Google Offers Specific Feedback On Why An Article Might Not Be Helpful

Danny Sullivan, the Google Search Liaison, replied to with very specific feedback on a specific article on how to make that article more helpful. I figured I'd share those details, even though it is a super specific example. But it may be useful for others to see this feedback.

In short, the feedback was:

• Is it clear that the content you are providing is original and unique
• Does the content show you have experience with the topic you are covering
• Is the content achieving the purpose it set out to cover
• Does the content satisfy the searcher's intent
• Is the content up-to-date or feel out-of-date

Here is the context:

What time frame is that drop out over, Brandon? Also, what’s the URL?

Interesting one this but sure there’ll be an answer! DM me if don’t wanna share URL publicly!

— James Brockbank (@BrockbankJames) January 27, 2024

Took a look. Will share a few things that maybe might be generally helpful. At first glance, it wasn't clear to me that there was much original content here. It looks and feels at first glance like a typical "here's a bunch of product pages."

I really had to go into it further…

— Google SearchLiaison (@searchliaison) January 29, 2024

I'll bullet-point this out - so you can see the specific feedback on that specific article. Here is what Danny Sullivan wrote:

• Took a look. Will share a few things that maybe might be generally helpful. At first glance, it wasn't clear to me that there was much original content here. It looks and feels at first glance like a typical "here's a bunch of product pages."
• I really had to go into it further to understand there's original stuff going on. Deck 1, 4 and 9 have long video reviews, it looks like -- so cool, you've used them, have experiences to share. That's all great. Maybe make that a bit clearer to the reader? But ... it could also be me.
• But most of the other devices ... don't exist yet. You're promising the reader that these are the best alternatives for 2024. And maybe some of these will be, but if they don't exist yet, that's potentially a bummer and unsatisifying to people coming to this page? Maybe those upcoming devices belong a page about -- upcoming devices?
• You also mentioned updating the page and ... it feels out-of-date, so what's being updated on it?
• "As of today (April 22nd) the Rog Ally is not out yet, and it was just announced on April 1st" is on the article dated today, Jan 29, and you'd said on Jan 27 this page has also been updated, so what significant change is actually happening to warrant a new byline date?
• "At the time of writing, the Lenovo Legion Go isn’t currently out, but all signs are pointing towards an October 2023 release date" -- same thing, confusing to be out-of-date on a page claiming to be fresh as of today.
• "The IndieGoGo pages goes live on September 5th, so bookmark it and get ready to make a very wise purchase!" -- again, out-of-date.
• Clearly, you put work into some of the video reviews. Maybe that needs to be more evident with some of the written write-ups. And mixing out-of-date info on a page that claims to be fresh isn't a great experience.
• It's not that any or all of these things are direct ranking factors, and changing them won't guarantee to move you up. But the systems overall are designed to reward reliable helpful content meant for people, so the more this page aligns with that goal, the more you're potentially going to be successful with it.

Do you find this feedback helpful for your content or not?

Forum discussion at X.