Welcome to the Q&A Forum

@PRAComms This may vary case by case, depending on the strength of the brand, but the good news is that the Brand Authority model is designed to recognize both.

We don't try to detect a brand name based on the domain name itself. We look at all of the keywords the domain is ranking for and analyze those rankings/SERPs for signals that tell us that Google thinks those keywords have navigational or brand intent. Ultimately, this can cover variations of the brand name, queries containing a part of the brand name, and even recognizable products and services.

For example, for TSA.gov, the Brand Authority algorithm recognizes that both "TSA" and "Transportation Security Administration" represent the brand, as well as brand-specific queries like "TSA customer service." Even more interestingly, IMO, is that it can spot the brand relevance of searches like "PreCheck" and "TWIC card."

So, it's complicated, but in summary: All of the above.

With the caveat that this is a 7-yo thread -- I'd say that it's generally more of a filter these days (vs. a Capital-P penalty). The OEM or large resellers are almost always going to win these battles, and you'll be at a disadvantage if you duplicate their product descriptions word-for-word.

Can you still rank? Sure, but you're going to have an easier time if you can add some original value. If you aren't allowed to modify the info, is there anything you can add to it -- custom reviews (not from users, but say an editorial-style review), for example? You don't have to do it for thousands of products. You could start with ten or 25 top sellers and see how things go.

Don't have an exact date, but the UI feature is relatively new. I agree with @effectdigital that this is a general capability that Google has been building/expanding for a while. It's helpful to look at that underlying logic, as it will spawn new features over time.

Unfortunately, some keyword research tools may strip that special character out, so I'd be a little wary of the results. It may not reflect what Google does in all cases.

While this is interesting (especially to me and others who like to dig into the nuances of search), I'm not sure if it helps you much practically. I don't think a typical searcher is every going to enter "¾" (or, if some do, it's incredibly low volume).

Can you provide a context? Over the past couple of years, Google has started to treat symbols differently depending on the context. I've seen weird situations with the $ sign, for example.

In some cases, Google will try to actually do the math and pull up calculator functions, for example. However, the handle a search like [3/4" wrench] pretty well and seem to understand the context (and match it to '3/4' in title tags, etc.).

Sure do

How to Write Meta Descriptions in a Constantly Changing World

Unfortunately, we don't have much guidance from Google at this point on the "Interesting Finds" section. It seems to be news-like, but as with "Top Stories," taps sites and articles beyond traditional news sites. It's very likely that AMP is a factor.

Anecdotally, the articles seem to be more of a mix of recent and evergreen than "Top Stories" do. It almost seems more connected to "In-depth Articles," which disappeared last year. When the articles aren't recent, they seem to be longer, more in-depth pieces.

I know this has been a couple of years, but just a heads up that we've written a more permanent resource about this question on the Moz blog (as it seems to come up periodically):

Can You Reverse A 301 Redirect?

The only semi-consistent story we're seeing is some minor reversals from the August 1st update, but even that's not clear. I'd say that, if you were hit by August 1st, I'd pay closer attention, but that's about as strong a statement as I'd make.

In general, unless there's something really obvious, like an error in Google Search Console, then you're looking at traffic changes and ranking changes. Both can have not only seasonal but day-of-week and even hour-by-hour variations, so it's important to track any change over time.

In this case, it did look like the March 12 core update rolled out in 1-2 days, followed by a relatively quiet period of algorithm flux, so I don't think this is a sustained roll-out. If you were hit, you'd be seeing it by now, I suspect. That said, note that ranking changes may take longer to see, depending on how often your data is updated (we're weekly in Moz Pro).

Yeah, that's the one I'm familiar with, and is the only big change I'm aware of in the past year. Haven't heard any chatter about location switching since then. There have been some changes that impact how Google handle locations for automated SERP collection, but most of those don't impact regular searches.

Unfortunately, I think the "not a penalty" line is sometimes a bit of a cop-out on Google's part -- anything that moves a bunch of sites up, is naturally going to move a bunch of other sites down. Even if those sites have technically done nothing wrong, it sure feels like to them like they're being penalized. I also don't like that Google claims they're rewarding good behavior, but then won't really tell us what that good behavior is. If it's genuinely good behavior, give us some guidelines (we're not asking for chunks of code from the algorithm).

I'm comparing a case right now where there are two sites in the same industry, both seem decent, but one got a huge boost on 8/1 and one took a big hit. Hoping to glean some insights, but there's just a ton of speculation at the moment.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Google. If I go directly to a page like this one (even incognito):

https://www.shelfstuff.com/book-shelf/books/where-the-watermelons-grow/?id=9780062665867

...and then go to the home page, I still see the book title in the browser tab. The title tag itself looks ok, but the sight is highly dynamic. I'm guessing this is some kind of strange JavaScript rewrite or something else happening in your code. Unfortunately, it would take an in-depth knowledge of your site code to sort out why.

Is the site using AJAX or something similar? Definitely seems like pages are being created dynamically and not loading in a typical way.

What search query are you using? I'm only seeing five pages indexed for your entire site (using site:www.shelfstuff.com), and can't get your site to rank at all for "Zach King: My Magical Life".

Oh, wait, sorry -- are you talking about the display title in the SERPs or the actual title that appears in the browser window once someone enters your site?

Just a note that we've discontinued the old Crawl Test tool and have launched an entirely new On-Demand Crawl tool based on our upgraded Site Crawl engine (launched last year). The new tool has an enhanced UI, entirely rebuilt back-end, full export capability, and will save your old crawls for up to 90 days.

We've written up a sample case study or logged-in customers can go directly to On-Demand Crawl.

Just a note that we've discontinued the old Crawl Test tool and have launched an entirely new On-Demand Crawl tool based on our upgraded Site Crawl engine (launched last year). The new tool has an enhanced UI, entirely rebuilt back-end, full export capability, and will save your old crawls for up to 90 days.

We've written up a sample case study or logged-in customers can go directly to On-Demand Crawl.

If you're looking to crawl more than 3,000 pages, you can also use campaign-based Site Crawl in Moz Pro.

Just a note that we've discontinued the old Crawl Test tool and have launched an entirely new On-Demand Crawl tool based on our upgraded Site Crawl engine (launched last year). The new tool has an enhanced UI, entirely rebuilt back-end, full export capability, and will save your old crawls for up to 90 days.

We've written up a sample case study or logged-in customers can go directly to On-Demand Crawl.

Just a note that we've discontinued the old Crawl Test tool and have launched an entirely new On-Demand Crawl tool based on our upgraded Site Crawl engine (launched last year). The new tool has an enhanced UI, entirely rebuilt back-end, full export capability, and will save your old crawls for up to 90 days.

We've written up a sample case study or logged-in customers can go directly to On-Demand Crawl.

If you've been with Moz a while, you may have used our old Crawl Test tool. A year ago we launched an all new, campaign-based Site Crawl (with an entirely rebuild crawl engine), but Crawl Test fell into disrepair and we haven't had a solid tool for crawling non-campaign domains.

I'm happy to announce that we've just launched an all new On-Demand Crawl, built on the new Site Crawl engine, with a UI that's focused on quick insights. Moz Pro Standard tier customers can run up to 5 crawls per month at 3,000 page per crawl (crawls are saved for 90 days), with per-month limits increasing at higher levels.

Most On-Demand Crawls should run in a few minutes, making the tool perfect to get quick insights for sales meetings, vetting prospects, or analyzing competitors. We've written up a sample case study or logged-in customers can go directly to On-Demand Crawl.

Try it out -- we'd love to hear your use cases (either here or in the blog post comments).

I've studied the August 1st update as much or more than most, and let me first be brutally honest and say that we're still at a pretty early stage of speculation. Until we have clear recovery cases, we're all just trying to tell a story from the anecdotal data. There are a lot of plausible theories, but we can't give you clear answers other than to confirm that the update was large and the health and fitness vertical definitely seemed to be disproportionately impacted.

The E-A-T theory is plausible, from what I've seen, but it leaves a lot left to be explained. We don't know what signals Google uses for Expertise/Authority/Trust -- are they on-page signals, link-based signals, citation-based signals... ? Probably a combination, and some of those are a lot easier to control than others.

Looking briefly at your site, here's what I might try if I were you. Again, this is educated guesswork at best:

(1) Your author name links go to pages that show all articles by that author. I know this is a common practice, but I would consider linking those to a full bio page for each author, with credentials. The on-page E-A-T signals probably aren't the whole picture Google uses, but they're the easiest to control. Currently, these pages also lead to more, similar pages (page 2, 3, etc.), which could look thin, but your rel=prev/next tags seem to be properly formatted. I'm more concerned that Google isn't seeing any information about the authors on those immediately linked author pages (other than a very short blurb).

(2) I know this can be a dicey issue online (especially if you're trying to protect anonymity to some degree), but I'd strongly recommend using your full name, properly capitalized. The use of just "sharon," "victor," etc. could make it harder for Google to connect you to third-party mentions and citations, unless those sites link directly to your bio pages. I strongly suspect Gogole is using some link/citation signals to establish E-A-T. it's a bit like having a consistent business name and address in local search -- you need to make it easy for Google to connect your name to mentions of you.

You do have some odd links to your site that almost look like they're tied to a link network, but I'm having trouble finding some of them manually (they're coming up in Link Explorer reports). If you've got any link profile problems, I'd consider cleaning those up ASAP. If Google is pushing hard and require more proof of expertise in your link profile, that's going to be a lot harder battle. There's no easy fix for that, other than continuing to try to build credibility. Again, I think the full-name issue might help here, but it's only one small piece of the puzzle.

Sorry you've been affected by this -- we're seeing a lot of small health/fitness blogs getting hit, and many seem to be decent quality, independent blogs by well-meaning people.

From a product perspective, we tend to need to set guidelines that can be quantified, but I'm afraid the whole truth is never quite that black-and-white. All else being equal, I think keeping your titles to a reasonable length is beneficial. Long titles don't automatically harm you (there's no Capital-P penalty for it), but they tend to create a few problems:

(1) Often, long, CMS-generated titles front-load repetitive words (like the site name or category/sub-category), which devalues the unique/important words in Google's eyes and is more likely to make it look like duplicate content.

(2) Long titles tend to devalue important words for search visitors as well, which can harm click-through rates. I'm a firm believer that CTR has indirect impact on ranking over time. Even if it had no SEO significance, it's generally bad for engagement and for your site.

That said, it depends a lot on what you're dealing with. If a title of a page is, say, a title of a blog post, and it's just a long title, that's probably fine. If you have 5,000 product pages that all start with "Bob's Discount Propane Warehouse | Propane and Propane Accessories | ...", then that's going to be detrimental to your usability and SEO.

You mentioned images in your reply to Christy -- could you give a couple of examples of the types of pages and titles you're talking about? In general, image-only pages with no additional content (especially if they have near-duplicate titles) are going to be low-value from a search perspective.

CYNOT: I saw the original question via email (I'll avoid details in the public answer), and unfortunately I'm not seeing any clear signs of technical issues with the original content. This looks more like an aggressive filter than a penalty, but it's really hard to tell if the filter is a sign of quality issues or if Google is treating the wrong site as a duplicate.

Unfortunately, a lot of it does depend on the relative authority of the sites. People scrape (including some bots, which do it almost immediately) Moz posts all the time, and they rank, but they don't have nearly our link profile or other ranking signals, and so we don't worry about it. For a smaller site with a relatively new or weak link profile, though, it is possible for a stronger site to outrank you on your own content.

Google does try to look at cache dates and other signals, but a better-funded site can often get indexed more quickly as well. It's rare for this to do serious damage, but it can happen. As Balachandar said, at that point you may have to resort to DMCA take-down requests and other legal actions. Ultimately, that becomes a cost/benefit trade-off, as legal action is going to take time and money.

There's no technical tricks (markup, etc.) to tell Google that a page is the source, although there are certainly tactics, like maintaining good XML sitemaps, that can help Google find your new content more quickly. Of course, you also want to be the site that has that stronger link profile, regardless of whether or not someone is copying you.

I notice one of the screenshots shows the "People Also Search for", which suggests it was a bounceback. Were the two queries exactly the same?

Sometimes, dropping expanded sitelinks can be a quailty issue, but sometimes, as Martijn suggest, Google adjusts their view of the query itself. Expanded sitelinks tend to signal a brand-like intent (or a dominant intent, in Google's view), and Google may have simply turned the volume up or down on this.

You could try to shorten or tweak the title back, of course, and it's relatively harmless, but my gut feeling is that this is more on Google's end (I could be wrong).

Ugh, yeah, I definitely don't like seeing those parameters indexed. Reaching out to the Moz team to see if anyone has used Adobe Experience Manager. If it weren't a CMS or analytics setup issue, I do think rel=canonical would be a good fit here, but it's possible there are better setup options for the product that I'm not aware of. Once they're indexed, though, it's typically going to mean rel=canonical or a redirect to get rid of them. You could use Google Search Console, but they've pulled back a lot of the parameter handling options (at least temporarily) in the new version.

Yeah, you may have options in your CMS. Challenge at this point is that those URLs are already indexed, so if you change your CMS settings to use a different kind of identifier (again, we're being very fuzzy on details) you may still need a solution to de-index those URLs.

There are a couple of ways to go about it, but this is a situation where the rel-canonical tag is probably your best bet. It'll attribute all of those URLs back to the parent URL, set up correctly. If you can provide some specifics (or even a semi-fictional example), I can try to give you more guidance.

You can't really "optimize" for Hummingbird, but understanding RankBrain can certainly help you do keyword research and write relevant content better.

I know it's not very clear, but I think the important thing to remember about Hummingbird is that it was a complete rebuild of the core algorithm. I think natural language queries drove part of that rebuild, but Hummingbird covers a lot of ground and will be powering algo updates for months or years. As Danny said, it's like they put a whole new engine in the car. RankBrain is much more specific.

I'm afraid it's probably more complicated than that, and I'm not sure anyone outside of Google (and most of the people inside of Google) has a handle on all of the details.

Hummingbird was very broad. It wasn't just an update, but an entire rebuild of Google's core "engine." When Google launched it, they gave examples that make us think a lot of the updates were necessitated by natural-language queries (voice certainly created some of that pressure). So, it definitely changed how Google processed very-long-tail queries, but I think it also created a framework for much more (and may have even been a foundation for RankBrain). Danny's very early FAQ is still a good resource:

https://searchengineland.com/google-hummingbird-172816

RankBrain causes confusion because it gets conflated with ML in search in general, but I think RankBrain has a very specific meaning to Google. I've written about it quite a bit and have had a handful of private conversations with Google employees, and still don't feel like I have all the facts. Here's what I'm comfortable saying... It is an ML-based approach to understanding query relevance, very likely related to models like Word2Vec. Best I know, it acts as a sort of re-ranking layer. So, Google returns results and then RB re-sorts them based on its understanding of relevance. So, truth be told, it's probably not as impactful as some folks think (ML in search could be much broader). It's most active for long-tail, natural-language queries, so there's some connection to Hummingbird, conceptually.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any studies of that nature. I typically look at it pragmatically -- is there a change in SERP features related to that schema (i.e. is there direct, measurable benefit)? So far, I haven't seen any. On the other hand, I don't see any evidence of harm, as long as the schema is appropriate and well-structured. It just comes down to where you want to put your time/effort.

I haven't seen the specific Educational Organization schema have an impact on SERPs, but they're diverging so much lately that it's hard to say. There are some specialty carousels like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=best+colleges+in+wyoming

...that could be using it, but I suspect this is coming from the broader Knowledge Graph. Individual colleges have Knowledge Panels, but a lot of that data is coming from GMB listings, best I know.

There's no real harm, if the data is appropriate and well-structured (i.e. you're not putting a university mark-up on a sandwich shop page). The drawback is basically spending the time and energy and getting nothing in return.

I guess the other drawback is that Google could use that data to feed its own internal database but not give you anything in return. That's a drawback of basically everything in SEO right now, though.

Hard to tell without knowing the site, but it's possible there are external links to "https" versions of the pages. At this point, Google is going to increase the pressure to secure sites, and later this year Chrome will start warning users about all non-secure pages, so it may be worth making the move.

I've got a blog post going up tomorrow morning, but the short answer is that it looks like Google has reverted to the previous limit (roughly 155 characters). There are a small % of display snippets with >300 characters, but those are exceptions to the rule and seem to be connected somewhat to Featured Snippets. In most cases, those >300 descriptions are pulled from page content.

Danny confirmed a change today, but didn't provide much detail (just that some display snippets are shorter). Anecdotally, we're definitely seeing a change. We're collecting data now and should have more to say later in the week. Trying to get some measurements across a larger data set so that we can give people solid information.

Yeah, I'd say that, if Google is typically indexing the "www" version, then you're probably ok, but you can't guarantee that. 301s/canonicals should help, too.

I can't find a reference for what I'm about to say, unfortunately, but I seem to recall Google suggesting that https is a per-page consideration (and that's consistent with Google's overall philosophy) and not domain-based. So, if your indexed pages are all on "www.domain.com" (for the most part) and that version is secured, you should be ok. I've used "www" specific certs and not seen any particular signs of a problem.

Of course, if you secure "www.domain.com" and then canonicalize your entire site to "domain.com," then that's going to be a problem.

It is possible to get a Google Drive document indexed, but I'm not clear what this would accomplish. It would likely be a weak link (Google knows this is possible and that Drive documents are user-controlled) and it ultimately means that you're competing with your own documents for ranking. So, now you've got state pages on your site and state pages on Google Drive, both in the index, and one is potentially cannibalizing the other. I think this would ultimately be counterproductive, honestly.

First, I just want to make double sure (as there's a lot of terminology confusion) -- you're talking about the main Knowledge Panel in the right-hand column on desktop, right?

Unfortunately, when these go wrong, there's not a good mechanism for fixing them. Sometimes, best you can do is try to get a Googler's attention, either on the help forums or on Twitter. As Alex said, if there's bad WikiData in play, definitely fix that, but you do have to have someone with editor credentials, unfortunately.

Is the logo coming from the wrong source entirely (like a competitor), or is it an issue of an old/outdated logo?

Is your GMB data updates? Some Knowledge Panels cross with GMB/local data. Hard to say without knowing the specific example/company.

We've seen them around major events (like the Super Bowl in the US or the Olympics in Korea recently), but they do seem to be popping up more often now. They're pretty rare, and I honestly have no idea what/who is driving them or what's being done with the data. Seems to be an internal Google thing, and not something we can create as marketers right now.

First, let me say something that may sound strange coming from a Moz employee. Don't try to raise DA. DA is a proxy for your link authority, and if you get obsessed with trying to raise that score alone, you may find yourself link-building in artificial ways. This isn't unique to Moz -- I'd say the same thing about raising toolbar PR in the old days.

In a broader, conceptual sense, DA attempts to measure your overall authority. Ultimately, this is a product of PA and means getting high-quality links to a variety of pages (ideally). From a pure DA perspective, that means links from high-DA domains and a diversity of domains (not thousands of links from a handful of sites). From a broader perspective -- which DA doesn't measure -- pursuerelevant links that will drive traffic and produce value.

So "How do you raise domain authority?" really becomes "How do you build high-quality links?" and that's a tremendously difficult question to answer. Or, maybe better to say that the answer isn't one most people want to hear, because it's going to require a lot of time, energy, and probably money.

I will add this -- don't get tunnel-vision on links from super-high-DA sites. Not every link has to be from the New York Times. Links from low DA sites that are relevant and legitimate are perfectly fine. Plus, it's going to be much easier to approach these sites and build relationships with them, especially in your own industry. Find the sites that would naturally want to link to you, because you offer something of value to them. They don't have to be mega-sites that dominate the web.

If I search normally, I can't replicate this, but when I run the following query:

site:find.exchange "about about"

...I'm seeing a page with that "ABOUT ABOUT about" title, even though a normal search shows the correct display title (for the same exact URL). Looks like the cached version also has the correct title tag (?)

Not sure what SVG Tim is referring to, but it's worth checking out. Google is clearly picking up some odd cue somewhere, but this is definitely an unusual case and I'm not seeing it in the text anywhere on this page or even on a duplicate page on your site.

Google probably isn't going to distinguish between "co op" and "co-op" for ranking purposes and, as Thomas said, case-sensitivity shouldn't matter. You might still see some issues with "coop" as one word vs. two.

Actually, digging in, it looks like searches for "coop insurance" (one word) return "co op" and "co-op", but searches for "co-op" don't return "coop". You've also got the confusion that "coop" is a word (although low-volume -- not a lot of chicken coop content, relative to some other topics).

I'd personally pick one version -- inconsistency can look weird to visitors and unprofessional. My gut feeling is use "co op" or "co-op" (i'd lean toward the latter, but no solid data to back that up). If your logo is "CoOp" and you use "co op" or "co-op" in content, I think that's probably fine. Keep in mind, though, that I'm only speaking from an SEO standpoint. I don't know the brand or history, from a business standpoint.

I'm seeing some strange things with your home-page, even looking at your indexed pages (i.e. with the site: operator). The home-page seems to be devalued across a lot of terms (although not outright blocked or penalized).

Two possibilities:

(1) Your content is running up against some kind of adult content filter. I don't have much experience with that, but I suspect it's not the whole story here. Other content is ranking and I can get the home-page to rank on long-tail terms. Usually, Safe Search is all-or-none.

(2) You could be on the borderline of a targeted penalty -- either relating to that page or specific links and anchor text targeting that page. I'm not seeing clear evidence of that, though. You've got a chunk of links from directories, which aren't particularly high value, and that's about all I'm seeing. It may just be that the links you have aren't enough or seem to be low value, and Google's evaluation of that keeps bouncing around.

Minor thing to try, just in case you're on the border of some kind of spam threshold. Maybe tone down the double mention of "Sex Toy Party(ies)" in your Title Tag. It could be looking funny to spam and adult filters. Start with the brand name and something like "April Nites - Sex Toy Parties for Women". I'd drop "Adult", too -- I get your intent, but it just emphasizes the adult content nature more, and your home-page itself isn't problematic (I'd call it PG-13, honestly).

I'm seeing a little (minor) technical weirdness. You've got both "www" and non-www versions of pages indexed, along with a handful of sub-domains. Looks like your CMS may be creating some odd URLs, too. Not seeing anything excessive (i.e. thousands of URLs), but give that your site is small and has a relatively weak link profile, these things can add up.

Actually, you've got some really weird blog URLs indexed, like this:
http://www.aprilnites.com.au/blog/files/bb3a7ed4b561c6e8e2af28fb717a2edc-0.html

...along with a bunch of tags/categories. These odd pages are overwhelming actual, unique content. Try this command in Google to see more:
[https://www.google.com.au/search?q=aprilnites.com.au+inurl%3Ablog&gl=au]

Google is filtering out a ton of stuff, it seems. This doesn't directly explain the home-page problem but, again, it's weakening your other pages, potentially. Not sure what CMS you're running, but I haven't seen those odd URLs.

Honestly not sure on why it's changing. The short answer is that I think these are more real-time than we usually realize (and only notice when we're staring at one), but a bit odd that it's going from regular to long for the same query. Usually, changes I see are query-dependent. Could indicate that Google is evaluating the content on the page or the intent of the query, but it's hard to say.

This started a couple of years ago, but it still only happens in isolated cases. See this post:

https://moz.com/blog/i-cant-drive-155-meta-descriptions-in-2015

We believe it's tied to Featured Snippets and Google parsing answers from sites (they share a core engine, even though you may see long snippets on SERPs with no Featured Snippets). In cases where the snippet is deemed highly relevant, Google may present more information. It's not an across-the-board length increase, though. Most snippets are still restricted to the traditional length limits.

Our new Site Crawl can provide a full audit of your site (whether or not pages have issues) with information like crawl depth and Page Authority, but both tools have pros and cons. We use a cloud-based crawler (pardon the term) and Screaming Frog runs on your own machine -- even this has pros and cons, depending on your use-case. We now allow on-demand recrawls for Medium Tier on up. Screaming Frog has more customization, if you're looking for specific patterns and generally offers more raw data, I'd say. Our new Site Crawl is a bit more accessible to most users and helps provide insights, but doesn't have a lot of customization options right now.

If you've got a Moz plan that covers the size of your full site, then either Moz Site Crawl or Screaming Frog should be able to help you audit your full list of pages prior to an HTTP-->HTTPS migration.

I can't replicate this in live SERPs, but Matthew's explanation seems to match the evidence. It does appear that Google is doing some kind of implicit canonicalization. It's rare, but it does happen.

You could try giving the PDF a unique title in its own meta information (the document doesn't seem to have any). It's more likely to look like a duplicate if that's undefined.

The next step would be to recreate the PDF slightly and make it unique, but honestly, each step is going to get to be progressively more work. It really depends whether this is just an anomaly or it's causing you actual issues as a business.

The public metric is "absolute" in the sense that it's not relative to surrounding days. We have other metrics (not published) that are various types of moving averages, but I've found that most of them over-smoothed. Given the new normal lately, though, it may be time to revisit them.