Google Leaks: algo secrets revealed?

Google's search algorithm makes all the difference to websites. But exactly how Google ranks websites remains largely opaque and mysterious. The leak of 2,500 internal documents could shed new light.

The leak of thousands of pages of internal documents could offer unprecedented insight into the workings of Google search. According to experts, the documents suggest that the GAFAM giant has not been entirely honest about this for years (seriously?). To date, Google has not responded to multiple requests for comment on the legitimacy of the documents.

Google Leaks internal documents on Google's search algorithm

Rand Fishkin, founder of SparkToro and ex-founder of Moz, claims that a source (who initially asked to remain anonymous and eventually revealed his identity) shared 2,500 pages of documents with him in the hope of countering Google's "lies" about how its search algorithm works. The internal documents were said to come from Google's internal "Content API Warehouse". "On Sunday, May 5, I received an e-mail from someone claiming to have access to a massive leak of API documentation from Google's Search division. The email further claimed that these leaked documents had been confirmed as authentic by former Google employees and that these ex-employees and others had shared additional private information about Google's search operations. "

The details shared are dense and technical, probably more readable for developers and SEO experts than for the layman. Nor does the content of the leak necessarily prove that Google uses the specific data and signals mentioned for search rankings. According to SEO expert Mike King, the leak rather describes the data Google collects on web pages and offers indirect clues to SEO experts as to what Google seems to be interested in.

The leaked documents cover topics such as the type of data that is collected and used, classifiers for pages dealing with sensitive topics such as elections or health, how Google handles small websites, and much more. According to Fishkin and King, some of the information in the documents appears to conflict with public statements made by Google representatives. "While I don't necessarily fault Google's public representatives for protecting their proprietary information, I do take issue with their efforts to actively discredit marketing, technology and journalism professionals who have presented reproducible findings." writes King. Indeed, some of the details contained in the leaked documents call into question the accuracy of Google's public statements about how search works.

Among the examples cited by Fishkin and King is that of Google Chrome's role in website ranking. Google representatives have repeatedly stated that they do not use Chrome data to rank pages. Yet the browser is specifically mentioned in the sections on how websites appear in search. This suggests that Google is using Chrome browser feeds to improve its search results.

Another example: the role of EEAT (Experience, Expertise, Authority and Trust). A Google metric used to evaluate the quality of results. While Google representatives have previously stated that EEAT is not a ranking factor, the leak suggests that Google may actually be able to identify content authors and treat them as entities in its system. Strengthening one's influence as an author could therefore lead to ranking advantages on Google.

While these documents aren't exactly a smoking gun, they do provide an in-depth, unfiltered glimpse into a closely guarded black box system.

Google Leaks: key information to remember

• Clicks and post-click behavior are very important ranking factors
• NavBoost, click-based re-ranking system, has a direct influence on rankings
• Google integrates click data from Chrome
• Clicks are used to weight links in SERPs by ranking pages on 3 levels
• Google applies whitelists for sensitive queries.

While some of this information overlaps with information revealed during the antitrust trial against Google (Google/DOJ), much of it is new and calls for a closer analysis of the Mountain View firm's statements in the future. "Historically, some of the search industry's loudest and most prolific publishers have delighted in uncritically repeating Google's public statements. They write headlines like "Google says XYZ is true" rather than "Google says XYZ;" The evidence suggests otherwise," Fishkin writes. "Please do better. If this leak and the DOJ lawsuit can create just one change, I hope it's the one."

Updated 05/30/2024

Google has confirmed that the leaked search documents are real.

‍

______________________________________________________________

Stay informed by subscribing to our newsletter

_________________________________________________________________

‍