Google's latest search change hurts this small travel publisher

Since June, I've been watching Rusty Compass's referrals from Google search collapse. Today, I'm about 40% down on where I was in April 2014. That's a big fall and a big deal for a small independent travel publisher dependent on Google for fresh infusions of travellers to my site.

So what's changed?

Nothing at my end.

Rusty Compass is a wholly independent, constantly updated travel guide. It's free of sponsored content and free of dodgy deals with hotels, airlines and restaurants.

It's probably the most comprehensive and up to date travel guide to Vietnam too - with hundreds of original reviews, videos, galleries and blog pieces. I've tried to make it the very best - and I reckon I'm not far off.

Travellers love it. Major guide books and travel journos use it as a reference. And I keep churning out fresh original videos, galleries, reviews and blog pieces.

Google's algorithm's never been terribly impressed by what I do. And it's even less so now.

Three years ago Google introduced something called authorship into its search results. It was explained as a way of improving the integrity of search, by emphasising authors and giving trusted authors better recognition. It seemed very sensible, apart from the fact that it was tied to Google Plus.

It also seemed to have special value in the travel space - a virtual sewer of SEO scamming and corrupt arrangements between publishers and travel businesses.

Authorship seemed like a great way to boost Rusty Compass's place in the Google universe so I implemented it very soon after it was launched.

You probably recall seeing author faces and names in search results. I was one of those.

Days after I set up authorship, friends began to tell me they were spotting my bald head in Google search results. I even had travellers recognise me in the streets of Vietnam and Cambodia from that little thumbnail.

The authorship system produced an immediate spike in Rusty Compass search results that kept building.

I've always been unhappy with how Google ranks Rusty Compass in Vietnam travel search. More importantly for travellers, Google accords high rankings to many poor quality sites. But the authorship system was very a much a positive for me - until it started to be dismantled a couple of months ago.

Google search referrals to Rusty Compass have fallen by 30% - 50%.

As an unknown publisher, the byline and thumbnail used in authorship based search results created a deeper, personal impression in those few Google search results where Rusty Compass ranks well. And a thumbnail and author name could even add some depth to a page 2 or 3 ranking. Rusty Compass is a very personal take on travel and the personal presence in search was an added bonus.

Travellers already familiar with Rusty Compass could quickly identify it in searches.

Its removal will return a natural advantage to big publishers and big names, despite the fact that they're rarely the best travel resource online. It will favour big SEO budgets in favour of good content - Google's continuing vulnerability.

If you think that Rusty Compass might have obtained some unnatural or unjustified benefit from the authorship system, check out the site and then have a look at the low quality of most of what Google serves up in Vietnam travel search.

I'm not saying that authorship was working across the board. I have no idea. I only know that it helped me in an otherwise uphill battle to get a reasonable Google ranking for quality work without commissioning an SEO company.

From the outset, I've followed Google's advice on SEO best practice but refused to use an SEO. I guess I've taken Google at their word in respect of their capacity to find quality content - eventually. It's been a long wait! 

An astonishing amount of drivel finds its way into high rankings in Google travel search results. On many of the most important search terms for Vietnam and Cambodia, Rusty Compass ranks very poorly (page 3 or 4) behind awful, unreliable SEO created content or mediocre content trading on the name of a major publisher.

So for me, we leave a bad system for a worse one. And I can already see the results. There must be good reasons for the change. But not from where I'm standing.