A massive leak of internal Google documents shows how the web giant chooses who appears and does not appear in its search results. Many criteria appear even though the firm has always denied their use.
It’s a real earthquake that shakes the world SEO (Search Engine Optimization, where methods to be well placed in Google search). But the shocks are not limited to this sector since the implications are much broader. A massive leak of internal Google documents lift the veil on one of the firm’s best-kept secrets: how does its search engine work ? And more precisely, how does it decide who should appear in the top results ?
Read also – Google wants to revolutionize smartphone search using AI
Very many elements of response were given by theSEO expert Rand Fishkin after he received the files from an originally anonymous and now known source, Erfan Azimi, founder of EA Eagle Digital. Approximately 14,000 criteria are listed, and everyone who has had a look at it is unanimous: many contradict the discourses held by society. Fishkin summarizes the information as follows: “I think the most important thing to remember is that what Google’s public representatives say and what the Google search engine does are two different things.“.
14,000 ranking criteria reveal how Google search works
From 2,500 pages published, we note for example the presence of a criterion called “homepagePagerankNs“. To summarize, it serves to determine whether a site is popular or not by measuring clicks on itthat Google has often denied doing. The consequence is very direct since a site that is effective at this level could be better referenced than another that nevertheless provides a more relevant response to a given search.
Read also – Google: here’s why search results are getting worse and worse
Another aspect that Google claims not to use in its search engine: the authority score. It measures if a site is trustworthy on a specific subject. However, the criteria “isElectionAuthority” And “isCovidLocalAuthority” appear clearly in the list. The problem is that there is no indication how they are determined. Kristen Ruby, CEO of Ruby Media Group, talks about a problematic situation. “How does Google define authority in these critical areas? I shouldn’t have to guess what the answer is. Google should step up and give it to me“.
Although Google is a private company and therefore not required to explain in detail how its services work, SEO expert Mike King believes that this right cannot apply here. “I think it’s really important that they provide that kind of insight into information, because whether we like it or not, Google is effectively a public utility. […] We consider it the leading source of information on the web“. The firm doesn’t seem to see it that way, however.
Google confirms the veracity of the documents, without specifying whether they can be trusted
A Google spokesperson reacted to the leak, but without really answering all the questions raised. The company simply urges caution: “We advise against making inaccurate assumptions about the research [Google] based on out-of-context, outdated or incomplete information“. It is therefore currently impossible to know what is true or false in the documents, nor even if their revelation to the general public will have any impact. any impact on the future operation of the search engine.
Read also – Google: search results will change, and not necessarily for the better
This response irritates Rand Fishkin to no end and the man does not hesitate to let it be known. For him, it is “a perfect example of why people don’t like or trust Google. This is a non-statement that doesn’t address the leak, adds no value, and may well have been written by an AI trained on the statements of the most soulless company of the last decade“. It is said.
Source: Gizmodo