A purported leak of 2,500 pages of internal documentation from Google sheds light on how Search, the most powerful arbiter of the internet, operates.

The leaked documents touch on topics like what kind of data Google collects and uses, which sites Google elevates for sensitive topics like elections, how Google handles small websites, and more. Some information in the documents appears to be in conflict with public statements by Google representatives, according to Fishkin and King.

  • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Rand Fishkin, who worked in SEO for more than a decade, says a source shared 2,500 pages of documents with him with the hopes that reporting on the leak would counter the “lies” that Google employees had shared about how the search algorithm works.

    And I supposed to care that the poor SEO assholes that need to get their ads more visibility weren’t being given all the instructions on how to do that by the search engine?

    • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Tell me you don’t know shit about SEO without telling me you don’t know shit about SEO.

      Just because there are people who do bad things doesn’t mean the industry is bad or have bad intentions. SEO isn’t ads. Advertorials can be a tactic of SEO, but it’s not SEO as a whole. Same with clickbait because it works, and I guarantee you also fall for it constantly.

      SEO is about understanding what someone needs and creating an experience to ensure that someone finds the answer to what they need through content and/or a product to solve their needs.

      This can be achieved through copywriting, researching search trends and queries, technical analysis of websites and how they render, providing guidance on helpful assets (photos, pdfs, videos, form, copy, etc), PR outreach because links are how people move around online or discover things, social planning because social media are a form of search engines, and more.

      And finally, SEOs are not responsible for how Google treats shit. That’s Google who is responsible. Google is the one that tweaks the algorithm and doesn’t catch spammy shit. In fact many SEOs catch it and report it to Google’s reps, but they are the ones who can ensure the right team(s) fix the issue.

      • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        wait what is “social planning” and how is it different from conventional marketing on social media. That seems pretty far removed from search engines

        • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Great question! Search engines crawl social media and discover links. It can be a sign of trust and authority if it’s shared widely, which can help boost signals of page importance to Google (or other engines) and help with pushing up in organic ranking positions.

          Harmonizing brand details (name, address, phone number, website link) across all social platforms is important so you don’t send mixed signals or lead to unneeded redirects.

          There’s also figuring out what page(s) you want to ensure are showcased if multiple URL links are allowed or maybe your social team doesn’t know all of the page assets you have to satisfy their audience, such as an orphaned page. These are part of what are called “backlinks”.

          Hashtags do matter for some platforms and knowing how to research them for intent is wise.

          There’s also open graph (OG) metadata that you can set on a webpage that allows your metadata to be different on social platforms than you would use for a search engine - tailor to your audience!

          Edit: one other thing is, while not social media, maybe connecting with a social team (if there is one) to find out if any posts need to be applied to Google Business listings via a Google Post for local locations.

      • Olap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Fuck SEOs - that is why you are getting downvoted. Organic content creation has been ruined by you AND google. Own your problems, beg forgiveness, stop playing the stupid game where there are no winners

        • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          You’re exactly the person I was talking about - the hive mind. You don’t critically think and you blame an entire industry that has niches and actors of all sorts. You’d probably say all black people are bad because a few on a street did something wrong once.

          Please, tell me YOUR industry so I can have fun shitting on it and drawing asinine conclusions.

            • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I’m sorry you’ve had bad experiences. There are a lot of bad SEOs, but there are a lot of good ones.

              Would it be fair of me to blame software developers for the likes of Google, Meta, Amazon, or poorly implemented Wordpress pages where links get hijacked and redirected to spam? Or those that use AI to write code? Or for slapping resource on top of resource to slow down pages and bandaid shitty spaghetti code?

              Edit: or pushing out half baked bullshit that breaks or has a ton holes?

              • Olap@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Yup, blame away, but also recognise lots of good that they have done too. Open Source, the fediverse, medical software, communications software. To name but a few. What good have SEOs ever done?

                • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Positioning non profits, government agencies, and more competitively in results. Even Google gets outranked for their own keywords.

                  User experience and flow for many companies that don’t have these people, suggesting content topics to solve questions, ensuring that sites are found/rendering correctly and pointing out/fixing developer fuck ups, creating accessibility (markup suggestions and alt text), finding ways to compete with competitors.

                  Don’t confuse content and marketing with SEO. Many of them don’t listen to us anyway.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      need to get their ads more visibility

      I occasionally encounter the desire for a search engine to surface non-advertisement content :)

      Now if they lied to advertisers and told small bloggers, reputable news agencies, fediverse admins, etc. the insider secrets… now we’re talkin’!

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Historically, Google had a give-and-take with SEO. You can’t make SEO companies go away, but you can curb the worst behavior. Google used to punish bad behavior with a poor listing, and you had to do some work to get it back into compliance and tell Google it’s fixed up.

      It wasn’t ideal, but it functioned well enough.

      The drive to make search more profitable over the past few years seems to have meant dropping this. SEO companies can get away with whatever. If they now have the whole manual, game over. Google of a decade ago might have done something about it. Google of today won’t bother.

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      And I supposed to care that the poor SEO assholes that need to get their ads more visibility weren’t being given all the instructions on how to do that by the search engine?

      No. You’re supposed to care that a company is pointlessly* lying, thus it’s extremely likely to deceive, mislead and lie when it gets some benefit out of it.

      In other words: SEO arseholes can ligma, Google is lying to you and me too.

      *I say “pointlessly” because not disclosing info would achieve practically the same result as lying.

  • Benardsmart@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I saw an advert about a lady on YouTube news so I followed up to her IG page indeed she’s worth to be praised with just $1000 I can now boost of $17,099 Expert Eloise Wilbert on IG✅✅✅✅✅❎❎

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Does Google still have a search algorithm? I thought they now just feed everything into a huge LLM and let it regurgitate statistically plausible answers.

  • SharkAttak@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    “How does Google’s search algorithm works? -reddit”
    The algorithm works with the use of proprietary tchnology… (read 2500 pages more)

  • Dojan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s honestly quite strange that this sort of black box system is allowed to exist. How are governments around the world OK with a vast majority of the internet being filtered through a private company’s lens without any sort of insight into how it works? That sounds skeevy as shit.

    • yokonzo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Better than those governments having control. Ideal scenario is everything is decentralized

      • nednobbins@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Why is that better? It may not be ideal but governments have at least some accountability.

        • aramova@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Did you notice the US President from 16 to 20?

          Even after felony convictions, there is no accountability or consequences.

          Have you seen the US Supreme Court?

          Don’t tell me a government has any accountability when minds are twisted by misinformation engines like Fox & Friends.

          Not that a company is any better, yet alone google.

        • yokonzo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Because that paves a very easy path to corruption . No freaking way do i wanna live in a country where the government has absolute control over all information spread.

          Don’t get me wrong, fuck Google, but government control of the Internet just sounds worse

          • nednobbins@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            What makes governments any more susceptible to corruption than a private organization?

            I’m not actually talking about governments having absolute control. That’s a pretty extreme scenario to jump to from from the question of if it’s better for a private company or a government to control search.

            Right now we think Google is misusing that data. We can’t even get information on it without a leak. The government has a flawed FOIA system but Google has nothing of the sort. The only way we’re protected from corruption at Google (and historically speaking several other large private organization) is when the government steps in and stops them.

            Governments often handle corruption poorly but I can rattle of many cases where governments managed to reduce corruption on their own (ie without requiring a revolution). In many cases the source of that corruption was large private organizations.

            • yokonzo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              You make some good points. But consider this. This data was publicly leaked by hackers. These hackers, if we go by precedent, will probably get away Scott free. sure it was very difficult to find this data, but not impossible. On the other hand a government if faced with a breach like this, would probably find the hackers and detain them as threats to national security, as we’ve seen with Edward Snowden.

              Though our system isn’t perfect, i think that having a corrupt Google is better than a corrupt government in this case. As you said, Google can be corrupt, but the government can step in and take over, whereas, if a government decides that it’s access to citizens data is important enough, they can continue with corruption with less resistance. I mean, who guards the guards right?

      • nectar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I agree decentralized is better, but isn’t that an argument in favor of a government having more control than a corporation?

        • yokonzo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          No? What I said was “better than governments have control” how is that pro government?

          • nectar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            you said “ideal scenario is everything is decentralized”

            would it be right to assume “more decentralization is better”?

            if so, then which is more decentralized: a corporation or a government

            yes, what you said was paradoxical, which is why i was saying “it’s actually in favor of government”

  • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I tried to cry for them but after Googling instructions about how to I poured Elmer’s Wood Glue on both eyes. I cannot call the result tears. Not sure what to call it, but certainly not tears.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Google has been pretty crap for a decade now.

    I still remember demoing how easily they can manipulate people by searching “Pakistan News” and the results being exclusively all Indian media outlet propaganda way back in 2016.

    I really feel like they never got properly exposed for this just because it’s a search engine and not a social media, so people didn’t care enough about it. Also because Google was still top of the game in most results compared to other sites back then.

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      My thought exactly. If this was back in like 2010, it would be a real oh shit moment, The key to the kingdom has been leaked. Now I don’t think anybody really cares other than SEO spammers who will game the system even more than they already are.

      Google search is crap and has been crap for some time. Not sure any others are better. But it started going downhill with the Google Plus social network, when they removed “+” as a search operator so you could better search for ‘Google+’ that was the first time they messed with Search to further some other business goal. It wasn’t the last time. Back when Google was good, they publicly said their goal was to get you off their site as fast as possible. Now the results reek of engagement algorithm bullshit.

      • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        SearXNG works all right for me, and it’s free. I’ve also heard good things about the paid service Kagi.

  • bean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Honestly I hope this bites them hard. They’ve done way way worse to small businesses and competition for decades now.

  • w2tpmf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Who wants to take bets that Search itself ends up in The Graveyard soon, leaving nothing but the new AI abomination in place?

    • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      More likely they will just slowly rebrand search to more AI type things. Then slowly retire the non-AI parts in the background.

      • MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, I know a lot of the smaller, independent search engines are lacking, but the people using the “udm=14” trick to remove Google’s AI results now, as if that won’t be removed as soon as Google needs to show investors the AI is more profitable.

    • kshade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I could see them not letting you directly search anymore, only through the LLM bot. Because that’s been how things have been going anyway, Google seems to fully ignore literal searches with quote marks now, presumably because it doesn’t fit their vision of using natural (imprecise) language. So why not make the LLM write the search query for you in a completely opaque way?

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Here’s the sooper-secret search result algorithm for whatever you type into Google:

    YouTube results, followed by Reddit results, followed by “Sponsored” results, followed by AI-written Bot results, then a couple pages of Amazon results and finally, on page 10 or so, a ten-year-old result that’s probably no longer relevant.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s generally what I’ve found to be the case, shocking that it’s considered so secret lol

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    awesome, now we can make our own search engine that is filled with complete trash and isn’t concerned with helping the user at all.

  • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Where can one get a hold of these documents?

    This appears to be the original blog post, but I’m not finding a way to download this. https://sparktoro.com/blog/an-anonymous-source-shared-thousands-of-leaked-google-search-api-documents-with-me-everyone-in-seo-should-see-them/

    Is this not leaked past this one person?

    Edit 2: No, these appear to be normal public docs.

    Edit: seems these are the docs? https://hexdocs.pm/google_api_content_warehouse/0.4.0/GoogleApi.ContentWarehouse.V1.Model.QualityNavboostCrapsCrapsData.html

        • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s not a data leak, it’s a a leak of internal documentation in a google api client which supposedly contains “leaks” of how the google algorithm might works, e.g. the existence of domain authority attribute that google denied for years. I haven’t actually dig in to see if its really a leak or was overblown though.

          • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Internal documentation leaking is still a data leak, it’s just a subset of a data leak.

            If it was sensitive information that commit would have been purged by now. The original PR (on the Google Clients repo) has no mention of problems, and there are no issues of discussions around rewriting the git history on that item.

            This makes me think this isn’t actually a problem.

            My org is less practiced on operational security than Google and we would purge that information within minutes of any of us hearing about it. And this has been on blog posts for a while now.