"We are working on detecting and de-ranking those kinds of sites – it’s basically RT and Sputnik. ... But we don’t want to ban the sites – that’s not how we operate."
|Long-time Google head, Bilderberg steering committee member and Trilateral Commission member Eric Schmidt (November 20, 2017, RT.com, 'Google will 'de-rank' RT articles to make them harder to find – Eric Schmidt'). What else is Google "de-ranking"?|
"Google is also setting new rules encouraging its "raters" -- the 10,000-plus staff that assess search results -- to flag web pages that host hoaxes, conspiracy theories and what the company calls "low-quality" content."
|April 25, 2017, Bloomberg, 'Google Rewrites Its Powerful Search Rankings to Bury Fake News'.|
Anyone who has been surfing to conspiracy sites in 2017 with some regularity will probably have seen criticism along the lines that Google is increasingly censoring certain websites. In general this censorship is seen as a response to the fake news debate that erupted during the Trump presidential campaign, most notably after the so-called Pizzagate "scandal" of November 2016. However, is Google censorship really this recent?
It should be clear that since the successful Donald Trump presidential campaign of 2016, the dominant liberal media has been in complete panic mode, because the Trump presidency represents the first time in U.S. history that a (semi) anti-establishment, alt-right, "populist" candidate not just stood a serious chance of becoming U.S. president, but actually became president. If one thing absolutely, completely spasms the internal media and all political parties it is when these "alt-right" candidates are about to rise to power. Why? Not because they are truly independent, but because they are not meant to win presidential and prime ministerial elections and implement national policies opposite to what the Bilderberg network is dictating to countries all over the West. Open borders to the crime-ridden, religiously extreme Third World is just one of these sacred cows to which the Bilderberg crowd absolutely does not allow the slightest opposition.
It's not entirely that simple though. Trump and the people around him - most notably General Michael Flynn and son - have done their part in the fake news hype by supporting the bogus Pizzagate "affair" in the days before the election. And also through the habit of supportive conservative media to spin the truth in every possible way. The dominant liberal media for the most part has always ignored, ridiculed, or discredited the right because of this habit. Clearly that turned out not to be sufficient anymore at the time of the Trump election, so Bilderberg elites switched to rather blatant, all-out censorship of the internet through Google, and also companies as Facebook.
Is there anyone who takes it serious that the masses need to be "protected" from "Russia-inspired" "alt-right" propaganda? Or from "conspiracy theory"? If big media were so troubled about this fake news, someone could have taken Infowars, Rense, Globalresearch, Coast to Coast AM and all of 9/11 "Truth" to court a long time ago and shut all of it down after a conviction for treason. However, these conspiracy media outlets obviously serve a purpose. They are working for the CIA and the Eastern Establishment as controlled opposition outlets. But now that they have become too influential, despite the mountains of disinformation and fake news that they spread, the establishment apparently is getting desperate and resorting to more overt censorship. Google is playing a key role in this, because when you control access to the internet, you control the internet itself, at least for 99 percent. If your site does not appear in a search engine, how is anyone going to find it?
The hilarious thing is that belief in "conspiracy theory" really isn't the main driver behind "populist" candidates. Certainly over here in Europe extremist globalist Third World immigration policy - supported by virtually the entire media and all political parties, including the "socialist" and (Rockefeller) "green" ones - is. The only thing that prevents people from electing "populist" candidates all over the place is because this handful of alternative candidates tends to be highly eccentric, with massive liberal establishment psychological warfare programs in place that make anyone critical of Third World immigration feel like an isolated pro-Nazi Hitlerite. These programs are failing increasingly, with the Trump election being a prime example. So whether or not these "populist" candidates are independent, the Bilderberg establishment needs to find additional methods to prevent the election of these candidates. It appears that in desperation they are resorting to very obvious censorship.
The obvious question for ISGP, a conspiracy and geopolitical research site, is what effect these so-called anti-fake news measures are going to have on visibility in search engines. Although... it might be better to ask what ADDITIONAL effect these NEW steps are going to have, because ISGP has been having issues with suddenly dropping readership numbers going back at least a year before the fake news media debate exploded in late 2016 - with all evidence pointing to Google.
ISGP initially was in operation from 2005 to 2010, at that point mainly at ISGP.eu. It was shut down in September 2010, with a back up continuing to exist at Wikispooks.com. A good number of updates were made during these Wikispooks years. Eventually ISGP was restarted in December 2014 at ISGP.nl and moved to ISGP-studies.com in August 2016.
It has been a rather long road putting together the contents of this site, so maybe it is pertinent to analyze to what extent hard work actually is paying off. We're not talking here about site content: that's unique enough. Or finances: the site has cost a small fortune in unpaid work and missed income. No, we're talking about overall visibility over the last 13 years. If, for example, ISGP still is not very visible after so many years of hard work, maybe the focus should be switched to dealing with the causes of this before producing any significant new content.
Let's analyze the situation. ISGP:
In other words, ISGP has a solid five times more content compared to 2010, when ISGP received a steady 300-320 unique visitors per day. Old articles have been updated greatly. New articles are more popular, in part because other websites have been copying a lot of the old information made available by ISGP. All duplicate content, much from the 2005-2010 period, has been removed from the search engines. SEO has massively been improved. Search engine rankings should have improved by 50% during 2017 alone. Etc. So we're talking about an ENORMOUS amount of improvements over the last couple of years. Thus we should be looking at 1,500 unique visitors per day at the very least one would think, with an estimate of more than 2,000 per day really not being unreasonable.
Well, on a good number of days here in late 2017 ISGP is actually drawing in roughly 475 visitors per day, with low-400 numbers and even 396 being part of recent history. Yes. ISGP is more than 5 times larger than it was in 2010 and better in every possible way, but it is only drawing about 50% more visitors, with some days the increase being limited to about 30%.
Over 600% more content, but barely 50% more traffic. How is this possible? A first problem is that conspiracy sites, whether of the large gate-keeping kind or the spammy blogger-type, are avoiding putting any links to ISGP. The explanation for this is simple: all of them are controlled by the security state. They push nothing but very organized and systematic conspiracy disinformation. Do you think, for example, that it is normal that pretty much every single 9/11 "researcher" has pushed the no-Flight-77-at-Pentagon theory? Of course not. All of them are assets; every single one. Independent conspiracy researchers essentially don't exist. It's just too costly in every possible way for people to create an independent conspiracy research or news site, certainly one that digs deep.
Secondly, and the more immediate cause, is that Google in particular appears to be censoring ISGP like crazy. Every time there's an increase in daily visitors due to additional content or other improvements, within weeks there's a sudden, overnight crash, dropping the average daily visitors back to what it was before the updates.
We are going to explore this last issue in great detail in this article. It might be tedious to do so, but the evidence needs to be organized somewhere. So let's do that here.
ISGP IN 2005-2010
As long-time dedicated ISGP readers might be aware of, I've been talking about security state harassment in ISGP's FAQ since 2005, the same year ISGP went up.
It started out pretty blatantly with receiving a supposedly "top secret" "JASON Group" email containing detailed information on how to protect U.S. nuclear power plants from terrorist attacks. This email subsequently disappeared from my inbox and was quickly followed by a major phone anomaly and three separate book orders from England permanently going missing, all of which never happened before or since. Thinking it was all quite exciting, I wrote about it. The problems instantly disappeared.
From 2008 to 2010 my site was hosted by two colleagues of mine who were setting up their own internet provider. It was cheap and reliable. This last aspect changed some time after I became their client. By 2009 their server regularly crashed. Subsequently my .eu domain was suddenly canceled from Brussels a few weeks after I switched addresses. For some reason the move was registered in Brussels, a foreign city, weeks before the local city council documented it. To this day nobody understands how. By late summer 2010 ISGP went down so often that even David Icke Forum dwellers started to ask questions: "[ISGP] is always going down, probably offsite attacks... it happens quite frequently seems once or twice a month for the last few months."  The continuous issues actually put my (very knowledgeable) colleagues out of the hosting business for a while, at least until I was not a client anymore.
The details of these experiences - plus a few others - can all be found in a separate article, the contents of which I already made available way back in the day. What is clear to me is that the harassment started out very crude, but that it quickly became so subtle that you couldn't tell for certain anymore that it was even going on. Ultimately Google appears to have taken over this job of harassment and censorship from the security services.
Apart from experiences with harassment by the intelligence services, something else that has been available on ISGP for many years is a chart of the number of daily visits to ISGP in the first three years:
The chart reveals a very steady number of daily visitors - as steady as I remember it being. After the Beyond the Dutroux Affair article in July 2007, the site generally drew between roughly 300 to 320 visitors, with me not remembering any sudden, random 25% drops in traffic or so, whether temporary or permanent. These drops also aren't visible here. There is almost no fluctuation in the daily number of visitors. And every rise or fall is well-explained: either newly-uploaded articles receive links or the site changes locations. In other cases random links result in a temporarily heightened number of daily visitors (usually from forums, which add little to nothing to Domain Rank), with the graph slowly smoothing out again over the succeeding period.
For the longest time I assumed that Infowars was responsible for increasing the daily number of visitors to ISGP by drawing attention to it with a number of links. This turns out to be a completely false notion. The links actually provided very important Domain Authority for search engines as Google, in turn leading to a rapid, permanent and very stable increase in traffic. As sad as it is, I have never observed a significant slow increase in site traffic by interested readers who stick around, despite various readers telling me they are fans and have brought others to the site. Search engine Domain Authority seems to be king.
The above chart additionally shows how to move a site to a new domain the bad and the correct way. It was done in a very bad way in May 2007 from a free domain of my internet service provider to PEHI.eu. Wrongly assuming that people would just Google and find the site again, no 301 redirect was used. The result shows: traffic dropped to about one-third and I had to rebuild Domain Authority. Luckily I was able to "bribe" Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars in July 2007 in linking the hyper-popular Beyond the Dutroux Affair at the top of the front page for two days, which subsequently was also linked on Rense.com and a number of other fake news conspiracy sites. It instantly rebuild the Domain Authority of the previous domain. Then, in mid 2008, I moved the site to ISGP.eu, this time in the proper manner through a 301 redirect. I still lost about 5 to 10 percent in daily traffic, but the move was a lot less rough than the year before.
All this information is important in light of events that would transpire a decade later.
ISGP SINCE DECEMBER 2014
When I decided to restart ISGP at ISGP.nl in December 2014, I was confronted with more subtle methods of obstruction than when I first started ISGP in 2005. One issue was that it was next to impossible for me to get ANY conspiracy site to link to ISGP. Major gatekeepers as Infowars and Rense had already thanked for my "services" back in 2006 and 2007, but now it became obvious that even the vast majority of smaller conspiracy sites, including the entirety of 9/11 "Truth", had no interest in linking to ISGP under ANY circumstance.
By the time ISGP.nl switched over to ISGP-studies.com in August 2016 it appears ISGP had become even more notorious, because now it was even harder to get links. Major liberal CIA outlets as Sourcewatch and Disinfo.com absolutely refused to update any old urls. Incoming links were now even more scarce. I don't believe that any new article of ISGP since 2014 has been linked by any conspiracy news site anywhere. Apart from Wikispooks, ISGP has been completely shut out by the conspiracy community. The mainstream media won't touch or attack ISGP anymore either. This only occurred in the first few years of the site's existence when news editors apparently assumed ISGP was similarly controlled as all other conspiracy sites.
From an establishment point-of-view, this type of isolation is not just smart in order to prevent conspiracy enthusiasts from learning about ISGP through other, more popular conspiracy sites, but it is also smart because it doesn't allow ISGP to build up Domain Rank in search engines, thus condemning it do the abyss in search results. Very, very smart. But at the same time it shows one just how much control there is over the so-called "alternative" media.
You get used to this state of quarantine from the conspiracy community. I even take pride in it. I have always just written what needs to be written and let the search engines decide from there. Over the line my articles are unique and detailed enough to still get half-decent page rankings on a number of topics. And from there people can discover the other articles on ISGP. It's not ideal, but it is what it is.
Unfortunately, starting about two weeks before my first domain renewal payment for November 2, 2015, I became increasingly worried about the drop off in traffic to ISGP. Over the past several two months or so this had finally been rather stable at just above 200 unique visits per day, even with no incoming links. Except for a day of 197 unique visitors - a drop of about 4% - that I passed off as a minor anomaly, 204 was the lowest in this period. Articles were produced and updates were continually going on, so an uptrend in daily traffic was to be expected from here. But, no. That's not what happened. All of a sudden ISGP started to hit occasional deep drops to the 170s and 180s. October 29, 2014, four days before my domain renewal, there was another huge dip, down to just 154 unique visitors.
This might seem minor to the average reader. However, it's not. In the previous period I pretty much had a guaranteed minimum number of 205 visitors a day, even without any new, incoming links. Two weeks later I'm hitting the 154. That's a 25% drop in traffic. Even if we take the 197 visitors as our baseline, that's still a 22% drop in traffic in a matter of days. That's HUGE! There's also no reason for it.
Puzzled about these drops in traffic, I first thought Wikispooks.com, a website that previously kept a backup of ISGP, had made this old archive available again, causing competition in search results. This turned out not to be the case. Then I considered it possible that another site copy-pasted several major ISGP articles, causing competition in this manner. This also was not the case. Ultimately I began to suspect that the sudden drop in traffic must have something to do with Google rankings, considering quite literally 97 to 100% of search engine traffic came through Google at that point. One can observe this through Statcounter, probably the best tracker out there for website owners. Unfortunately, in this period I didn't systematically check and record this statistic.
The drops in traffic motivated me to expand existing articles, produce additional articles, and improve site-wide SEO. SEO such as a modern layout, HMTL5 tags, H1 tags, proper names for pictures, etc. already had been hugely improved in late 2014 and early 2015. What could still quickly be done, however, was to put a lot of secondary data - such as backed-up articles used in ISGP's suspicious deaths list and UFO newspaper archive, later followed by membership lists of groups as Le Cercle - into the regular ISGP site framework, so they benefit from the greatly improved SEO. As a result, these articles ended up being visited more often. Combined with new information, soon ISGP drew about 10-20% more traffic, even without links. The reader can see that particularly well for a three week period from late November to mid December 2015 in the graph below:
By mid December 2015 I was increasingly celebrating that VERY hard work was slowly paying off, despite suspicions of Google censorship and no links from other conspiracy sites. Then I learned that Google apparently can keep playing the same trick over and over: from a three weeks above-200 average, all of a sudden I fell back down to 158, a solid 20% drop. One-fifth of my daily traffic just vanished into thin air. Despite climbing up a little in between, ISGP continually hit the 150s to 180s until mid January 2016. You're looking at a very solid drop in daily traffic, despite countless updates and additional pages having been integrated into the website's main framework - which were visited more often.
In early 2016 we see ISGP hit the 260-360 unique visitors a day for much of May, until mid June, after which there again is a rapid drop off. As appears to be rather often the case, this new period of lower ranking is heralded by a brief sudden fall to 207 on June 16, followed a few days later by a more definitive drop. The last week of June ISGP had great trouble hitting the 200, with one drop as low 174. You're talking roughly 25% less visitors on average than in previous weeks. And without any special links. How does this happen? A year's worth of work on ISGP and right back to the same visitor numbers I was the year before. It was amazing to behold.
Obviously, the more these sudden drops happened, the more I began to try to pinpoint the exact cause. It also led me to working even harder with creating new content to prove that it most likely is Google canceling out any growth of ISGP.
In August 2016 I decided to change the domain of ISGP from ISGP.nl to ISGP-studies.com, this after running ranking tests for .com and .nl domain. It quickly turned out that .com domains score much higher in English language rankings than .nl, despite the fact that my website is entirely in English. Many readers might now go, "Duh!", but the whole reason I dared to take the ISGP.nl domain in the first place is because Google's so-called SEO god, Matt Cutts, in 2012 stated that it doesn't really matter which country domain - known as top-level domain (TLD) - you take, because Google primarily looks at the language your site is written in. Here's a tweet of him that is often discussed:
In 2013 the Dutch government also had a study carried out to find out if it mattered if it would take .nl or .overheidnl as top-level domain for its government website. Conclusion? It didn't matter all.  - So back in December 2014 it appeared quite safe to go for ISGP.nl. After all, domain TLDs with ISGP were getting scarce.
Well... on August 3, 2016 I switched from ISGP.nl to ISGP-studies.com - so I switched TLDs - and OVERNIGHT I experienced a 50% increase in daily traffic. This overnight rise in traffic - without any additional incoming links - was very real. And very exciting. But how is this possible? Is it because top-level domains quietly do matter to Google? Or is it because the 301 redirect did not automatically transfer any ranking penalties imposed on ISGP.nl? You be the judge.
The victory celebrations after the domain change lasted for about two weeks. As expected, at that point ISGP traffic crashed back to almost what it had been at ISGP.nl, at least for a while. What was frustrating even before this was that by August 8, four days after switching domains and implementing a wholesale 301 redirect - similar to what I did in 2008 when moving from PEHI.eu to ISGP.eu - that Google managed to completely scramble the search ranking of ISGP's main site. First, ISGP-studies.com was only represented with its intro article in Google on the 34th place when typing "ISGP" (on a never-before-used proxy). Worse, ISGP.nl had dropped from the 2nd or 3rd place (it used to be number one in 2008-2010) to the 10th (!), behind at least two websites for which Mozrank calculated a domain authority for of 9.21 (!). This included ISGP.in, a barely loading and functioning site in India. Yes, ISGP.nl was handed a lower ranking than that!
Bing.com also immediately dropped ISGP.nl from its first page by August 4, but somehow it remained at number one in Bing.nl, despite it being an English language website. Because visitors were up, I didn't complain too loudly, but certainly it is an odd way of handling domain switches.
Over the next month, ISGP-studies.com slowly started to take over in search engines, but the switch was a slow and painful process. To this day I occasionally run into ISGP.nl urls. All this is very interesting, because I used the same wholesale 301 permanent redirect that I had used in 2008 to transfer PEHI.eu to ISGP.eu. Back in 2008 there had been a loss of five, maybe 10, percent in traffic, but for the rest everything remained quite stable in the search engines. It's incredible that Google did these things better in 2008 than it did in 2016.
Chances are that Google was just incompetent here with the 301 domain switch. Google has great aspects, but also has shown serious incompetence on occasion. For quite a while they removed the option to only view links of a certain language, which forced me to use Bing whenever I was looking up certain product on Dutch websites. That must have been the pinnacle of incompetence. Although... In late 2016 I had a Beyond the Dutroux Affair article copy-paste removed from the Sign of the Times website. I did this before removing the url in Google. Big mistake. That empty page remained at the top of Google's ranking for a full year! Only now I see that this completely empty page has begun to drop in ranking.
Google is also horrendous when it comes to figuring out copy-paste material. The biggest copy-paste websites out there, such as Biblioteca Pleyades, have some of the highest rankings, well above any originals of ISGP. Also, it has not been unusual for third rate blogs to copy ISGP articles wholesale in the weeks and months after uploading them. What does Google do with these copy-pastes? That's right, it boots ISGP out of the primary rankings, replacing them with these secondary copy-pastes that were created months later. To make matters even more disgraceful, these prominent copy-pastes often are to be found on free blogs with zero markup and zero custom design! We're talking Wordpress, the Google-owned Blogspot and sites.google.com.
Here is another disgraceful example I ran into 1.5 months after the original version of this article was written. At this point the independent Moz company gave ISGP-studies.com a somewhat respectable domain authority of 45 out of 100. However, Google clearly didn't agree, as in this example two .tk Tokeleau domains with absolutely zero domain authority, zero Webarchive presence, and completely inaccessible pages unless one is willing to click on all kinds of extremely invasive full-page ads are ranked HIGHER than ISGP-studies.com, with another .tk domain listed only place below this website:
It should be clear that Google has its ranking priorities mixed up.
Another issue ISGP has been having with Google for years is that it loves to rename titles of ISGP articles in Google. The worst example ever dates to 2014 when I noted that ISGP's The Supranational Suspects Behind 9/11 simply was renamed to "Part 2"!! That was it! And then one wonders why no one clicked on the article.
These issue still continue. Only recently did I notice on a mobile phone that ISGP's index page was renamed from the Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics to "ISGP's study". Just incredible. Plenty of ISGP article titles continue to be overwritten, virtually always by far less appealing titles, and sometimes affixed with "ISGP's study". Examples mentioned earlier, of which I made screenshots, include ISGP articles on Alex Jones and the "liberal CIA" network. The Alex Jones article was renamed from Alex Jones of Infowars Admits to CIA and "Army Special Forces" Ties simply to Alex Jones. I only found out about this after noticing a major drop in visitors of this article. It's also highly curious that only the title of ISGP's url was overwritten, with copy-pastes retaining the original title.
Similarly, ISGP's article title The Grassroots Myth: "Liberal CIA: Network of New Left" Foundations, Media... was renamed to Liberal CIA. Luckily this title is still intriguing enough for many people, but it is highly undesirable nonetheless. I certainly noticed a major drop off in visitors compared to the early days, similar to the Alex Jones article and many others. Countless other ISGP articles have had their titles changed. I regularly run into such examples. Some now have also been affixed not with the full ISGP name, but with "ISGP's study". How incompetent can Google get? Strangely, a lot of these title changes only occur for a few weeks or months. Then they're gone for another few weeks, only to return.
Yet another problem is that for now Google is the only search engine (after 10 years) that has decided to remove ISGP's Beyond the Dutroux Affair from its index, with the reason that the article involves "content with apparent child abuse". Yes, it obviously does. Google is not lying here. However, the article exposes child abuse and shows a few very small, censored pictures from the Dutroux dossier to demonstrate that the accusations made actually have a factual basis. This includes girls being raped by dogs, which people undoubtedly would find hard to believe; and a few censored screenshots of snuff movies, which the mainstream media claims do not exist. It might be a coincidence, but the timing of this article has been very convenient, because I had just removed about 50 copy-pastes of this article from the internet, none of which have ever been touched by Google. Then there's the issue that I have not been able to protest the removal, because there are no forms or contact addresses that exist on these issues, in contrast to copyright claims. There's basically no easy way to protest this removal. Talk about incompetence.
As readers can see, it has been a crazy ride with Google since 2015. The problems may have started even earlier. I remember around May 2015 having Wikispooks put temporary redirects from my old archived pages to a good number of new pages on ISGP.nl. Temporary redirects should remember the page rank of the redirected page. Because Wikispooks.com had higher Domain Rank, I thought this to be a good temporary solution. And it was. Overnight overall visitors to ISGP increased from barely 200 to a solid 300. Unfortunately, this only lasted for three days or so. After that, traffic crashed back down to the 200 range. First Google has trouble removing these old pages from its index, even with permanent 301 redirects, causing unnecessary competition. Then you turn them into temporary redirects to benefit from this dual listing in Google and within days the older urls are significantly down-ranked. It appears ISGP can never win with Google.
The interesting thing is that I never had a single issue with Google or Google rankings in the ISGP period of early 2004 to late 2010. They were always steady and improved only by getting more high quality links that generated Domain Authority. That was very tough to get after 2007. I also switched domains no less than three times. So the fact that I didn't generate a steady increase in daily readership isn't that surprising. If there was any suppression, Google did a better job of hiding it than they did later on. I don't remember observing any mysterious overnight drops in traffic. And I most certainly did pay a lot of attention to statistics in those days.
What has been discussed until here is far from all. On September 9, just over a month after the change from ISGP.nl to ISGP-studies.com, and frustrated with the still somewhat horrendous rankings at this point, I began the process of removing all duplicate ISGP content from the web. A lot of old ISGP articles were copy-pasted to literally dozens of purple-black-colored Wordpress and Blogspot websites, suppressing my own presence in search engines. As already mentioned, even recent copy-pastes on recently set up, ugly, third-rate, pro-Nazi blogspot sites uploaded months after my original was published were causing major competition, often completely replacing my original in the Google index. In fact, I saw the same thing happening in Bing. That's interesting, because these search engines take pride in detecting duplicate content. So why remove the content that appeared first? In situations like this one would think Domain Authority doesn't matter.The duplicate content removal process began with the earlier-mentioned Beyond the Dutroux Affair on the SOTT website. After ignoring a polite August 30 request to add updated source urls to their copy-paste, I went to SOTT's provider on September 9 and forced down the article. Quickly realizing that 90 percent of the conspiracy community and even some internet service providers ignored my polite and time-consuming email requests to have duplicate content removed, on October 4, 2016 I began to use Google's much quicker Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) forms and soon also those of Bing and Yahoo. This turned out to be a better method for another reason as well: you want to have the urls removed from search engines before taking the actual article down through the internet service providers. In case of the SOTT article, the empty version of my article was still listed prominently in Google's search index for almost a full year, above ISGP's version. Right when ISGP started to take over this empty copy-paste, Google permanently banned my version of the article. Just incredible.
At ISGP.nl I clocked about 250 unique visitors per day before the switch to ISGP-studies.com on August 4, 2016. By the time I started to systematically remove duplicate material on October 4, 2016 through Google's DMCA system I was clocking about 360 unique visitors per day. A huge part of this increase, of course, was due to the domain name switch.
Soon after beginning this systematic removal process, it looked to be a major success. Even without any significant incoming links, ISGP-studies.com all of a sudden started to hit the 400s easily, with 500s also happening very regularly. Even the occasional 600+ soon became a reality.
These drastic increases in traffic make sense, because when searching for groups as Le Cercle, the 1001 Club and the Pilgrims Society, ISGP had been completely removed from the search engines, despite having produced the first major articles and documents on these groups and being listed at the number 1 spot for these groups in the period until 2008. People looking for these groups would now largely bump into my old articles copy-pasted on bibliotecapleyades.net, including articles on the Bohemian Grove and JASON Group. This website, once again, is proof of the hypocrisy of Google in particular to be able to detect and remove duplicate content and fake news. Bibliotecapleyades.net, with its super-outdated site design, entirely consists of conspiracy disinformation copy-paste material for which no permission has been granted for the most part. And yet, it clearly has a very high ranking score, certainly much, much higher than ISGP.
Bibliotecapleyades.net's internet service provider, Aruba.it, absolutely refused any cooperation with DMCA requests, but eventually I was able to block all relevant articles from bibliotecapleyades.net and its mirror site. The first batch was blocked in early October, combined with plenty of other material. Another significant part was removed from search engines in late October. What do we see over this period? We see a significant rise in daily traffic to ISGP. 400+ to 600+ throughout October and then, after a huge dip, to an average of 730 over the first three days of November. ISGP was starting to do good in terms of daily traffic. Finally. We're talking about three times more traffic than ISGP.nl and a solid two times more than ISGP-studies.com of September.
The dip on October 29, 2017 is very strange, but also very similar to what has happened on roughly two dozen other occasions since restarting ISGP in December 2014. This dip most definitely did not involved a crash of Statcounter. As usual, every hour just less visitors poured in. This problem began the late on October 28 and ended on October 30, explaining why the day before and after also relatively low unique visitors came to ISGP. If this brief dip had not been there, daily visitors to ISGP would have been completely in line with two major sets of duplicate content removals.
Unfortunately, on November 4, 2016 the bogus Pizzagate "affair" broke, with more than a few links being placed to ISGP's soon-to-be Google-banned Beyond the Dutroux Affair article. It's unfortunate that this "affair" did not break a few weeks later, so that the effect of the duplicate content removals would be much easier to analyze. I generally got 1,100 to 1,700 unique visitors per day during the period from early November 2016 to early February 2017. A second major wave was generated on December 19, 2016 by a similarly questionable article of Anneke Lucas on Global Citizen about elite child sexual abuse that once again linked to the Beyond the Dutroux affair article. This Global Citizen article received several major links over the course of a few weeks, which in turn filtered through to ISGP.
Despite the Pizzagate inconvenience, I removed three times as much information during November. Despite not being able to properly analyze ISGP progress with daily visitors, the now increasingly usual peculiar dips continued to occur. After a major Pizzagate spike on November 4, and hovering around an apparent new low of about 830, on November 9 ISGP visitors suddenly and heavily fell down again to 578, a solid 30% drop. I never saw these strange drops in the decade before 2015. To make these drops even more peculiar, the next day, on November 10, ISGP is back up to 793 without any significant links coming in, a 38% overnight increase in traffic.
At that point another significant (Reddit) link came in, so the bottom numbers were obscured again for a few days. Interspaced with a few minor links, ISGP bottomed out throughout November at 810, 834 and 800. So, once again, how did ISGP manage to bump down to 578 just days before? Having gained quite a bit of experience with this over the past few years, if 1,300 Reddit participants - many of them conspiracy disinformers or Illuminati believers - click on an ISGP link, maybe 30 are still around the next day (assuming the link has dropped out of sight). A week later, maybe three or four. Visiting numbers through Reddit links drop off very quickly, because few people read or have any degree of patience. They'd rather just share their opinion on the forum than actually study. Also, very few people realize the uniqueness of ISGP within the conspiracy community. Keeping this in mind, it is only reasonable to assume that ISGP's new bottom average for daily visitors would have been in the mid to high 700s by mid November 2017. The duplicate content removals most definitely seem to have effect.
On November 27, 2017 another major link comes in and visitors for the shoot to 1,500 uniques. A few more minor links follow and for three days ISGP comfortably sits in the 1,100-1,200 range. At that point a crash down to 926 occurs, which is fine. But the next day? 667! What?! That's 13% below what I assumed ISGP's new long-term bottom of about 770 would be. 770 actually is a conservative estimate, because I kept removing articles in the mid November period when ISGP wouldn't drop below 800. So again I ask? How did this mysterious drop happen? They are always relative to the apparently real number of visitors. It went down to 358 on October 29, to 578 on November 9, and then to 667 on November 25. Throughout this period duplicate content was removed, with an apparently ever higher number of daily visitors as a result. Each time we're talking about a drop of roughly 25%. Is 20 or 25% a basic ranking penalty that Google ranking staff can switch on and off? One almost begins to think so.
Moving on, especially the December 14 - December 18, 2017 period was very quiet for ISGP. The daily number of unique visitors during these four days? A steady average of 770. After the prominent December 19, 2017 Global Citizen article of Anneke Lukas article with its included ISGP link, ISGP has another brief lull in links around New Year's Eve 2016-2017. The absolutely low? 783, indicating that only about 15 visitors or so from the Global Citizen article are still hanging around or coming in. The rest is all determined by Google Domain Authority and a few dozen to maybe one or two hundred regular visitors.
The evidence is very clear: ISGP now has a good two times more traffic than before any of the duplicate content removals. In December there's a constant daily average of a solid 770 unique visitors a day while back in September it was about 340. This apparently was after a penalty hit, because in early August ISGP-studies.com was sitting at about 375. And who knows, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that ISGP received one or more penalty hits in November or early December, which would be obscured by the countless Pizzagate-related links coming in. After all, the relatively quiet period of November 11 to November 25 didn't see a single day below 800. And large amounts of duplicate content were removed throughout November and December. Just in the November 22-24 period I removed 134 copyrighted ISGP content from Google. While earlier this quickly resulted in a 50 to 100% traffic boost starting in the days after, this second wave of removals appears to have had no effect. In fact, daily visitors went down by about 4%. These articles maybe have been less crucial, but how much sense does that make?
Throughout January 2017 the Global Citizen article by Anneke Lucas was linked several more times. In minor lulls in between ISGP didn't drop below the 902, but due to the frequent links the daily number of visitors clearly did not have time to bottom out. The sharp correction down to 840 on January 28 is odd. The day before visitors weren't at average levels, but stood at an elevated 1,200 views, preceded by an average of about 975 in the three days before. Once again, the day after diving down to 840, visitors bumped back up to an elevated 1,061. If we take 1,050 as an entire reasonable number for January 28, 840 represents a decline of 20%. Even at a super-rational estimated 940 visitors, 840 still represents a sudden drop of 10%. It's a very significant drop and highly surprised me at the time. It gives one the impression that this was another day someone at Google briefly flipped a 20 to 25% ranking penalty switch. Granted, I did not check if hourly visits were consistently down on this day. It must have been though, because I certainly did not watch any Statcounter crashes or website crashes.
Assuming that roughly 900 unique visitors would be the new norm, in mid January I upgraded my hosting package for ISGP to guarantee that the website would continue to have fast loading times. A number of .htaccess commands were also inserted to aid this process.
At the time I was contemplating putting up a few ads, because donations have always been far and few between. Now that ISGP was easily hitting more than 50,000 total page loads per month, a number of well-known ad agencies had become available to ISGP, assuming they wouldn't oppose the actual content of the site. Having over 50,000 page loads per month also gives ISGP a bit of credibility when trying to bring in manually sought out advertizers. Clearly I was getting excited in this period that one day ISGP would provide me with some steady additional income, as maybe one should expect from a website that is as unique and in-depth as ISGP.
While worried about additional ranking penalties, the last thing I expected to happen was a return to below 500, let alone below 400, daily visiting numbers. With so much duplicate content removed, such a new domain, and slowly building Domain Authority by not switching the domain anymore, it just couldn't fathom daily visitors falling by a whole lot. If this were to happen, it would simply be too obvious a sign of government censorship, wouldn't it be? Well, read on.
If January 2017 was the month of over-confidence, February 2017 came to be the month of reality-check. Well, reality already should have set in on January 28 with a drop to 840, but in these days I still had hope that these brief sudden dives did not herald in an upcoming period of a more permanent drop.
Right on February 1 there was a drop from the low 900s to 863. Then on February 7 to 846. These drops puzzled me a little, because just before I was generally hitting the 920s without any incoming links. It's likely that over time this number would slowly drop off to the high 870s, maybe even the mid 850s, but within a week or two consistently dropping even below 850 is pretty darn extreme. While not liking it at all, I did my best to get used to the 840 or so as the new low for days when ISGP didn't get any incoming links. It's still a giant improvement over the recent past, so let's make the best of it, right?
Well, optimistic thinking only gets you so far. February 10 - just three days after the already very low 846 number - all of a sudden there's a drop to 677, a process that seems to have been set in motion somewhere the previous day when I hit the already shockingly low 731. Once again, the familiar trend of a 30 to 40 hour depression in readership is visible: February 11 saw visitors shoot back up to 931 - without any major links. Not that this matters. As the reader can see in the graph above, from now on I am lucky to the 800 on days without links. The new low for February 2017 are the 660s and 670s.
One wonders how on Earth this is possible. ISGP's absolute daily bottoms were in the low 800s in November and December, the low 900s in January, and the mid 800s in early February. And by mid to late February it crashes down again 670?! That makes no sense at all. If there was any doubt about censorship taking place, it should now be removed.
Although it might be a coincidence, ISGP had its steepest drop in daily visitors on February 23, a drop set in just hours after publishing the article $150 Billion in Foundation Funds Attacking Trump and Pushing Third World Immigration; Soros, Ford, Carnegie, Gates, Rockefeller, Etc. This would be just about the most sensitive article ever, certainly at that point with Trump just having been inaugurated and protests still being organized left and right. The article was put out in the afternoon of February 22. On February 23 ISGP logged 677 unique visitors, together with February 10 the lowest number since that equally peculiar post-Pizzagate drop to 578 on November 9. On February 24, visitor numbers went down to 663, followed by 708 the next day.
Not only are these numbers strongly indicative of yet another temporary Google penalty in the 20% range, but it also demonstrates that ISGP gets 0,0 support from the rest of the conspiracy community. Not a single conspiracy website, as pro-Trump most appear to be, put a link to this seemingly very revealing article. And to this day not a single conspiracy website has done so. Even Trump himself does not seem to care about these foundations being behind all the protests against him, preferring to blame Obama, Hillary Clinton, or some other insignificant individual or group. Why is that? Most likely because all of politics and the entire news business involves one giant conspiracy against the people. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is independent.
After the 20% three-day dip right after publishing the February 22, 2017 article $150 Billion in Foundation Funds Attacking Trump and Pushing Third World Immigration, daily readership of ISGP climbed up again a little. The first half of March saw 800+ on most days, with a bunch of dips into the 700s. March 21 saw a dip to 696, from which point the low 700s instead of the low to mid 800s became the new baseline, a drop of about 12%. This is nothing ISGP hadn't seen in February, however.
April 1, 2017 carried another, huge surprise though: from 820 visitors on March 31 to just 605 visitors, in reality a loss of about 17% compared to ISGP's average bottoms of about 730. The next day? Back up at 783. But experience told me that more permanent dips were to come.
Early April actually came with a triple whammy. On April 5 visitors went down to 541. If that wasn't enough of a shock, on April 9 ISGP went down to just 478 unique visitors, a number not seen since October 2016, immediately after starting the process of removing duplicate content! If we compare 720 of late March as a bottom average to 478 of April 9, we're talking about a solid 33% collapse in daily traffic. If we take 780 of early March and much of February, early April saw a drop of 39%. Looking at the all-time-high daily bottom average of at least about 900 of January 2017, 478 represents a 53% drop in traffic in less than three months. One wonders how can anyone run an online business if daily visitor numbers were this random.
A partial explanation for these lows is that somewhere in early April 2017 Google removed ISGP's Beyond the Dutroux Affair from its index, consistently the most popular article of ISGP since it was written in July 2007. Despite its deletion from the index, because ISGP removed every single copy from the internet and redirected various appendices to the main article, people still find their way to it to an extent and it still remains one of the more popular articles. Fact is, the article's removal can easily lead to 20-40 missed visits per day. However, at most its removal would explain one major dip in traffic - and only if this dip would be a rather permanent one. It hard to see how the removal of this single article explains three massive dips in a row, representing a total loss of almost 250 unique visitors per day.
Ignoring the regular links ISGP received in May and June 2017, the 500 range had now become the new average. Although, early June saw two major dips: one on June 3 to 436 and another on June 11 to 411, both preceded by major spikes in traffic. In both cases traffic also bounced up again a day later. June 12 to June 22 actually saw above average daily numbers of high 500 to low 600, higher than they had been in May. But, predictably, more sudden dips would occur. On July 1, ISGP actually managed to dip down to 392 daily visitors! The exact same thing happened on July 9: 392 visitors.
We're looking at numbers here that basically are the same as when ISGP.nl was transferred to ISGP-studies.com in early August 2016, before any of the more than 400 removed duplicate content articles from the internet. It looks quite obvious that these removals largely were responsible for giving ISGP daily averages into the 900 unique visitors by January 2017, and possibly higher if no additional ranking penalties had taken place. And here, in June and July 2017 - with not allowing ANY new ISGP copy-pastes onto the internet - ISGP's daily averages still go down to similar levels as if these massive amounts of duplicate articles are still around.
Anybody still thinking that nothing out of the ordinary going on?
Another things that happened in the mid 2017 period apart from Beyond the Dutroux Affair being banned from the Google index, is that two articles created in mid 2016 quite dramatically lost readership, likely explaining part of the drop in daily ISGP visitors.
The first was an article analyzing the Kay Griggs story. After lifting it out of another, much larger ISGP article, updating it, and publishing it separately, this article blew up in readership. In fact, within days it became the consistently most-read article of ISGP. Beyond the Dutroux Affair - before it was banned - received a lot of links from all over and in that manner continued to compete, but on days without these links, the Kay Griggs article easily outperformed it. If the average popular article maybe got 15 visitors a day, the Kay Griggs article would get roughly 60 to 100.
This went on for 10 months or so, at which point the Kay Griggs article all of a sudden descended to the average range, and sometimes even below average. Considering no one copied the article, how much sense does that make? As with the Google ranking penalties, the loss in readership was sudden. Several months later I purposely mentioned/complained about this in an email to a major conspiracy disinformation outfit looking to do an interview, considering ISGP on at least three occasions received ranking penalties immediatly after talking about statistics in emails to others. Coincidence or not, within days the popularity of this article was partially restored, although definitely not to the extent that it used to be. To this day it hovers around 15 to 30 visitors a day. At the time of this writing it is the 7th most popular article.
The second article involves the one about Steven Greer and his bogus Disclosure Project. This article became one of the most popular ones written by ISGP, although not nearly as much as the Kay Griggs one. It quite consistently hovered in the top 8 or so of most-visited articles. I even added a bunch of screeshots of quite funny Google queries on the Disclosure Project to the top picture: "stephen greer hoax", "steve greer cult", "dr steven greer scam", and is "dr steven greer a fake". I would continually see these queries, sometimes as the top hit or close to the top hit in Google. But then, similar to the Kay Griggs article and around the same time, the Steven Greer article suddenly lost its readership by at least 50% - overnight. Since that time it is an averagely visited article at best.
The question, of course, is how these sudden drops and partial rises in readership of individual articles happen. Realistically, it can only have been Google. Unfortunately, I did not register any exact dates, so it's impossible to determine to what extent the lowering of the ranking of these articles contributed to a loss in overall readership. We'll leave it at this for now.
For the rest of 2017 the situation basically remained stable. Occasionally low 400 dips occur, but for the most part daily lows are into the 470s. Sometimes there are periods, such as has been the case since late October, that the mid 500s or higher is regularly reached.
That having been said, one shouldn't forget that a huge amount of content has been made available in just the last few months. September saw the creation of virtually the entire Center for Responsible Immigration. In October ISGP's Psychedelics and Elitism article was published. November saw an article on Opus Dei. In between countless updates have taken place to a variety of articles.
There's really no evidence that the creation of this new content has any significant impact on total daily readership, despite it being visited directly through Google. On October 7, for instance, ISGP clocked 426 visitors. October 18 saw 483 visitors, with two other days in this period bringing in numbers in the 490s. These numbers simply aren't healthy, because ISGP was getting these numbers or almost getting these numbers in early August 2016 with 25% less content and 400 copy-pasted ISGP articles still clogging the internet.
As it turns out, many of the apparent Google ranking penalties are visible on Alexa's ranking chart for ISGP-studies.com:
The chart also reveals how by late October and early November 2016 ISGP was bursting vertically into the Alexa ranking, two-and-half-months after ISGP-studies.com was set up. This once again seems to indicate that the continuous duplicate content removals were paying off big time. As already explained, on November 4 Pizzagate broke, putting a lot of doubt into how effective all the additional content removals were.
Most people looking at this Alexa chart would probably think that ISGP is inactive - with is the furthest thing from the truth. Most people also wouldn't think that the deep, sudden drops in the first months of 2017 were due to ranking penalties. However, when we compare the Alexa chart with the ISGP's Statcounter chart, we find that there's definitely a close correlation.
Summary on ISGP traffic loss: ranking penalties or straight-up harassment?
It's safe to say that ISGP lost 45% of its daily traffic from January to June and beyond, despite the creation of a lot of new content, the removal of additional duplicate content from the internet in April, June and September, and a 50 percent higher Domain Authority, according to Moz.com. A few percent can be ascribed to a natural drop in readership after so many Pizzagate-related links from the November-January period and the removal of Beyond the Dutroux Affair from the Google index, but a solid one-third remains unexplained - and really more because of the afore-mentioned reasons.
Well, "unexplained"? The only explanation that seems to fit is Google ranking penalties. And these seem to be doled out not just as permanent, genuine penalties, but more in a harassing manner. For years ISGP has been observing brief 24 to 40 hours ranking penalties, with each hour during these periods incoming traffic severely depressed, only to shoot up again afterwards. Usually within days a more permanent ranking penalty seems to be put in place. Most of these temporary penalties seem to instated right after major traffic spikes. Visitor statistics are not stock market charts. There is no reason for high peaks to be compensated with low dips. Yet this is what ISGP statistics reveal on two dozen occasions or so since at least October 2015. It's very strange business.
Similarly strange is that traffic, certainly in 2017, was severely depressed the day after major anti-liberal establishment article releases. Earlier the February 22 publication of a "pro-Trump" article was listed as an example: traffic instantly collapsed for three days by about 20%. A similar collapse could be observed on August 22, one day after ISGP made its Center for Responsible Immigration available to the public for the first time. ISGP lost a solid 11% from its period lows and about 20% of the to-be-expected visitors for that day:
Unfortunately, only in June 2017 I started paying attention to how dominant Google was with visitors reaching ISGP through search engines. I observed this statistic countless times over the past decade, but didn't really think of using it as evidence of Google censorship. That changed upon noticing that U.S. visitors, who use Google.com, only accounted for 35.6% of all Google visitors to ISGP. In mid 2017 Google.com often hovered between 35 to 40% for ISGP. Here's an example of June 30:
This percentage for Google.com is absurdly low. Sure, ISGP is quite unique in its conspiracy content involving Europe. However, most of mainland Europe doesn't properly speak or read English, including countries as Germany and certainly France, Spain and Italy. The Netherlands is the primary exception, followed by the Scandinavian countries. Conspiracy thinking is also rather uniquely an American tradition. It is not even as remotely as popular in Europe, although the internet has been changing that. To illustrate just how low 35% is, back in 2016 I added the following lines to ISGP's FAQ:
|"I love Americans. They're 50 percent of the visitors to this site. Used to be 70 percent, but mainland Europe is catching up a little in recent years."|
The United States has always been the number one country of origin for ISGP visitors, followed by either Canada or the United Kingdom, and then often Australia, another English-speaking country. Increasingly Australia has been trumped by mainland European countries, but it varies all the time which country this is. In other words, I'm very well aware of the countries ISGP visitors come from and how many. You know what? Let me check the percentages right now, because I have not noticed any anomalies with this for months at this point:
Amazing, isn't it? The United States sits at a perfect 50% - and generally revolves around this - followed by the United Kingdom and Canada. The rest is quite random, with Australia, which only has about 27 million inhabitants, often sinking quite a bit in the list. But, isn't it strange then that in the June-July period, right when ISGP visitors were dropping to absolutely ridiculous lows, that all of a sudden way less U.S. visitors were able to make it to the site? Also very strange is that the United Kingdom and Canada often weren't listed as the numbers 2 and 3 either. Random European countries took those spots. Above, it was the Netherlands and Germany; a week later all of sudden tons of visitors came from Italy, all of it without any specific links. It all made very little sense. After a while, overall visits to ISGP went up again - and so did the percentage for U.S. Google.com visitors. Very strange business.
The problem of extremely low Google.com visitors did return on a number of occasions. After a decent period without too many issues, September 15, 2017 saw another sudden, major dip in daily visitors. Once again we're talking about an estimated 20% of traffic loss for that day. So I checked the overall percentage of Google visitors and did not spot just a relatively low percentage, but also yet another major depression in Google.com visitors:
Maybe it's all a coincidence, but it does appear that on occasion Google manipulates rankings for websites specifically for certain countries, in this case the United States.
If this is always the case when ranking penalties are handed down is hard to say, but what I can say is that the overall percentage of search engine traffic for Google has been dropping rapidly this past year. I checked this Statcounter statistic quite regularly for many years and always was surprised at how dominant Google was. Until possibly 2016 seeing 100% of search engine traffic come through Google was not uncommon. Anything lower than 97% certainly was noteworthy. But by 2017 the 97% basically was never made anymore. The average percentage dropped to about 90%. ISGP's deepest slumps in traffic in July, actually coincided with the deepest slumps in Google traffic, down to about 85%:
Note here that Google.com visitors were sitting at a comfortable 55%, yet still there was a great depression in overall Google visitors. When overall traffic climbed up a little in succeeding months, the 85% also wasn't reached anymore, although 87-88% on occasion does still occur. Then again, Google is slowly losing its absolute dominance among search engines.
Unfortunately, I never captured how many ISGP visitors came through Google in a certain period of 2014-2016. Looking at the above example, let's say that I got 50% more Google visitors in that time period. That would mean 160 of 180 total visitors. At that point the chart would read that 89% of visitors came through Google. If we double the number of Google visitors in this time period - 214 of 233 - the percentage is 92%. In fact, Google visitors need to be multiplied 7 times in order to reach the once very ordinary 97%! This probably is due to a combination of circumstances:
- a high average for other search engines;
- an increase in mobile traffic which often makes use of other browsers;
- the likelihood that other search engines have also instated a number of penalties.
Still, it should be quite clear that these drops in the overall percentage of Google visitors coming in is not incompatible with long-standing suspicions that Google has been censoring ISGP. Even when Google instates a ranking penalty that results in a 70% drop in daily traffic, that still would mean less than a 10% drop for Google visits to ISGP.
What might be important to discuss is just how much Google has become an establishment company since the late 1990s. Founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page careers follow a familiar pattern. When they set up the precursor of Google in 1996, they were students at the elite Stanford University, where the search engine first gained popularity.
From 2002 on Brin was visiting the TED Talks-affiliated annual Billionaires' Dinners of the Edge Foundation, together with psychedelics and Silicon Valley pioneer Steward Brand, Rupert Murdoch, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Microsoft's Nathan Myhrvold, and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who flew in groups of professional rent-a-skeptics on his private plane. The leadership of Facebook, YouTube and other TED-affiliated corporations would also attend the Billionaires' Dinners over the years.
Page and Brin, still in their late 20s when they first got involved with the Edge Foundation's crowd, never visited Bilderberg. The role was delegated to the considerably older Eric Schmidt, who Page and Brin hired in 2001 to become CEO of Google. Schmidt was CEO of Google from 2001 to 2011, becoming executive chairman after that. He first visited Bilderberg in 2007 and returned in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. In 2015 he took two Google engineering experts with him to Bilderberg, but for the rest was Google's sole representative. Today, anno 2017, Schmidt is listed as a steering committee member of Bilderberg.
Schmidt was an interesting pick by Page and Brin, to the point that one wonders if someone with a lot of influence wanted to put Google under control. Schmidt was educated at Princeton, one of the key Eastern Establishment universities. While subsequently attending UCLA Berkeley in the 1976-1980 period, Schmidt resided for four years at the Berkeley branch of the Rockefeller-founded and overseen International House. Here he met his wife, Wendy. After his appointment as CEO of Google, Schmidt became a trustee of Princeton University, a trustee of the Institute for Advanced Study, and a director of Apple (2006-2009). In 2008 he became president of the New America Foundation. Close David Rockefeller friends and top superclass members Peter Peterson and John Whitehead were involved in this foundation, as was George Soros' son, Jonathan, and a number of other elitists. Bill Gates has been an important financier of the New America Foundation. With countless of Bilderberg and New America Foundation friends, Schmidt has also been attending Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations meetings. With his wife he set up the Schmidt Family Foundation, one of countless "liberal CIA" foundations involved in the financing of sustainable development and alternative media outlets.
In 2016 Schmidt became founding chairman of the Defense Innovation Advisory Board, a Silicon Valley advisory council to the U.S. military. Board members include Neil deGrasse Tyson, a well-known rent-a-skeptic and science commentator, and Walter Isaacson, a Rhodes Scholar who became president and CEO of the Aspen Institute and is a biographer of Apple's Steve Jobs and Henry Kissinger.
Predictably, Schmidt has maintained very close ties to Obama and Hillary Clinton. He was a member of Obama's transition advisory board, after which he served as a member of the United States President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Schmidt has been making his private jets available for years to senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton and her staff, and helped organize her failed presidential campaign in 2016. 
Considering that in ISGP's Pilgrims Society article it is discussed in great detail why the entire Rockefeller clique is both CIA and "above CIA", it seems rather obvious that Eric Schmidt was brought to the attention of Larry Page and Sergey Brin in an effort to put Google under solid security state and superclass control.
There's more. Liberal elites are just as close to the "new left" Bernie Sanders as they are to his supposed nemesis, Hillary Clinton - who actually also has a peculiar "new left" background through the New World Foundation (not to mention Barack Obama). Sanders, for example, used to sit on the board of the Earth Day Network with Ted Turner, Al Gore and Laurance Rockefeller. And that's just where the peculiarities start. Sanders' "new left" activism network is kept afloat through a $150 billion "liberal CIA" network of foundations. The Google Foundation, alternately known as Google.org, is deeply involved in this network, along with more major players as the Ford, Carnegie, Open Society (Soros) and Rockefeller foundations. For example, through its financing of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Google is rather closely tied to the activities of Wikileaks and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. All these "independent" foundations do is influence foreign and domestic politics through the financing of "alternative" media outlets, "new left" political protest groups, as well as feminist, sustainable development and social justice / "anti-racism" / pro-Third World immigration groups. They operate like a private CIA.
It should not be forgotten that the story with Microsoft's Bing search engine is the exact same. Microsoft, Bill Gates in particular, is solidly part of the superclass network, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, similarly to the Schmidt Family Foundation and the Google Foundation, deeply involved in financing alternative media 'liberal CIA" outlets and sustainable development and pro-Third World immigration groups. Putin's Yandex search engine also is unlikely to be operating fully independently. However, because they are so small compared to Google, little can be said at this point about the level of censorship coming from these search engines.
Would Google try to censor political dissent in this supposedly democratic western society? It looks like it. Strong evidence for it has been presented in this article, including apparent censorship immediately after the publication of an article implicating Google-allied foundations in organizing large-scale "grassroots" anti-Trump activism. On top of that we find that long-time Google head Eric Schmidt has been a solid member of the CIA-linked superclass surrounding Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations since at least 2007. This network has been managing western society for many decades, in no small part by backing alternative media outlets and running conspiracy disinformation networks. And now it appears these networks are used as an excuse to censor truly independent sites as ISGP.
Fact is, Google shouldn't be tinkering with its rankings apart from the implementation of a basic ranking system. The masses should decide which material is relevant - and let that rise to the top. This method shouldn't cause any issues, because for the most part people are quite rational. What needs to be cut out is superclass manipulation of Google rankings by creating (right-wing and left-wing) conspiracy networks and other alternative media outlets that all link to each other and ignore everything that is truly independent - such as ISGP. Obviously every "free speech zone", such as forums and news comment sections even remotely related to conspiracy are equally being trashed with disinformation, extreme racism and eccentric behavior, all to make it impossible for truly independent activism and media networks to arise. And even if this manages to slowly happen, Google is right there to hand out secretive ranking penalties.
Manual ranking penalties, or even automated ones, are a huge problem. What makes the problem exponentially worse is that Google is handing them out in secret, so that website owners cannot actually prove their rank has been lowered. Every website owner has the right to know whether or not Google has been penalizing his or her website, and for what reason. In that manner, the public can analyze if ranking penalties are handed out fairly and evenly, and website owners can much more easily file charges if the penalty is unjust.
While we're at it, it would be great if Google attaches a public name or ID to the person who de-ranks a certain website. We should have maximum accountability. Maybe an innocent staffer has misinterpreted the intentions and work of ISGP based on prejudice and the lack of quality in most parts of the conspiracy community. Maybe this person was assigned for a reason to ISGP by the FBI or CIA, directly or indirectly. The more information the media or the court can retrieve, the better.
In short, Google should not have the power to play God on the internet, deciding who gets the overwhelming majority of the readership and who is and is not allowed to make a living off of his website. At this point it quite literally is operating as the secret police of the internet, protecting superclass interests under the pretext of trying to protect the public from Russian and "alt right" propaganda. It's totally silly. Theoretically Google should penalize conspiracy disinformation sites, but obviously the CIA and the FBI and the Bilderberg clique Google head Eric Schmidt is part of would not approve of that. It would collapse the whole system they so carefully have build.
Maybe the real question at this point is: can ISGP do something about this censorship? That's going to be a challenge. The media is unlikely to pay attention to a "conspiracy theory" site and suing Google is going to be expensive, especially if the case is lost. Thus, any action in this regard will have to wait for the time being.
Dec. 2017 - Jan. 2018: How reliable is Statcounter?
It could be a coincidence, but immediately after publishing this article another major dip in visitors was experienced for two days. December 1 saw 441. December 2 saw 442. Even if this dip was a coincidence, it is still unbelievable that ISGP can crash to such lows with so many articles having been added during the past year, quite a few of them rather well-visited.
This time I also checked the statistics offered by my provider: One.com. Over the past 1.5 years I haven't paid much attention to it, because it lists all php includes as separate visits. Considering this statistic has been doing that consistently and I haven't added additional includes over this period, this statistic turns out to be quite relevant to compare the Statcounter one to. As for the December 1-2 dip, One.com shows a major dip as well, although only starting on December 2:
When checking out the entire One.com timeline, it is possible to see many of the same dips that also are visible in Statcounter. There are some differences, however, the most important one maybe that ISGP visitors have risen by 150% since transferring the site to ISGP-studies.com in early August 2016.
What is very interesting to see here with One.com is that the dip in early July 2017 (392 in Statcounter) is sitting roughly at the same level as the dips of late April 2017 (530 on average in Statcounter) and the February 23-24 one after the Trump article (670 on average). They are exactly the same dips as visible in Statcounter, except that in Statcounter the baseline continues to sink. I have no explanation for this at the moment.
Here is the overall Statcounter statistic over the same August 2016 - January 2018 period, which is only showing a 50% increase in overall traffic.
As the reader can see, the trends and dips between the One.com and Statcounter statistics largely are the same, but the One.com version is not tapering off nearly as much since February, when enormous dips were registered by Statcounter that ISGP apparently never recovered from.
Considering overall information increased by about 35%, ranking increased by about 50% and duplicate content removal increased visitors with about 100%, the One.com statistic actually seems much more realistic than the Statcounter version. Alexa ranking has crashed enormously, again showing roughly the same trend, but would be more in line with the picture presented by Statcounter. Something is going on here, but at this point it is hard to say exactly what.