PDA

View Full Version : Google tweaks its algorithm to push low-quality sites down in search results



Business Attorney
02-25-2011, 10:42 AM
An article in today's New York Times "Google Tweaks Algorithm to Push Down Low-Quality Sites (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/google-tweaks-algorithm-to-push-down-low-quality-sites/?hp#preview)" reports that "Google said Thursday that it had made a major change to its algorithm in an effort to improve the rankings of high-quality Web sites in its search results — and to reduce the visibility of low-quality sites."

I hope it works!

vangogh
02-25-2011, 11:09 AM
I haven't seen the Time article yet, but did catch this news last night. Google has been taking heat lately for letting content farm sites like Mahalo and eHow. One of the big players in generating content farm sites is a company called Demand Media, which went public last year I think. They basically auto generate keyword lists for long tail phrases and then pay people about $10 to write a thin article, which they splash ads on.

The idea is those keyword phrases will be relatively easy to rank for and so for $10 they now have content that ranks well.

People have been complaining more and more lately. Mostly SEOs and other tech types. Other search engines have already starting removing some of these sites and I think Google felt pressure to do the same. I think Blekko has been reporting the spam sites they've been removing.

The question will be how Google and others are removing these sites. Quality is a difficult thing for a search engine to judge algorithmically. Let's face it most people have a hard time agreeing on what's quality. I think the other engines have been removing sites manually. Google as always wants to do it algorithmically, which could mean some legitimate sites start hurting if they send the wrong signals.

Here's the official word from Google (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-quality-sites-in.html)

If you start noticing significant changes (good or bad) in how much search traffic you get over the next few weeks, this low quality algorithmic change is likely the cause. The update is being called the farmers update, because of the content farm connection. Also it's currently only rolling out in the US so if you live elsewhere nothing should be changing for your search results at the moment.

Harold Mansfield
02-25-2011, 06:01 PM
Hmmn. I have a content farm or two, or better yet some keyword based autoblogs and headline agregators. And that is exactly how I use them...as a place to link back to my own sites.
I knew it wouldn't last forever. Guess I'll be following them to see what the effect will be.

vangogh
02-25-2011, 06:45 PM
Definitely follow those sites and let us know what you observe. So far the early reports are that Mahalo has dropped significantly, but eHow hasn't changed much. I think the goal or eliminating low quality sites is a good one, but I wonder how effective Google will be.

Quality is a subjective term. One person's quality is another person's garbage. It depends a lot on what you're looking for and what you already know. Take Wikipedia. For the most part the information there seems good, though it's far from deep information. If you know even a little about a subject what you'll find about it at Wikipedia is probably useless to you. You might consider it shallow and low-quality. On the other hand if you're first exploring a topic Wikipedia can be a great site to start.

It's hard enough for people to decide what is and isn't quality and so far algorithms have proved to be even worse at it. Search algorithms will decide based on many factors, but none of those factors are necessarily measures of quality. They're measures of things that might indicate quality, but aren't exactly measures of quality.

it'll be interesting to see the results in a few weeks or months. I do hope they get this right, but I have my doubts about how well they'll be able to pull this off.

Dan Furman
02-26-2011, 12:11 PM
YAY - about time.

I'm all for it - to me, search is all about delivering a quality, relevent site. Not about who knows the latest tricks.

Spider
02-26-2011, 12:35 PM
Google will do this only to control the web and solidify their position, and if they can make more money doing it then that's even better. I don't believe that are the least bit interested in delivering "relevant, quality results."

Business Attorney
02-26-2011, 02:57 PM
Google will do this only to control the web and solidify their position, and if they can make more money doing it then that's even better. I don't believe that are the least bit interested in delivering "relevant, quality results."

Frederick, I think your points in your first sentence are exactly reversed. I also think your belief that Google is not "the least bit interested in delivering 'relevant, quality results'" belies the entire history of the search engine industry and Google in particular.

As to the first point, almost any business would love to completely control their market. However, control is not an end in itself but merely a means to reaching an end. Control brings pricing power, which brings higher profits. For a business, the goal IS to "make more money" not to "control the web and solidify their position."

Secondly, the internet is littered with the remains of once leading search engines which failed to deliver "relevant, quality results." History has shown that if a new search engine delivers better results, users will abandon their current search engine in the click of a mouse. Although I have always used a variety of search engines concurrently, particularly when doing comprehensive research to turn up all possible information on a narrow topic, for quick searches I generally rely on the one I think returns the most "relevant, quality results." First I used WebCrawler (not the metasearch engine that it is today, but a predecessor). When AltaVista came along, I dropped WebCrawler; when HotBot came along (powered by Inktomi), I dropped AltaVista. And when Google came along, it was "Adiós, HotBot."

Most of the search engines stayed at the top for 1-2 years. When Google came along, I really expected to see the next search engine replace it in the same time frame. That was about 12 years ago.

I think Bing is finally giving Google some decent competition, but nothing else has come close. Cuil claimed to have indexed more pages than Google, but I consistently found the search results to be less relevant than Google's. When I figure out how to use Blekko, it may be better for certain vertical searches. Qwiki? Wolfram Alpha? They may be suitable for a small percentage of my searches, but not most.

So 12 years later, Google is still on top. That tells me that despite your misgivings, Google is interested in delivering relevant, quality search results. It doesn't just happen by accident!

But, hey, if they don't deliver what YOU want, then use whichever search engine does deliver more relevant results.

Harold Mansfield
02-26-2011, 05:28 PM
I think Google is totally interested in delivering quality results. They have been working to do just that and not just deliver the pages who's owners can out SEO everyone. The one constant on the web is that webmasters, bloggers, authors, and everyone else who publishes on the web continues to link to other websites that provide the best, and most relevant information to provide additional resources for their readers and add validity to almost every possible scenario.

"Who is linking to you" is still a good measure for how important or relevant your page is. I think at this point Google is trying to do away with "self linking" by way of known article and link dumps like article directories, Hub Pages, Squidoo, Auto Blogs, Link Farms, and every other trick that webmasters have been using to manipulate results just based on sheer number of links. So good content and marketing skills to get that content seen is still going to be he best way to gain ground in Google. If other people find it any good, they will link to it. And of course no one notices good content on a bad design, so that is important too.

Spider
02-26-2011, 06:40 PM
If it is possible to come up with relevant, quality results for - Web designer with SEO skills (for example) - the same list is relevant and quality whether the searcher lives in Houston, Las Vegas, Chicago or Denver. The fact that different sites are considered relevant and quality depending on where the searcher lives, makes a mockery of what is relevant and quality, especially when the searcher turns of the (supposedly) optional localization of the search. That seems to me to be a no-brainer and I'm sure the folks at Google are aware of that.

Instead of striving for relevant and quality, Google are striving for maximizing their revenue by making local search the default setting to attract more local advertising, and sacrificing relevant and quality in the process. Now, I have no beef with them doing so, if they do it openly and honestly. But by pretending to be primarily interested in relevant and quality search results, rather than maximum income, they are being dishonest. I would be equally against a dairy proclaiming their milk to be from field-grazed cows when their cows are confined in the deplorable conditions of a factory farm. It's just simply dishonest, and it is all I have come to expect of Google.

Incidentally, the goal of business is not just to make more money, but that is academic.

No, I am not talking about Pizza delivery, Chinese restaurants or dry cleaners.

Harold Mansfield
02-26-2011, 09:38 PM
With all of that said, none of it matters if users grow tired of Google or feel that they aren't returning satisfying results anymore. Remember, SE's are free access. There isn't really all that much loyalty from users. We will go where ever it is convenient and gives us what we want.
If I were to start using Bing today and never looked back to use Google ever again, it wouldn't bother me one bit. SE's are consumable.

So it is in Google's best interest to keep the majority of web users happy and on their engine because it takes no effort to use another one at any given moment.

Business Attorney
02-27-2011, 02:00 AM
If it is possible to come up with relevant, quality results for - Web designer with SEO skills (for example) - the same list is relevant and quality whether the searcher lives in Houston, Las Vegas, Chicago or Denver.

In the abstract that may be true, but I can tell you that the vast majority of lawyers in Chicago select local designers. True, they might be better off in many cases with someone half a continent away (or half a world a way), but that is not what they are looking for. I imagine the same is true for people in Chicago looking for a business coach. You may be perfectly comfortable coaching someone via the internet, but I imagine a lot of people would prefer someone who they can meet over breakfast or who can stop by and see their workplace. I only know a few people who have used a business coach, but in every case they have selected someone that they can meet with face-to-face.

So you say that localized results are a bad idea. If even 51% prefer localized results in a particular situation, the fact that for 49% that pushes the non-localized results further down on the list of search results means that Google is delivering search results that are the most relevant for its users.

Neither of us has empirical data to know what Google knows, but I can tell you from my own use, Google does an excellent good job of figuring out which search terms should yield localized results and which should not. I rarely get localized results for searches in situations where I feel it is not appropriate.

vangogh
02-27-2011, 11:55 AM
First and foremost Google is a business. I think it's silly to think they aren't going to do things that help the company make more money. However their business model revolves around providing the best search results they can, so I do think they're interested in providing the most relevant, quality results they can. Or rather they need to give the perception that their search results are of a higher quality and more relevant than the other options available.

Frederick your beef with Google sounds more like a personal one in them not ranking your site where you'd like as opposed to the quality of the results. Like it or not many people would prefer to work with a web design with seo skills local to them. Is that the only criteria for hiring such a person of company? Of course not, but it's one valid way. You're also only taking into account the most generic of search queries. When the query gets more specific the local thing won't be as much of a factor. When you search for something so generic though there are far more quality and relevant results that could be displayed on one or even ten pages. Google and the other engines have to do something to decide, which of these 100 or so equally relevant and quality results should we show as #1 or #2 or #10.

It's not about what you personally think most relevant or what I personally think most relevant. It's about what the majority think most relevant. Google tracks these things and has determined people click more on more local results for certain queries so that's what you see listed.

This isn't to say Google delivers perfect results. They've shown that big brands with lots of money to spend can sometimes get away with more than the small sites. Like you I also don't always want to see localized results. The reality is no matter what kind of algorithm they create it's going to favor certain sites over others and the owners of the sites it doesn't favor or the people looking for those unfavored sites, probably aren't going to think the results so great. It would be impossible though to get the results 100% perfect for everyone. Overall Google does a pretty good job.

I think Bing does a pretty good job too now and is slowly giving Google some competition, which will be good for the customers of both companies.

Spider
02-27-2011, 06:04 PM
...Frederick your beef with Google sounds more like a personal one in them not ranking your site where you'd like as opposed to the quality of the results. ..That is absolutely not the case. I have very carefully kept my comments general and purposely avoided anything to suggest my objections are of a personal nature. I don't believe they sound at all as if they relate to where Google ranks my site. The ranking of my site is only mentioned regarding its positioning being irratic and inconsistent, not whether it is consistently ranked good or bad, high or low. And I have offered nothing to suggest that I agree or disagree with the #4 listing I see or the #40-something listing you see.

I have been working to improve the serps positioning. I am not frustrated that my positioning has not improved because, indeed, it has. I am frustrated that a search from one city has such different results from the same search from another, and that in all likelhood every search location produces different results - and that we suppose these differing results to be "relevant." I have never claimed, nor do I beleive, that my business coaching website is the best or among the best, and I do not believe it deserves any speciific ranking. I only expect it to get the *same* ranking - whether good or bad - regardless of where the search originates.

billbenson
02-27-2011, 09:10 PM
I only expect it to get the *same* ranking - whether good or bad - regardless of where the search originates.

Here's the problem. You can't "expect" a free service to do anything "you" want. It's like expecting that the traffic cop at a broken signal is going to let you go first. He is going to try (hopefully) to keep traffic going smoothly not give you what you want.

Don't expect G to do what you want, expect them to do what is in their best interest which hopefully includes giving surfers the results they want (surfers, not webmasters).

Spider
02-27-2011, 10:24 PM
Bill, I *am* considering this as a searcher. And I think I - we, the public - have a right to expect a service to do what they promise, free or otherwise. When I search for pink elephant boots, on any search engine, if that search engine promises a list of relevant websites, I expect (and I think we have a right to expect) relevant results. I do not expect to find the location of the computer on which I conduct the search to have any bearing on the result. If I search for pink elephant boots, Houston, then I expect the list of relevant sites to include only sites pertaining to pink elephant boots and Houston, regardless of where the search originates.

No, I do not anticipate that the *right* I think we have is established by the US Constitution nor a formal United Nations charter, but if the promise of relevancy is not fulfilled, the person or organization promising is failing in its duty to its customers, whether those customers pay for the service or not. If you feel that Google fulfill their promise of relevancy, then great - use them! I do not and don't use them.

Simple, really.

Spider
02-27-2011, 10:45 PM
... So you say that localized results are a bad idea...I do not say, have not said, and I do not think that localized results are a bad idea, David. You - anyone - will search for what you want, and if you want localized results, search for them. I have no problem with that. I object to localized results being forced on us, to the extent that unlocalized search - supposedly an option - are unavailable. And I object to a public service claiming that these forced localized results are somehow relevant, and leading the public to believe that they can opt out of localized search and that the results are unlocalized when they are not.

Steve B
02-28-2011, 07:01 AM
I think Google does a great job - except for their personal vendetta against Frederick :)

Spider
02-28-2011, 09:18 AM
You know something about that, Steve? Who, at Google? I want names. Tell me and I'll get the buggers!!!!

vangogh
02-28-2011, 11:41 AM
Frederick the reason for my comment is that you also have another thread going where you are expressing frustration over a lack of traffic. And in that thread the frustration seems to come about because your page doesn't rank as well from one city to the next. If I'm off base, my bad, but something tells me if you were getting more traffic you might have a different opinion in this thread.

As far as relevancy and quality are concerned, both are very subjective words. The reality is what you think the best result for a query is probably not what I think is the best result for a query. We might use the exact same query, but we still have different interests and different goals and we bring different experience to the search. Google would like for both of us to walk away from a search feeling like the results we received were the best. Sometimes in order to do that it means delivering different results to each of us.

A good example is the one Matt Cutts used to bring up. Say you type in the single word query football. A person living in the US and one living in the UK are probably looking for 2 completely different sports. So Google will send each a set of results based on their IP address. Of course there will be times when the person in either the US or the UK wants the opposite, but more often than not Google would be giving each the results they want.

The changes we're talking about in this thread though are specific to something other than localized results. A variety of companies have set up business models over the years where they create thin and shallow content solely to rank for certain phrases. The business model is about creating content as quickly as possible regardless of the quality and then slapping AdSense or other advertising. These sites have been appearing too often in search results recently and some have started to complain. Google tweaked their algorithms so that these sites wouldn't show up as often.

The data is still coming in, but so far the reports are suggesting that many of these sites are losing search visibility, though oddly the one most often complain about eHow has actually gained search visibility.

seolman
02-28-2011, 01:52 PM
I think Google does a great job - except for their personal vendetta against Frederick :)

Hmmm...and I thought Google only hated me!

Spider
02-28-2011, 03:12 PM
Frederick the reason for my comment is that you also have another thread going where you are expressing frustration over a lack of traffic. And in that thread the frustration seems to come about because your page doesn't rank as well from one city to the next. If I'm off base, my bad, but something tells me if you were getting more traffic you might have a different opinion in this thread...I'm sorry, VG, but I must stand again as offended. This is the second time in as many weeks that I have been misquoted and misinterpreted, and I am sorry to say that I find it disquieting. I pride myself on my consistency as a major element of my integrity.

The other thread to which you refer is "Visit Length" and it is very clear, reading that thread, that my frustration was not over a lack of traffic - it was over a lack of consistency ---
Oh, no! That is ridiculous! Thank you, VG, for running that [search], but I am so frustrated with Google - they have taken this whole concept of search and totally screwed it up. What is relevant in an unlocalized unpersonalized search in Denver is the same as everywhere else in the country, or it's not relevant...So, you can see that my frustration there is over the very same topic of frustration as in this "algorithm" thread. There is nothing in the other thread where you can find me "expressing frustration over a lack of traffic." I pointed out calmly that traffic was falling while serps positioning was improving and asked if anyone had a possible explanation. The frustration occurred when it was discovered that your search in Denver produces a radically different result from the same search I make in Houston.

vangogh
02-28-2011, 08:42 PM
Sorry if you were offended. However the thread you started begins with


I have a strange phenomenon on my main coaching website. Since Jan 1. I have seen my serps positioning in Google improve from c.95 to c.45 for the search term "business coach" (non-local, non-personalized.) But the number of visitors has reduced.

That last part seems to indicate your concern is with traffic. You do also mention your concern is with the length of time visitors are staying on your site, but quite honestly I'm offended at the accusation that I'm misquoting you.

A few of your other quotes in the same thread


My coahing site has been on the first page of Google (circ. #4 or #5 - unpersonalized, unlocalized) for the past week but visitors have dropped to unprecedented levels


The number of unique visitors to the whole site (all pages), from all sources (all search engines for all search terms, links, 'no referring link') has been lower than I have ever seen it

Both seem to show concern with search traffic as well. Those aren't only times you mention being concerned with traffic in that thread, but I'll stop there.

This thread is about an algorithm change affecting low quality sites. While Google doesn't specifically say it, most SEOs will tell you it's about reducing the visibility of content farms. The changes have nothing to do with relevance or localization or personal search. The topics of relevance and locality came into the thread when you brought them up, hence my original comment.

Again if anything I said offended you please accept my apologies. However please don't tell me I'm misquoting you or misinterpreting what you said. I've done neither. You may disagree with the conclusion I drew, but that doesn't mean I've misquoted or misinterpreted.

Spider
02-28-2011, 10:43 PM
Sorry if you were offended. However the thread you started begins with

I have a strange phenomenon on my main coaching website. Since Jan 1. I have seen my serps positioning in Google improve from c.95 to c.45 for the search term "business coach" (non-local, non-personalized.) But the number of visitors has reduced.
Yes -- and it ended with --
Anyone have any idea what might be happening? What am I not seeing?

No frustration there, at all. Just a simple request for ideas.

Still, if you were not intentionally attacking my integrity, I must be grateful for that. And if you feel you were not misquoting me, I need to do a better job of expressing myself.

vangogh
03-02-2011, 12:18 AM
if you were not intentionally attacking my integrity

I definitely wasn't intentionally attacking your integrity and if anything I said came across that way I do apologize. Something you just said made me understand a little more why there might have been some miscommunication between us. I want to go through some of the things that were said in this and the other thread and I'll send you a PM. I'd rather not continue hijacking this thread and making it about you and me.

Give me a couple of days and I'll PM you.

vangogh
03-02-2011, 12:23 AM
Now in an attempt to get this thread back on track a little, here's a post with some data about the farmer update (http://www.sistrix.com/blog/985-google-farmer-update-quest-for-quality.html) and some of the before and after search data on about 20 sites.

One of the things you'll notice is article sites like ezine took a pretty big hit. This might signal an end to those sites as a way to market your site and build links to it. The real oddity is that eHow seems to have escaped the update unscathed. Odd, because it's the site most often mentioned when talking about content farms and most SEOs will suggest this update was all about lessening the visibility of content farms.

jpohl
03-04-2011, 11:06 AM
I sometimes sounds like a commercial for Google. However, I have swore at them at least as much as anybody here. However, I must say that they have changed my behavior. When I started, I started doing a lot of blackhat stuff mainly trying to game Google both through SEO and their Adwords platform. However, every time I got something going on autopilot, google would catch on and I would be back at square one. I'd get mad, then come up with something else.

Finally, I decided I had had enough. I went away from the dark side :) Seriously, the prime directive of Google is to provide the most relevant content to their searchers. That is how I build my sites now and advise clients.

I praise the latest change. I create all original content for my own sites. It ticks me off when I see something of mine on another site with no attribution. It even ticks me off more when somebody else is higher in the SERPS using MY content whether or not they attribute the creator. As Vangogh indicated, its far from an exact science to determine quality or relevance but quite frankly google seems to try really hard from everything I have seen.

vangogh
03-04-2011, 11:17 AM
I definitely applaud Google for what they're trying to do. We'll have to wait and see how well they're going to do it, since machines have a pretty hard time judging quality at the moment, especially when you consider many people will disagree about what is and isn't quality.

Jeff have you been following all the articles? I've been reading and collecting many. I'll probably post a bunch of links to some of the better ones (better as defined by me of course) either here or on my blog at some point.

jpohl
03-04-2011, 11:31 AM
Only kind of. On my travels to find the end of the Internet :) If I come across an article about it I will read it. However, It sounds kind of corny (maybe ignorant) but I sleep well at night knowing that my business model as it relates to Google is good so really don't sweat it too much.

Part of that is as you indicated that it takes time to really see how the algorithm changes. I read someplace (here?) that so far only like 10-15% of the potential searches have been affected by it. Sorry I don't have a reference for that number but I recall hearing it. So it may be another year before the full advantage/fallout (depending on your perspective) is fully understood.

jpohl
03-04-2011, 11:32 AM
Sorry, BTW, if you post the articles, I will probably read them. I didn't want to dismiss that part of it.

vangogh
03-04-2011, 11:42 AM
I hear you. Algorithm changes generally don't affect how I do business. This one is a big one so I do want to pay a little more attention to. It won't significantly change how I do things, but I imagine I'll pick up a few things to make me tweak the way I do things here and there.

I do find this stuff interesting even if it doesn't change how I do business. In the last day or two Matt Cutts and another Google engineer have started talking about the changes so we are starting to learn a few things about what's going. I want to spend a little more time reading some of what I've collected before saying too much about it, though one piece of advice from Matt was to look at the Suite 101 site, observe what they do, and then do the opposite.

By the way the update is now going by the name "Big Panda" which comes from the name of a Google engineer who played a big part in the update.

Capitalist
03-06-2011, 05:37 PM
I run a dozen or so affiliate sites, and I've not seen reduction in rankings - but then, I don't really use article marketing. I've always thought that relying on someone else's site to rank your pages was a failure waiting to happen. I tend to focus first on content, second on community, and third on building backlinkgs from a variety of sources.

You have to have something worthwhile before you start trying to get peoples' eyes on it.

vangogh
03-07-2011, 11:06 AM
I'm not sure anyone really knows exactly what Google changed, but it seems as long as you create original content and are putting effort into making it the best you can you probably came away from Big Panda without any significant loss.

DeniseTaylor
03-07-2011, 01:39 PM
I've mixed feelings about this update.

I'm very happy to get spam out of the search engines. I think allowing it to exist sends a very bad message to the wrong people - those who would take advantage.

There are a lot of people out of work or who have taken pay cuts these days. That is leading people to the Net to fill in the gaps. People have the idea that all they have to do is pop on, make their dough, and their problems are solved.

However, they don't think of the effect they have on others. For example, when someone borrows the content of others and rehashes it with an article spinner, they're not only stealing, they're helping to trash the entire online ecosystem. It's like throwing trash out your window as you roll down the highway. The Web is polluted daily by people throwing up garbage and using the "almighty backlink" to get rankings. It's BS and not right.

People can't keep doing that without it having a negative impact.

So I'm very glad for the update in that respect.

On the other hand, I know of some sites that got hit by it that didn't deserve it. Most of the cases I know were plagiarized. They spent a long time creating their content, but others got the credit for it. So to all of you with article spinners, don't be so selfish to think that lifting others' content isn't a big deal. It is.

My problem with Google is, how they can't tell which content is original, because there was a lot of wrong-targets in this update.

All I can really do is speak for myself, because I know what I've done. All my content is 100% pure, genuine me, including the blood, sweat and tears - no spammy links, no excessive article marketing. Instead of getting hit, my sites improved.

vangogh
03-08-2011, 12:29 AM
I get how you feel Denise. Google has always shown they're willing to take down some innocents in an effort to get who they consider the bad guy. Some of that happens unfortunately and I'm not entirely sure there's any way to prevent it. In the case of the people you know, my guess is they hadn't done a good job building links into their sites and so from the perspective of the algorithm they were seen as the ones doing the copying.

It's one reason when ever you create content you should always make sure to link to some of your other pages within the content. Then if and when it gets stolen all the stolen content links back to the source. Of course there's to reason the average site owner should know to do that. Sometimes I think Google needs to remember more that most people don't know and shouldn't be expected to know how to rank well in Google.

I think Google understand some innocent people are going to get hurt, but they choose to benefit as many as they can and then as they learn who undeservedly suffered they tweak the algorithms to try to unhurt them. I think they're currently asking any site that's suffered after the recent change to submit a reinclusion request. I don't think it guarantees their ranking will come back, but it may help Google engineers understand how to make their algorithms better.

Like you I'm glad they're going after low quality pages and also like you I wonder how effective they'll be. Real people aren't exactly great and judging quality. To think an algorithm can do it is unrealistic. All Google can look at are things that may indicate quality, but may also indicate something else. Apparently the site most people thought should be hit, eHow, not only escaped the latest update unscathed, they seem to be doing better after the changes.