Our reporting was once purposeful (though never profitable), as Google saw it in a more favorable light prior to recent algorithm updates.
Google commands 95.37% of the mobile search engine market worldwide, so its algorithm shifts are significant.
Like numerous news and other websites, Surgical Times has seen a staggering decrease in organic search traffic.
So much so that it places us at a crossroads.
The publication has lost 85-90% of its hard-earned search traffic from Google in under two months.
Organic search previously accounted for ~94.39% of Surgical Times’ visitors.
These losses, shared by innumerable other players in the same space, sadly suggest we may be building for an ecosystem that no longer exists.
Google gave, and Google has taken away.
Surgical Times’ reporting has always been done by real people.
Its articles were written by real people, entirely unaided by A.I.
It considered 21% of its reporting “exclusives.”
It often worked to uncover new details about, or better frame for readers, other widely-reported on news.
It received and challenged a number of legal threats throughout its reporting, and published despite the potentially very costly risks of such, as recently as February of this year.
It certainly wasn’t perfect.
Readers who gained value from our reporting or found it helpful may follow the Times on these accounts, as we work out what the path forward might look like.
To learn more about Surgical Times, visit our About page.