The 2,500-page document leak, initially reported by SEO expert Rand Fishkin, offered insights into the enigmatic workings of Google Search, which has puzzled observers for 26 years.
"I think the biggest takeaway is that what Google’s public representatives say and what Google search engine does are two different things," Fishkin said.
The documents provide a more intricate picture of Google Search's role in shaping the information we access. Selecting the appropriate webpage for your screen involves numerous editorial decisions made by a clandestine team at Google. For the SEO industry, which is heavily reliant on Google's algorithms, the leaked documents are seismic—equal to changing the rules of football halfway through the World Cup.
The leak details 14,000 ranking features that provide a framework for Google's web organisation. These elements include Google's assessment of a site's authority on specific topics, the site's size, or the frequency of webpage clicks. Google has refuted using some of these features in Search, but has acknowledged the authenticity of these documents.
A spokesGoogle said: "We would caution against making inaccurate assumptions about Search based on out-of-context, outdated, or incomplete information. We’ve shared extensive information about how Search works and the types of factors that our systems weigh, while also working to protect the integrity of our results from manipulation."
One ranking feature, "homepagePagerankNs," implies that the prominence of a website's homepage could bolster all its content. The leak mentions a system called NavBoost—first referenced by Google's VP of Search, Pandu Nayak, in his Department of Justice testimony—which allegedly uses click metrics to enhance Google Search rankings. The SEO community views these documents as validation of long-held suspicions: a site favoured by Google might receive a higher Search ranking for a query, even if a less-known site offers superior information.
Numerous small publishers have recently witnessed a decline in their Google Search traffic. Google CEO Sundar Pichai was uncertain about the consistency of this trend. The leak contains a feature named 'smallPersonalSite,' the usage of which is unknown but suggests Google's recognition of smaller websites. Given the current difficulties such sites face, it appears Google has not mitigated the influence of larger brands.
Google has, at times, directed more traffic to smaller sites, which suggests that Google can influence traffic. As more national media outlets license their content for ChatGPT, Google Search favours larger publishers, potentially narrowing the diversity of information accessible to the public.
The impact of the leaked Google documents has been extensive. Kristen Ruby, CEO of Ruby Media Group identified two notable ranking features: "isElectionAuthority" and "isCovidLocalAuthority." These seem to be Google's methods for evaluating a webpage's reliability in providing accurate election and COVID-19 information.
In 2019, Ruby extensively critiqued Google's criteria for trustworthy web pages (referred to by Google as E-E-A-T, denoting Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trust) as politically biased.
"It is problematic that Google is providing no context on critical items in the data such as ‘isElectionAuthority’ or ‘isCovidLocalAuthority.’ How is Google defining an authority in these critical domains?" Ruby questioned in an emailed statement. "I should not have to guess at what the answer is. Google should be forthcoming and tell me what the answer is."
How Google assigns rankings indicates the broader Search ecosystem. Daily, countless decisions are made about which information to highlight and which to suppress. While Google and other tech firms have long portrayed themselves as neutral algorithms, these ranking features suggest otherwise. The 2,500-page leak reveals numerous additional ranking features.
Ruby is concerned that Google's new AI Overviews may offer a singular, definitive answer. Instances where outdated Reddit posts gain undue authority, advising users on bizarre actions like adding glue to pizza, underscore the importance of Google's authority criteria, especially when the top result might be the sole voice heard.