What do You Think the Biggest Search Trends will Be in 2020?
-
Just interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Personally I think that, even though voice search is already pretty big - it's about to get much, much larger and this may even entirely change the infrastructure of the web. What are your thoughts for changes in search 2020?
-
Thanks for your response EGOL, I always really value your comments. I think this makes a lot of sense. How many times have people tried to game the SERPs with minor tactical deployments, only to see Google drop it all within 6 months? Focusing on delivering that which Google's algorithms attempt to seek (high quality content), can only be positive
-
Thank you EGOL!
That is kind of you to say & you improved my answer.
I agree with everything you said my friend!
All the best,
Tom
-
Thank you Effect digital great post!
i agree E-A-T showed a big difference in 2019 & I think it is the start.
All the best,
Tom
-
Tom Zickell has it....
Honestly, money spent on high-quality content and high-quality work will go up not a very sexy answer but an honest one.
Twenty years ago, content conquered the SERPs. It still does today. I think it still will tomorrow.
If you listen to Google when they say "do this"... "do that".... "make this code".... "make that code".... "mark this up".... "mark that up".... then, next month, Google doesn't use that stuff any more. My point is that chasing "trends of the year" is very costly.
So from Tom's answer... spend your time on high-quality content and you will not go wrong (unless you write mediocre content and think that it is 10x).
And, from his answer... "high-quality-work"... to me that means... improve your content (text, images, data, media), improve your navigation, improve the appearance of your site, make your title and description elicit clicks. This is old school stuff that we should focus on always.
"Trends of the Year" are often (usually) decoys away from what is long term successful.
-
Thanks Gaston
I especially agree with your first point, as I believe that infrastructure (structured data) will be critical to the 'voice-web' which may replace large swathes of 'visual' search. Not all of it, but large chunks of it -
Thanks for your answers Tom I think I agree with most, especially the increasing utility of BERT and the increasing focus on E-A-T. I don't know about you, but I feel that E-A-T was significantly tightened in 2019, and that's set to continue
-
My guess is that 2020 trends (and the big news around search) will be centred in:
- More Structured data and more complexity under it.
- Google absorbing niches with their products/Featured snippets.
- Higher understanding and the need for more complexity in content.
We cannot deny that Google is getting better and better at understanding content and improving their knowledge about users. This means that, as its happening, there will be better results for users at the cost of websites offering better user-focused content and more "digested" data to google (structured data)
A fourth point would be that there will be less and less "organic" real estate in SERPs that websites can compete for. We have enough data proving that every time there are more and more SERPs with 2 or more Featured Snippets (image carousel, PAA and Knowledge graph, just to name a few).
Best of luck to everyone in the incoming year,
Gaston -
I believe featured snippets will be almost impossible to change it seems once that they are cemented in for more than a month or two they are not going to be volatile anymore. Thus we cannot capture them as easily.
Google will continue to give more SERP real estate to Ads / PPC to take it away from organic especially on mobile. Also, no click answers will become more and more prominent.
BERT & User-Focused Optimization
Content will have to get better and better and better because the Internet is growing (and please don't quote me on this) something like 10 times every three months more websites with great content means less space at the top of the SERPs higher-quality more expertise authority and trust E-A-T.
I agree with you that voice search is a huge game-changer. I want to see it adopted a little bit more but I do agree with you.
Honestly, money spent on high-quality content and high-quality work will go up not a very sexy answer but an honest one.
All the best,
Tom
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
404s in Google Search Console and javascript
The end of April, we made the switch from http to https and I was prepared for a surge in crawl errors while Google sorted out our site. However, I wasn't prepared for the surge in impossibly incorrect URLs and partial URLs that I've seen since then. I have learned that as Googlebot grows up, he'she's now attempting to read more javascript and will occasionally try to parse out and "read" a URL in a string of javascript code where no URL is actually present. So, I've "marked as fixed" hundreds of bits like /TRo39,
Algorithm Updates | | LizMicik
category/cig
etc., etc.... But they are also returning hundreds of otherwise correct URLs with a .html extension when our CMS system generates URLs with a .uts extension like this: https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.html
when it should be:
https://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGARS/90-RATED-CIGARS/FULL-CIGARS/9012/c/9007/pc/8335.uts Worst of all, when I look at them in GSC and check the "linked from" tab it shows they are linked from themselves, so I can't backtrack and find a common source of the error. Is anyone else experiencing this? Got any suggestions on how to stop it from happening in the future? Last month it was 50 URLs, this month 150, so I can't keep creating redirects and hoping it goes away. Thanks for any and all suggestions!
Liz Micik0 -
Category Containing a Product searched shows up higher in google then the product page itself?
Hello Moz Wizards, We have recently launched a new eCommerce website www.memoky.com and think we did a pretty good job with the markup structure for feeding the hungry google bot all information available about a the products. However google doesn't like us very much : ( It seems every time you google a product that we carry; the category pages that contain that product will show up, but the product page itself does not. Below are two examples, however this seems to be site-wide which makes me feel like there is an underlying issue that we are missing. Examples
Algorithm Updates | | Memoky
when searched for "Eduardo floor lamp - matt black/matt yellow shade"
Shows ups - http://www.memoky.com/lighting/floor-lamps.html
Does not - http://www.memoky.com/eduardo-floor-lamp-matt-black-matt-yellow-shade.html when searched for "Derrick arm chair - white leather/ walnut"
Shows ups - http://www.memoky.com/living/lounge-chairs.html_
Does not - http://www.memoky.com/derrick-arm-chair-white-leather.html_ that is the pattern for almost all the products on this site. Any thoughts on why this could be the case?0 -
Is it stil a rule that Google will only index pages up to three tiers deep? Or has this changed?
I haven't looked into this in a while, it used to be that you didn't want to bury pages beyond three clicks from the main page. What is the rule now in order to have deep pages indexed?
Algorithm Updates | | seoessentials0 -
How come google image search doesn't link to the right page?
For one site I work with the images link to the home page of the site rather than the page the image lives on. I think this is hurting my bounce rate quite a bit. Thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | NetvantageMarketing0 -
Will we no longer need Location + Keyword? Do we even need it at all?
Prepare yourselves. This is a long question. With the rise of schema and Google Local+, do you think Google will now have enough data about where a business is located, so that when someone searches for, a keyword such as "Atlanta Hyundai dealers" a business in Atlanta that's website: has been properly marked up with schema (or microdata for business location) has claimed its Google Local+ has done enough downstream work in Local Search listings for its NAP (name, address, phone number) will no longer have to incorporate variations of "Atlanta Hyundai dealers" in the text on the website? Could they just write enough great content about how they're a Hyundai dealership without the abuse of the Atlanta portion? Or if they're in Boston and they're a dentist or lawyer, could the content be just about the services they provided without so much emphasis tied to location? I'm talking about removing the location of the business from the text in all places other than the schema markup or the contact page on the website. Maybe still keep a main location in the title tags or meta description if it would benefit the customer. I work in an industry where location + keywords has reached such a point of saturation, that it makes the text on the website read very poorly, and I'd like to learn more about alternate methods to keep the text more pure, read better and still achieve the same success when it comes to local search. Also, I haven't seen other sites penalized for all the location stuffing on their websites, which is bizarre because it reads so spammy you can't recognize where the geotargeted keywords end and where the regular text begins. I've been working gradually in this general direction (more emphasis on NAP, researching schema, and vastly improving the content on clients' websites so it's not so heavy with geo-targeted keywords). I also ask because though the niche I work in is still pretty hell-bent on using geo-targeted keywords, whenever I check Analytics, the majority of traffic is branded and geo-targeted keywords make up only a small fraction of traffic. Any thoughts? What are other people doing in this regard?
Algorithm Updates | | EEE30 -
Does Search Volume Directly Effect Organic Search Result Rankings?
For example, if 20,000 people searched for "seomoz toasters," do you think a page on seomoz.org that mentioned toasters would begin to rank well for the query "toasters"?
Algorithm Updates | | tatermarketing0 -
Very Strange Search Results!
Having just done a search on Google.co.uk for 'payday loans' I am baffled as to why the top two organic results (image attached) are even associated to the keyword. The KW isn't present in the title, metas, or content. Nor do any backlinks use relevant anchor text. I'm guessing this is an algorithmic 'f*ck up', do you agree? uGdk7Cw92Rme
Algorithm Updates | | Webpresence0 -
Will google punish us for using formulaic keyword-rich content on different pages on our site?
We have 100 to 150 words of SEO text per page on www.storitz.com. Our challenge is that we are a storage property aggregator with hundreds of metros. We have to distinguish each city with relevant and umique text. If we use a modular approach where we mix and match pre-written (by us) content, demographic and location oriented text in an attempt to create relevant and unique text for multiple (hundreds) of pages on our site, will we be devalued by Google?
Algorithm Updates | | Storitz0