Google's fight against automated search-result collection has an awkward side effect: the same changing SERP access that frustrates AI scrapers can make SEO dashboards harder to trust. In Edward Sturm's interview with Barry Schwartz, the Search Engine Roundtable founder separates the visible google.com/goto redirect from a broader reliability problem for third-party rank trackers. They also discuss Google's September 2026 spam update, scaled AI content, and what to do when a site loses visibility.
Barry's warning is about uncertain measurement, not the end of SEO. He says tools adapted to the GoTo redirect, but wider IP blocking, more CAPTCHAs, and reports of questionable bot-visible results make scraped rankings less dependable. Google has confirmed the redirect rollout, not every suspected tactic or motive. For your own site, anchor reporting in Search Console, annotate third-party data limitations, and investigate traffic changes before blaming an update.
Watch Barry Schwartz and Edward Sturm
Credit: This article is an editorial guide to The Edward Show episode 1190, hosted by Edward Sturm with guest Barry Schwartz. The interview is the source for Barry's analysis and predictions; linked Google documents are the source for confirmed policy and rollout facts.
The Redirect Is Not the Whole Scraper Story
Google has tested and rolled out google.com/goto passthrough links in some search results. In August, Barry reported Google's confirmation and a general statement about protecting services and users. In the interview, he says the redirect itself was not especially hard for tools to follow and was not consistently visible to him. It may give Google another signal about automated behavior, but attributing every rank-tracking disruption to that hop oversimplifies the issue.
Barry cites conversations with tool operators about broad IP/proxy blocks, more CAPTCHAs, and potentially different or bad SERP data being returned to automated clients. His September reporting documents provider complaints and reduced collection rates. The claim that Google deliberately injects false rankings is not independently established in the sources reviewed; treat it as an operator report, not a confirmed Google practice. Likewise, Barry's view that Google is aiming chiefly at AI companies and SERP APIs rather than SEO suites is an inference.
The practical risk is not merely missing rows. When collection conditions change, a rank chart may reflect a measurement break instead of a real change in what searchers saw. A provider's update, a jump in unavailable keywords, or contradictory signals across tools should trigger investigation before a client report labels it a Google ranking loss.
What an Honest SEO Report Looks Like Now
Barry recommends telling clients where third-party data comes from and asking vendors for status statements when collection is disrupted. Google Search Console is the first-party view of your own property's clicks, impressions, queries, pages, countries, and indexing. It is not a complete public SERP archive or a replacement for competitive research, but it is a better anchor for claims about your site's actual Google Search performance.
| Signal | What it can answer | Limit to disclose |
|---|---|---|
| Search Console clicks and impressions | Did this property gain or lose observed Google Search visibility? | Query rows can be omitted or anonymized; compare like-for-like periods and page groups. |
| Search Console average position | Did the average position of shown results change? | It is an impression-weighted average of topmost results, not a daily fixed rank for every user. |
| Third-party rank tracker | What did the vendor observe for selected queries, locations, and devices? | Its sampling and collection may change; record vendor incidents and gaps. |
| Analytics and conversions | Did organic visitors complete useful actions? | Attribution and consent can create blind spots; do not equate rank with revenue. |
Google's own position documentation warns that a manually repeated search need not match Search Console's average position. A defensible report says which property, pages, queries, countries, devices, and dates it covers. It marks data gaps and hypotheses instead of smoothing them into a precise-looking trend. Where available, Google's separate generative-AI visibility reports can add context without pretending AI impressions equal clicks or sales.
The September 2026 Spam Update: Confirmed Dates, Unconfirmed Components
During the recording, Barry described several apparent waves and speculated that the longer rollout might involve multiple spam-system components. As of this article's publication, Google's status dashboard says the global, all-language update began September 24 and completed October 8, 2026. It does not say how many systems or phases were involved. Volatility during that window is a reason to investigate, not proof that the update caused a particular site's drop.
Google explains that its spam detection runs continuously and named spam updates are notable improvements. Its scaled content abuse policy targets many pages made primarily to manipulate rankings and provide little value, whether AI, templates, scraping, or human labor created them. Barry's example of a site suddenly publishing tens of thousands of similar pages illustrates a possible pattern, not a published Google threshold or a reliable way to infer the exact detection signal.
AI Writing, Weak Pages, and Site Trust
The interview spends time on Google's uncomfortable position: it uses AI throughout its products while the web fills with low-value generated pages. Google's stated policy does not ban AI-written pages as a class. Its updated generative-AI content guidance says to manually fact-check and review AI output, including metadata, and to focus on accuracy, quality, and relevance. The risk is scaled content without added value, not the presence of an AI tool in an editorial workflow.
At 48:44, Barry interprets John Mueller's remark that Google systems can "lose faith" in a website. His point is that many weak pages may compound indexing and visibility problems across a site. That is Barry's explanation of an informal phrase, not a public Google "trust score" you can inspect. A rising count of excluded pages alone also does not prove a quality penalty; check why specific URLs were excluded and whether they were meant to be indexed.
Barry's proposed response to widespread weak content is substantial editorial work: assess what pages are for, improve or consolidate valuable ones, and remove genuinely unhelpful material when appropriate. Google's core-update guidance likewise emphasizes people-first quality and warns against quick fixes. Deleting pages just to force a numerical index ratio is not a strategy.
Diagnose the Drop Before Choosing a Recovery Playbook
- Confirm the change. Use Search Console's page, query, country, device, and date views. Compare complete periods and note the September 24-October 8 rollout; do not assume timing proves causation.
- Rule out technical causes. Check indexing, robots rules, noindex, canonicals, server errors, migrations, and recent template or analytics changes. Google's traffic-drop guide lays out several causes besides algorithm updates.
- Check policy and manual-action evidence. Review the Search Console Manual Actions report, Google's spam policies, and the last six to twelve months of SEO work, including outsourced changes. A spam-policy issue calls for correcting the violation; a broad core-update decline calls for a wider content and experience review.
- Avoid reflexive destruction. Barry cautions against mass disavowal. Do not remove pages, links, or sections solely because one vendor chart moved. Keep an audit log of each change and the result you expect it to improve.
- Re-measure patiently. Google says spam-policy improvements can take months to be recognized. Report leading signals and uncertainty while waiting, rather than promising a recovery date.
Watch by Topic
| Time | Discussion |
|---|---|
| 01:09 | GoTo redirects and why Barry downplays the redirect itself |
| 03:33 | IP blocking, CAPTCHAs, and reported data issues |
| 09:06 | How to explain unstable rankings to clients |
| 12:15 | The spam-update rollout as Barry observed it |
| 15:01 | Scaled content and possible signals |
| 17:00 | Google's stance on AI-assisted writing |
| 37:15 | Spam-update versus core-update recovery |
| 48:44 | What "losing faith" in a site might mean |
| 51:25 | Why rich-result schema support changes |
| 56:04 | Barry's reporting habit and industry perspective |
A Business Idea From This Reporting Gap
A small firm may not need another ranking dashboard. It may pay for a monthly decision brief that reconciles Search Console, conversions, indexation, and vendor caveats, then tells the owner which action has evidence behind it. The prompt below tests that service without assuming privileged SERP access.
Test an SEO data-confidence service
Three buyer-specific offers, then a seven-day pilot.
Sources and What They Establish
- Interview and Barry's reporting: The Edward Show E1190, his GoTo report, and his tool-operator reporting. These document claims and observations, not a complete audit of Google's anti-bot systems.
- Confirmed rollout: Google's September 2026 update status and its spam-update guidance.
- Policy and diagnosis: Google's spam policies, AI-content guidance, core-update guidance, and traffic-drop checklist.
- Measurement: Search Console basics, position definitions, and the generative-AI report announcement.