Users of the world’s most popular search engine, Google have been complaining the online directory has been getting worse, rather than better over time. According to a recent study from Leipzig University, they’re right.

According to researchers, top-ranked results are often designed to respond well to the algorithm, rather than provide value to users. They found that the most prominent results were “on average more optimised, more monetized with affiliate marketing, and… show signs of lower text quality” as per The Standard.

Recently, a subsidiary of the American business magazine, Forbes, has come under the spotlight for what some have described as exploitative search engine optimisation practices.

While Forbes is best known for its coverage of wealthy individuals and its notorious ‘rich list’, in recent years the outlet’s content has been springing up at the top of Google when users search for anything from pet insurance to pest control.

So why is Forbes dominating search engine results, and is it necessarily a bad thing?

What is Forbes Marketplace?

Forbes Marketplace is a subsidiary of Forbes proper and is responsible for an enormous amount of online content across just about every topic. In a recent blog by the founder of the marketing agency Stone Press, Lars Lofgren examined how Forbes has become so prominent on Google, and what it means for internet users.

In a September blog, entitled Forbes Marketplace: The Parasite SEO Company Trying to Devour Its Host, he wrote:

“In 2020, a completely different company from Forbes partnered with Forbes to run their SEO affiliate business. They created a new company, made it look like it’s part of Forbes (it’s not), and then went to town exploiting every last corner of Google.

“They refer to themselves as Forbes Advisor publicly, but the official entity is Forbes Marketplace…Are any of us naive enough to believe that Forbes Marketplace has gone from nothing to 27.7M searches per month in less than 5 years while also having the expertise to truly help people across such diverse topics as credit cards, roaches, CBD gummies, and sports betting?

“It took Nerdwallet 15 years to do that in one category. We’re supposed to believe that Forbes can do it in at least 4 categories within 5 years? There’s no feasible way to build a team with genuine expertise that fast.

“No way in hell. Forbes Marketplace is a Google heist of the highest order. It’s generic, thin content with a single goal: rank to generate affiliate revenue.”

Just days after the viral article was released, canny internet users noticed Forbes Marketplace suffered a dramatic fall in traffic – leading some to believe Google had stepped in manually to suppress the site in its search results.

In a September 26th post on X, SEO consultant Glenn Gabe pointed out that: “Forbes Advisor is dropping heavily as of yesterday. 1.7M queries have dropped in rank (or are lost). Again, I have no idea if this is a manual action or algorithmic, but very interesting to see timing-wise.”

While it remains unclear if Google intervened in this instance, or if the fall is a result of its new spam policies, what is apparent is that Forbes Marketplace appears to have lost considerable ground since the publication of Lofgren’s blog.

Is Forbes publishing high-quality content?

Lofgren’s blog post sparked intense debate online. Some commenters questioned whether the fact Forbes was ranking well for topics it hasn’t been traditionally associated with, meant that the content was low quality.  As one Reddit user commented:

“Lars goes into detail saying that Forbes shouldn’t write about pet insurance because Forbes are not experts in the subject, but what if they hire experts (&collect all the right data) to write that content and therefore become authoritative? Does that make the content less valid because it is not on a niche-specific domain?”

This raises an interesting question – if Forbes is providing quality content across a range of topics and queries, why shouldn’t its articles feature prominently on Google?

To test this theory out, I checked the infamous Forbes Marketplace ‘How to get rid of cockroaches?’ article. The article, which continues to rank highly on Google, was written by Tom Scalisi, whose biography says spent two decades working as a tradesman.

Forbes Marketplace also says the article was reviewed by Rian Goins, an expert in the pest control industry with thousands of hours of experience. I checked out his website and found he continues to run his pest control business, Get Goins, alongside his wife, in California.

So, on closer inspection, the much-complained of cockroach article appears to be of high quality and fact-checked by a relevant expert. While there do appear to be affiliate links on the page, the information provided looks to be informative and useful to anyone looking to get rid of cockroaches. Whether all of the website’s content is just as good is up for debate, but Forbes’ pest control advice appears to have caught unwarranted scorn.

The problem with Google

The difficulty for Google is that there are billions of web pages – and they need ordering. Worse still on the user side, an estimated 91.5 per cent to 99 per cent of users do not click past the first page of results when they search. That means however Google ranks its results, only the first few are likely to see large amounts of traffic arriving through search.

In whichever way Google organises webpages, most online content is likely to be seen by a small number of people. The content which rises to the top is likely to, at least in some way, be ‘exploiting’ the criteria which Google is using. In short, it looks like the internet can and will not shake off the Pareto distribution. Even if Google abandoned its algorithm entirely and listed results alphabetically, you can be sure there would at once be a surge in websites beginning with ‘A.’

The fact that online content can be monetised, means there is a big incentive to get content listed at the top of the page. Unfortunately, that also means intense effort will be exercised by the big players to occupy the top spots, while potentially more useful information, which doesn’t take account of Google’s ever-changing SEO rules, is consigned to pages so far back it will never be seen.

So, the search engine conundrum may be unsolvable – and already internet users are finding new ways to access information online. According to one recent study, almost 30 per cent of so-called Gen Z and Millenial internet users prefer to search social media sites than use search engines to solve their queries.

While Google can still boast more than 90 per cent of search engine traffic, users now prefer to search Amazon for products, or websites like Expedia for travel. This behavioural change might be a good thing all around – allowing products, businesses and stories which might not be found on Google to find a new life on other platforms which in turn could diminish the incentive for big companies to try and ruthlessly dominate search results.

What is the future of search engines?

The challenges faced by Google’s search algorithm highlight a broader issue in the digital space. While Google’s mission is to organise the world’s information and make it accessible, the rise of entities like Forbes Marketplace shows how search results can be skewed by aggressive SEO tactics, which critics say prioritise monetization over user value.

Ultimately, the core dilemma lies in the inherent nature of search engines. With billions of web pages to organise, it’s nearly impossible for any algorithm to always prioritize the best content without being manipulated by those who understand how it works.

 As users increasingly turn to alternative platforms like social media, Amazon, or specialized websites, we may be witnessing a shift in how people access information. This change could ultimately reduce the pressure on Google’s search rankings and create more space for diverse voices and smaller entities to thrive online.

Whether search engines find a way to square the circle, or are ultimately replaced by AI, is a question only time will tell.

* Forbes did not respond to a request for comment before publication