into the article with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Upon inspecting the rest of the product images further, you might realize that they are all taken directly from retailer listings or the manufacturer’s website:
As a rule of thumb, be skeptical of articles that have no original imagery/videos or that only show you product photos you can already see on Google shopping results or Amazon listings:
Always look for multiple original images, videos and/or GIFs of the product recommended to ensure that at least someone somewhere spent a meaningful amount of time with the thing they are telling you to buy.
The same can be said for the choice of stock imagery over original footage, especially in articles that are supposed to reflect the writer’s experience with a place, a program or an object.
At a time when Google’s algorithm decided to disappear entire websites, original photographs are being stolen and reused throughout the web.
The team at Yellow Chili’s shared with us an outrageous example of how one of the photos they used as part of their incredibly thorough recipes has been stolen and is currently being hosted on over 30+ sites.
You can see the image here, both on Yellow Chili’s website and their YouTube channel:
However, a quick search inside Google Images doesn’t bring up their website as the original source of this photo. Instead, Google lists all the sites that have stolen the image and presented it as their own:
This is happening to impacted web publishers across travel, food, lifestyle, tech and many other industries. When your website is nowhere to be found, everything you have created is up for grabs, with bad actors having zero shame in stealing your content and outranking you with it.
Tip 2. Find out more about the people behind the articles
They will throw many names at you—don’t take the word ‘expert’ for granted.
If you pay attention to the authors section of the vast majority of pages ranking at the top of Google, you will notice that there are always multiple people involved:
You will usually find the same mix of people: a staff editor (usually a shopping editor) or an in-house fact-checker, a freelance writer and an expert (with a PhD, MA or MD).
In our opinion, this myriad of names covers up the fact that the bulk of the article was written by a freelance writer who is most definitely not an expert in the product or topic at hand.
But let’s go through an example to show you what we mean.
Here is one of the many articles on Forbes about air purifiers—you can see there are two names: one contributor (a writer) and someone who reviewed the article (an editor):
When clicking on the name of the writer, you will be able to see all the articles this person published on Forbes:
This one writer alone has written 19 articles for Forbes in 2024, recommending the best products across 11 very different categories ranging from electric toothbrushes to cordless drills.
Freelance writers can be incredible at what they do, but how likely is it that this one person is actually testing all these things before telling you to buy them?
And it doesn’t end there.
A quick search surfaced other active author profiles belonging to the same writer across many other big media sites currently pumping out this type of content. Here are two of them:
This freelance writer also recommends the best litter boxes, Hyundai cars, concrete paints, smoke detectors, ceiling fans, joint supplements for dogs, range hoods, top-load washers, solar pool covers, garage heaters… The list goes on.
We want to be clear here that we don’t blame this or any other writer for pumping out ‘best’ pages across every possible product category. It has not been an easy few years for writers—fuck you very much, generative AI.
You might be thinking, “Well, who cares? Didn’t you say there was an expert who reviewed the content anyway?”
And you would be correct, as there is usually an expert:
When clicking on the expert’s name, you will also be able to see the wide variety of articles the expert reviewed and approved.
This one expert, for example, gave their seal of approval to recommendations across different products, from vacuums to anti-itch creams:
We reached out to two experts on different subjects quoted by different media outlets, and in both cases, they were only asked to review or contribute to the FAQ section of the articles.
This makes headlines like the one below incredibly misleading:
When we contacted the air quality expert in question, he clarified that he hadn’t specified air purifiers that would be the best for pets:
Moreover, one of the experts explained that they are still being quoted as the expert for an article that has been completely rewritten multiple times since they originally reviewed it two years ago.
Our tip? Go deeper to find out whose advice you’re taking.
Click on the names and have a critical look at their past articles—does this person strike you as someone who dedicates enough time to the topic at hand to truly know what good looks like?
Ideally, the writer and the expert will be the same person. You want your information straight from the horse’s mouth.
Tip 3. Don’t be fooled by purely anecdotal evidence
This point is especially important when looking for (helpful) reviews that go beyond marketing materials or first impressions after 24 hours of ‘testing’ a product.
One quick way to spot a potentially unhelpful review or recommendation is to look for loose testing methodologies or the use of anecdotes over data.
Pay attention to the ‘How we test’ section of the article. Are they clearly outlining a repeatable and specific testing methodology? Or are they saying things like these?
Do you get the sense that they spent time truly testing the products to assess their value and quality? Or are they just using the word ‘test’ as a synonym of ‘handpick’?
The ‘How we test’ or ‘How we chose…’ section can also reveal clear inconsistencies or glaring errors that unveil the cookie-cutter approach behind the content:
As a reader, you might not have the background knowledge necessary to know whether or not the writer is just regurgitating marketing materials to sell you something. However, you can scan for the use of anecdotes as a way to support their reasoning as to why you should spend your hard-earned money on a product:
The next time you read one of these regurgitated advertorials dressed up as product reviews, you will quickly spot the abundance of anecdotal evidence peppered with spec details provided by the company behind the product:
We are sure these personal stories help convert readers into buyers, but be wary, as anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in most cases. In fact, sometimes these writers put more emphasis on the story than the actual research.
This point is especially true when you are looking for information to help you gauge the quality of expensive or potentially dangerous products.
In the quest to sell you, both of these publications fail to clarify that this electric scooter doesn’t have a mechanical brake:
If you experience electronic failure when riding a scooter with a regen brake downhill, you’re literally riding a death trap. Someone who actually knows about scooters (and who cares about the readers) will be quick to tell you that:
Tip 4. Look for first-hand data, product comparisons, low-cost options and products from specialist brands
A reviewer who actually knows the product they are writing about can’t help but compare different options or use hard numbers to discuss quality and value for money.
You probably noticed that many of the articles recommending you products include the words ‘Tested and Reviewed’ in the titles.
As we highlighted in a previous article, a common practice is to prominently mention ‘reviewed’ and ‘tested’ throughout the article without ever sharing first-hand data or insights.
This goes hand in hand with the use of anecdotal evidence we mentioned above and leads to very thin reasonings behind why you should choose the product they sell over the rest:
Many made-for-Google pages will include lots of numbers and specifications. These are sometimes presented as findings or listed as the bulk of the data to show how good a product is.
This might require extra digging, but it’s worth checking if these are all readily available elsewhere before blindly believing they are a result of actual testing.
Now, the thing with testing and hard data is that it allows us product reviewers to compare and contrast. That is why these figures in isolation don’t mean much to us most of the time.
A helpful product review or list of recommendations will make a point of comparing products so you can make the best choice for your specific needs:
Another thing you should watch out for is the overwhelming presence of popular brands over specialist, independent brands—and the fact that most products on the page are on the expensive side.
Tip 5. Watch out for thin, generic information without a point of view
Your typical made-for-Google page will be 90% regurgitation and 10% SEO pattern making. Learn how to spot this approach.
The web has always been home to spammy pages and deceptive behaviors, but things took a turn for the worse at the end of 2022 when ChatGPT was released. Content scrapers and article spinners are nothing new, but they have all been supercharged by AI.
As a result, many tools have been launched with the purpose of quickly populating pages with ‘content’ that is regurgitated and spun as needed with the help of magic AI. This allowed companies like Forbes Marketplace to quickly produce and publish vast amounts of thin pages packed with generic information about any topic you can think of, including dating apps.
I’m sure that, at this point in the article, you will be able to recognize the differences between the Healthy Framework review of eHarmony and the review published by Forbes. At a glance, you will quickly spot the lack of original images. But let’s go deeper.
Thin, regurgitated reviews will find ways to frame marketing materials as ‘findings,’ and you can see through this by looking for mentions or variations of [Company] + claims or [Company] + states or According to [Company]—you get the gist.
In contrast, real (and helpful) reviews will be packed with actual statements from the writer and clear indications of first-hand research or testing being conducted.
Reading through the Forbes review of eHarmony, you should also be able to spot another clear indicator of a thin, made-for-Google review: the obvious sales-y marketing spiel full of slogans disguised as facts that push you to buy, download, join, watch, subscribe, etc.
Another thing you should watch out for is the absence of a clear point of view.
When a real person who cares and knows about a topic writes about it, they can’t help but have an opinion. When you have visited many countries, cooked many recipes, watched many horror movies, cleaned many stains or tested many air purifiers, you will bring that wealth of knowledge with you every time you sit down to write a new article.
Unfortunately, AI slop creators and big media content farms ranking at the top of Google Search results have trained us to ignore this lack of depth and humanity. But you will quickly see what we mean once we walk you through the next example.
Below, you will find two reviews of a Netflix horror series:
You might struggle to spot the thin, made-for-Google review at a glance, but it all becomes a lot clearer once you start reading.
Now, when reading a review of a movie, a book or a TV show, you want to avoid spoilers while figuring out if you should spend your precious downtime reading or watching the thing. This is where the experience, opinion and ability of the writer are crucial, as they need to be able to describe what’s good and bad without giving too much away.
In the introduction to this Netflix series review, the team at Ready Steady Cut gives you context on what the show is all about while clearly setting expectations before you decide to watch it:
Compare that with the review published by sports publication Sportskeeda, which for w̶h̶a̶t̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ made-for-Google reason, is now apparently reviewing Netflix horror shows:
The introduction of Sportskeeda’s review is chock full of repetition, with the same information being rewritten multiple times. The only potentially insightful element of this intro has been taken word by word from IMDb—and even then, you will see it’s just a 27-word synopsis that won’t really help you assess whether this horror anthology is worth your time.
That is exactly what we mean by thin, generic information without a point of view.
The Sportskeeda page is an excellent example of a made-for-Google article that adds no value to the web yet outranks real reviews from people who know their stuff and are writing helpful content for their readers.
This type of thin content will keep you scrolling down the page while you read, hoping they will eventually get to the part where they answer your question. Along the way, a mountain of ads will be shoved up your eyeballs.
Those of you with high attention to detail might have noticed that the Sportskeeda review mentioned the word “delve” twice throughout their shallow introduction. When we saw this, it reminded us of this article from Ars Technica.
By the way, this is the same approach you’ll encounter when you’re trying to find the release date of an upcoming movie or whether there will be a new season of your favorite show. Generally, these pages are made-for-Google BS designed to make you click, scroll and fill their pockets with ad money.
Tip 6. Find proof of knowledge, care and transparency in the comments section
Not every website has a comments section, but you can look for signs of helpful content in those that do.
In simple terms, the comments section will help you answer the question, ‘Is there anybody out there?’
While doing research for this article, we saw many brick-and-mortar businesses, big media outlets and e-commerce sites with thin blog posts that outrank indie web publishers with variations of their own content. This sucks and continues to be a source of frustration among people like us who dedicate so much time to creating content for the web.
One pattern we found across many of these highly ranked regurgitation sites was the presence of comment sections full of questions and opinions from readers that remained unanswered MONTHS after they were published.
Any content creator knows that a big chunk of our time is spent answering questions and replying to comments on our sites and across our social media channels:
A quick scroll down to the comments section can tell you a lot about the person behind the article, their level of care and their knowledge of the topic at hand.
The absolute lack of responses is a clear indication that you are reading a made-for-Google page nobody really cares about beyond the point of publication:
Bonus points for closing the comments section altogether after receiving a few critical comments or tough questions:
Tip 7. Consider the source and look for signs of bias
If the content you’re reading doesn’t match the site it’s on, that’s a clear indication of made-for-Google content.
If you ever found yourself reading about Star Trek on Forbes or sorting through air purifier recommendations on Billboard, then you can probably tell that things have gotten a little mixed up recently.
In the middle of this confusing media landscape, bias has seeped in. Along the way, the web has been overrun with self-referential recommendations and commerce content disguised as thoroughly researched, unbiased, fact-checked service journalism.
The good news is that biased content is easy to spot once you start looking for it.
Let’s start with the Google Search results page, as that is where you will be able to spot biased sources before you waste your time.
What are the odds that Mastercard will include options from Visa, Discover or Amex as the “best credit cards for bad credit”? Or that Dell will mention gaming laptops from Asus or Gigabyte? Or that Levoit will share units from Winix or CleanAirKits as the best air purifiers?
Zero.
Those are biased search results, and you shouldn’t waste your time on them unless you have already married the brand behind them.
The same goes for brands reviewing their competitors, as the likelihood of their article being unbiased is nonexistent. The team at Healthy Framework covered this in detail in their open letter to Google, so we recommend you read their take on this point.
Once you’re on a page, you can quickly spot biased advice by searching for the word “partner.”
By performing this quick search once you’re on a page, you will quickly see whether a product, app or service has a partnership with the publication, ranking it at the top of their list of recommendations.
You can also search for the word “sponsored” to uncover if there is a financial incentive behind a writer’s claim that this one gadget, hotel or tool is the best thing since sliced bread.
It’s worth mentioning that the practice of reviewing products provided by companies as “PR samples” is neither new nor inherently bad. We prefer to buy every product we review to eliminate any bias from the start. Still, we know that many reviewers manage to remain unbiased even when testing an item provided by a manufacturer.
The point of this tip is to help you avoid pay-to-play lists like this one:
Do not click blindly on the blue links served by an enshittified algorithm
Google doesn’t know the difference between good, helpful information and biased AI slop, but now you do.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice released a series of trial exhibits that included internal Google presentations on how their search engine ranks pages. One of these slides clearly explained that Google doesn’t understand the information it is showing you at the top of their results when you search for something.
“What’s crazy is that we don’t actually understand documents. Beyond some basic stuff, we hardly look at documents. We look at people. If a document gets a positive reaction, we figure it is good. If the reaction is negative, it is probably bad. Grossly simplified, this is the source of Google’s magic.”
This is not a new finding, so it is likely that you have read that quote before. But have you stopped to think about it?
Since its release in 1998, Google has mutated from a search tool to an AI-powered Magic 8 Ball. Along the way, Internet users around the world have grown to trust anything Google displays above the fold as ‘the answer’ to whatever they are looking for.
This unwavering trust in Google could explain why many were so shocked and upset when they realized that Google’s AI Overviews were full of terrible information they couldn’t rely on.
For the first time in forever, Google was indisputably wrong for the world to see.
Now that we are all aware of “the source of Google’s magic,” we can let go of the belief that Google is an infallible digital oracle and embrace the fact that it’s simply a blind search engine (built on a potentially biased algorithm) prone to being spammed and manipulated.
We hope this article helps you quickly spot the signs of made-for-Google BS so you can bounce back before you end up wasting any time or money.
And if you can’t find what you’re looking for on page 1, please keep going deeper into the results.
Most of the knowledgeable, truly helpful web publishers that contributed to this article are currently buried under piles and piles of substandard made-for-Google crap.
