Welcome to the Q&A Forum

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).

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.

Are you seeing these numbers in the new Search Console? It'd be worth checking them in the old version, while it's still around, just to make sure they two sync up. I've heard people mention some difference (although not specifically page speed).

Might also be worth running some checks from different locations. If you're always viewing your load times from one or a couple of locations, you may be seeing ideal speeds and not seeing problems other people could be having. Not to say Google is right, but this is one possible explanation for the difference.

You're seeing 1.2 seconds as TTFB in Google or as the overall load time?

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.