23 ms·

for someone far removed from SEO, what are the true (non-sensationalist headline) effects of this leak?

by robswc 2y ago

radicaldreamer 2y ago
A lot more spam than usual in your search results. A leak like this (if it’s actually as substantial as people say it is) combined with google’s ham fisted way to insert LLM results into its search could really mean that google search quality will crater in the coming months, potentially opening up space for competitors or reducing usage in a real way.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Crater worse than it already is?
- robswc 2y ago
  It has really gotten so bad. I get so much reddit spam lately. In a lot of cases reddit can be a great... but man, the astroturfing has gotten insane.
burningChrome 2y ago
Long time dev/designer and part-time SEO person here. The major implications are that a lot of what Google was telling SEO practitioners were a lie or cleverly disguised red herrings wrapped up in semantics. The article that was posted earlier today went through a lot of the stuff they were lying about with examples of Matt Cutts and Gary Ilyes statements that are now directly contradicted with the recent release of this code. Here is the article: https://ipullrank.com/google-algo-leak https://ipullrank.com/google-algo-leak The premise: What I’ll do here is contextualize some of the most interesting ranking systems and features (at least, those I was able to find in the first few hours of reviewing this massive leak) based on my extensive research and things that Google has told/lied to us about over the years. “Lied” is harsh, but it’s the only accurate word to use here. 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 people in the marketing, tech, and journalism worlds who have presented reproducible discoveries.
- luma 2y ago
  Normally I’m not here to defend the likes of Google, but when it comes to their communications to SEO practitioners, I’m OK with some intentional misdirection and outright lies.
- robswc 2y ago
  Makes sense. I used to have a youtube channel that got a few age-restricted videos (for absolutely silly reasons). Reps from youtube would swear up and down that age-restrictions wouldn't effect your video's ranking in the algorithms but it was so well known in most creator circles how untrue that was. Thank you for that link, I'll have to check it out!
- ahahahahah 2y ago
  The "lies" there are such bullshit. They basically consist of "Google claimed they didn't do X" now it looks like they probably do X and therefore google lied. They are somewhat circumspect about the fact that each example is actually, 8+ years ago Google made a claim about what they did at the time and now there's evidence that they are currently doing doesn't match that claim. That's not a lie. For example, they link to this tweet from 2016 as such a claim: https://ipullrank.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image21.png https://ipullrank.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image21.png Or a later example where they link to this 2016 talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPu4vHETXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPu4vHETXw Later on, they use claims from 2012: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-chrome-search-usage-15618.html https://www.seroundtable.com/google-chrome-search-usage-1561...

for someone far removed from SEO, what are the true (non-sensationalist headline) effects of this leak?

by robswc 2y ago

for someone far removed from SEO, what are the true (non-sensationalist headline) effects of this leak?

A lot more spam than usual in your search results. A leak like this (if it’s actually as substantial as people say it is) combined with google’s ham fisted way to insert LLM results into its search could really mean that google search quality will crater in the coming months, potentially opening up space for competitors or reducing usage in a real way.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Crater worse than it already is?
robswc 2y ago
It has really gotten so bad. I get so much reddit spam lately. In a lot of cases reddit can be a great... but man, the astroturfing has gotten insane.

burningChrome 2y ago

Long time dev/designer and part-time SEO person here. The major implications are that a lot of what Google was telling SEO practitioners were a lie or cleverly disguised red herrings wrapped up in semantics. The article that was posted earlier today went through a lot of the stuff they were lying about with examples of Matt Cutts and Gary Ilyes statements that are now directly contradicted with the recent release of this code. Here is the article: https://ipullrank.com/google-algo-leak https://ipullrank.com/google-algo-leak The premise: What I’ll do here is contextualize some of the most interesting ranking systems and features (at least, those I was able to find in the first few hours of reviewing this massive leak) based on my extensive research and things that Google has told/lied to us about over the years. “Lied” is harsh, but it’s the only accurate word to use here. 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 people in the marketing, tech, and journalism worlds who have presented reproducible discoveries.

luma 2y ago
Normally I’m not here to defend the likes of Google, but when it comes to their communications to SEO practitioners, I’m OK with some intentional misdirection and outright lies.
robswc 2y ago
Makes sense. I used to have a youtube channel that got a few age-restricted videos (for absolutely silly reasons). Reps from youtube would swear up and down that age-restrictions wouldn't effect your video's ranking in the algorithms but it was so well known in most creator circles how untrue that was. Thank you for that link, I'll have to check it out!
ahahahahah 2y ago
The "lies" there are such bullshit. They basically consist of "Google claimed they didn't do X" now it looks like they probably do X and therefore google lied. They are somewhat circumspect about the fact that each example is actually, 8+ years ago Google made a claim about what they did at the time and now there's evidence that they are currently doing doesn't match that claim. That's not a lie. For example, they link to this tweet from 2016 as such a claim: https://ipullrank.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image21.png https://ipullrank.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/image21.png Or a later example where they link to this 2016 talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPu4vHETXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJPu4vHETXw Later on, they use claims from 2012: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-chrome-search-usage-15618.html https://www.seroundtable.com/google-chrome-search-usage-1561...