Google leak: Google algorithm secrets revealed?
So much for “only” 200 ranking factors! These days, the Net and SEOs are meticulously analyzing an internal Google document that ended up on the Net by mistake and unveiled by Rand Fishkin and Michael King, which contains some of the secrets of how Google Search works! In the more than 2,500 pages of API documentation, in fact, 14,014 attributes (API features) are explained that seem to come from Google’s internal “Content API Warehouse.” In other words, this huge Google Leak reveals never-before-seen details about how the tech giant’s search algorithms work, with very important aspects of the search engine, its software infrastructure, what each individual software module does, and what as many as 14,000 values the engine takes into account in order to build each SERP!
Google leak: a revolution for SEO?
The documents appear to come from Google’s internal Content API Warehouse and, as mentioned, were shared in early May 2024 by an (initially) anonymous source with Rand Fishkin and Michael King, two well-known SEO experts.
Fishkin, co-founder of audience analysis company SparkToro, and King, CEO of iPullRank, received about 2,500 pages of documents describing technical details related to how Google’s algorithm works, and they analyzed this content revealing information that could change the landscape of SEO.
Indeed, this leak has the potential to revolutionize the way we understand and approach search engine optimization because they offer unprecedented insight into Google’s inner workings. Here is how our CEO Ivano Di Biasi broke the news and commented on the main points emerging from this Google Leak!
What’s in the Google leak documents
In the past twenty-five years, there has never been a leak of this magnitude or detail from Google’s search division. Specifically, these files reveal intricate details about how Google ranks content, manages user data, and uses various signals to determine web page rankings.
- User clicks. One of the most significant revelations concerns the use of user engagement metrics such as “goodClicks” and “badClicks,” which are linked to systems called Navboost and Glue. These systems, also mentioned during Pandu Nayak‘s testimony in the Google/DOJ case, are used to filter out clicks that Google considers relevant for ranking, while excluding those that are not. In addition, Google measures click duration, an indicator of user satisfaction, and impressions, providing further evidence of the importance of click data in determining ranking. These metrics assess the quality of the user experience on a page and reflect the actual behavior of users and their satisfaction with search results. In short, Google uses search journey information to refine page rankings, rewarding those that offer a better user experience.
- Site authority. Much surprise-especially in contrast to the Googlers’ official statements-was aroused by the concept of Site Authority. This term refers to the overall authority of a website, which Google uses to assess the quality and relevance of content. Site Authority is influenced by several factors, including content quality, inbound links, and user engagement. A site with high authority is more likely to rank well in search results than a site with low authority – that’s our Zoom Authority principle!
- Small sites and blogs. Speaking of authority, the leak reveals the use of a feature called smallPersonalSite: small personal sites or blogs might be treated differently than large commercial sites. In fact, the documents suggest that Google could use specific forms or flags to evaluate and rank these sites, potentially offering them preferential treatment or penalizing them depending on the quality and relevance of their content.
- Age and brand history. The documents also reveal the importance of the brand history of expired domains. Indeed, Google takes into account the history of a domain and associated brand when evaluating its authority and relevance. A domain with a long history of high-quality content and a well-recognized brand will have an advantage over a domain that is new or has a less solid history. This implies that continuity and consistency over time are crucial factors for ranking success.
- Chrome Data. Another crucial aspect is the use of clickstream data collected through the Chrome browser. Google uses this data to calculate metrics that influence page ranking, such as the number of clicks on specific pages, thus determining the most popular and important URLs on a site. This approach gives Google detailed insight into user behavior on the Internet, using this information to improve the relevance of search results.
- Whitelisting by sectors. The documents also reveal the existence of whitelists for specific industries such as travel, COVID-19 and politics. These whitelists ensure that only trusted domains appear for potentially problematic or controversial queries, preventing the spread of misinformation. For example, during critical events such as presidential elections, Google uses these whitelists to ensure that the information displayed is accurate and reliable.
- Archiving page versions. Google keeps copies of every version of every web page it has ever indexed, so that it “remembers” every change made to a page over time, creating a kind of digital historical archive of all web pages. This practice allows Google to monitor the evolution of a page’s content and assess how the changes affect its quality and relevance-an especially useful element in identifying and penalizing black hat practices of content manipulation, such as cloaking, where the content shown to search engines is different from the content shown to users. In addition, preserving page versions helps Google assess the consistency and reliability of a website over time, potentially rewarding sites that invest in the quality of content and its continued evolution, rather than those that seek shortcuts to temporarily improve their rankings. In any case, when it comes to analyzing links, Google seems to limit itself to considering only the last 20 changes to a URL. This means that Google mainly uses the most recent changes to determine link relevance and quality.
- Feedback from Quality Raters. Another interesting element is the use of feedback from Quality Raters, collected through the EWOK platform. The papers suggest that this feedback could be used in Google’s search systems, directly influencing page rankings (but there is no way to tell how influential these rater-based signals are and what exactly they are used for). Fishkin especially points out that the scores and data generated by EWOK’s quality raters appear to be directly involved in Google’s search system, rather than simply representing a training set for experiments. This indicates that human ratings play a significant role in determining the quality and relevance of content.
- Entities. The role of entities is another key element that emerged from the papers. Google stores information about authors associated with content and tries to determine whether an entity is the author of a document. This indicates that Google places great importance on the authority and credibility of authors, using this information to improve the relevance and quality of search results.
- Causes of demotion. The documents also reveal the causes of rating “downgrades” (demotions). Google can penalize a page or site for various reasons, such as the presence of irrelevant links, signs of user dissatisfaction in SERPs, low-quality product reviews, and pornographic content. These factors can lead to a rating downgrade, reducing the site’s visibility in search results.
- Backlinks. Again, the papers confirm that the diversity and relevance of inbound links are crucial in determining a page’s authority. Google classifies links into three categories (low, medium, high quality) and uses click-through data to determine which category a document belongs to. High-quality links can convey ranking signals, while low-quality links are ignored.
Where Google’s secret document come from
Rand Fishkin has reconstructed the path of this document and how it ended up in his hands. It all began on May 5, 2024, when he received an email from a person claiming to have access to a massive leak of API documentation from Google’s Search division. The email author claimed that these leaked documents had been confirmed as authentic by former Google employees who had shared additional private information about Google’s search operations. Fishkin, aware that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” decided to look into the matter further.
After several email exchanges, Fishkin had a video call with the anonymous source on May 24. During the call, the source revealed his identity: Erfan Azimi, an SEO practitioner and founder of EA Eagle Digital. Prior to this contact, Fishkin had never heard of Azimi. During the call, Azimi showed Fishkin the Google leak: more than 2,500 pages of API documentation containing 14,014 attributes, apparently from Google’s internal “Content API Warehouse.” The document’s commit history indicated that this code was uploaded to GitHub on March 27, 2024 and removed only on May 7, 2024.
This documentation does not show the specific weight of the elements in the ranking algorithm or prove which elements are actually used in the ranking systems. However, it provides incredible details about the data Google collects. After explaining some of these API forms, Azimi explained his rationale, centered on Google’s transparency and accountability, and expressed hope that Fishkin would publish an article to share this leak and disprove some of the “lies” Google has allegedly been spreading for years.
Fishkin’s subsequent analysis confirmed the reliability of the information. The leak appears to have come from GitHub, and the most credible explanation for its exposure coincides with what Azimi said during the call: these documents were inadvertently and briefly made public between March and May 2024. During this period, the API documentation was indexed by Hexdocs (which indexes GitHub’s public repositories) and found and disseminated by other sources. According to Fishkin’s ex-Googler sources, such documentation exists in almost every Google team, explaining various API attributes and modules to help team members become familiar with the available data elements. This leak matches others in the public GitHub repositories and Google Cloud API documentation, using the same style of notation, formatting, and even process/module/functionality names and references.
Google’s official response to the leak
This morning, Google responded to the leak with a statement seeking to minimize the impact of the leaked information. A Google spokesperson said that much of the published information is incomplete or out of context and that ranking signals are constantly changing.
To be precise, in response to The Verge, Google’s Davis Thompson said, “We urge people not to make inaccurate assumptions about Search based on out-of-context, outdated or incomplete information. We have shared extensive information about how Search works and the types of factors our systems consider, while also working to protect the integrity of our results from manipulation.”
This does not mean that Google’s basic ranking principles have been altered, but rather that the specific, individual signals that contribute to ranking are subject to ongoing change.
Google emphasized that it has always shared detailed information about how search works and the types of factors its systems consider, while working to protect the integrity of results from manipulation.
However, Google has avoided commenting on the specific details of the leaked documents. It has neither confirmed nor denied which items are accurate, which are outdated, or which are currently in use. The reason for this reticence, according to Google, is that providing specific details could allow spammers and malicious actors to manipulate search results.
Doubts about the leak: human error or strategic move?
This internal document leak has raised numerous doubts and concerns, not only because of the content revealed, but also because of the circumstances under which it occurred. One of the main questions concerns the reliability of the documents themselves and the possibility that their release was the result of human error or, as even some suspect, a deliberate strategic move on Google’s part, orchestrated to divert attention from more pressing issues and significant updates in the world of SEO.
On the one hand, the official explanation suggests that the documents were inadvertently made public, perhaps due to a configuration error on GitHub. This version of events is supported by the document’s commit history, which shows that the code was uploaded and then removed after a short period. However, the detailed and complex nature of the documentation, along with its rapid dissemination, has led some to speculate that there may be more behind this leak.
However, the dating of the leaked information has fueled skepticism: Trevor Stolber noted that the data comes from a deprecated code base and dates back to 2019, making it outdated and largely irrelevant to current SEO practices, and Kristine Schachinger confirmed that the data is dated and offers no useful new information.
In addition, the leaked documents were identified as API documents containing a list of calls, rather than a code dump of the ranking algorithm. This means that the data do not provide direct information about how Google ranks websites, further limiting their usefulness to SEO professionals.
Inevitable then are the diatribes: according to some theories, Google may have intentionally left the documents online as a sort of “weapon of mass distraction.” This hypothesis is based on the fact that Google is currently facing a number of significant problems, including the federal lawsuit in the United States and the release of AI Overview, a new feature that has drawn much criticism from SEO professionals and website owners. AI Overview, in fact, provides concise answers to user queries directly in the SERP, further reducing clicks to original sites and raising concerns about content misappropriation.
In this context, the leak may serve to deflect attention from the more pressing issues Google is facing. The federal lawsuit, in particular, poses a significant threat to the company, with potentially far-reaching legal and financial implications. At the same time, growing criticism of AI Overview and other issues related to the search system could further damage Google’s reputation.
In short: in the absence of concrete evidence, all considerations remain only speculation. What is certain is that the document leak has generated heated debate in the SEO community and among industry professionals, raising questions about Google’s transparency and practices.
Google leak: what are the implications for SEO
Preliminary analysis of the documents confirm some long-suspected practices, such as the importance of links and quality content, but also reveal new information, such as the use of Chrome data for ranking. For example, the documents indicate that Google uses data collected through the Chrome browser to influence its SERPs (Search Engine Results Page), despite the fact that the company has always maintained that such data has no particular relevance in determining rankings. In addition, it emerges that Google stores information about authors associated with content, indicating the importance of that content in the ranking process.
What we didn’t know: Super Root, Twiddlers, and Chrome
Let’s start by presenting some of the most surprising things that have emerged from this leak, then from the so to speak new information.
- Super Root: the brain of Google Search
Google’s ranking system is much more complex than you might imagine. It is not a single algorithm, but a series of microservices that work together to generate the SERP. At the center of this huge Google engine structure is a core called Super Root, which essentially acts as a bridge between all of Google’s services. So, before you get to any kind of answer, you go through this module that goes to query maps, YouTube, and all the Google-related services.
It also emerges that Google does not already have a predetermined list of search results to give us when we enter a query: the list is created and refined every time we launch a query. So if we query Google, the algorithms select a set of documents and then apply their ranking factors to reorder the results and provide them to us in the order we see them in SERPs.
According to the leaked documentation, there are over a hundred different ranking systems, each of which could represent a “ranking factor.” The key element of this architecture is precisely Super Root, which can be considered the brain of Google Search. Super Root is responsible for sending queries to the various systems and composing the final results. In fact, as King recalls, a presentation by Jeff Dean (Google engineer) already explained that early versions of Google sent each query to 1,000 machines to process it and respond in less than 250 milliseconds. The diagram of the system architecture shows that Super Root sends queries to the various components, such as the cache servers, the advertising system, and the various indexing services, and then brings everything together at the end.
This modular architecture allows Google to efficiently manage the complexity of its search system, enabling virtually infinite scalability. Super Root acts as a central coordinator, ensuring that each component works in synergy to deliver the most relevant and accurate search results.
- Twiddlers: reranking functions
Another crucial aspect that has emerged from the leaked documents is the role of Twiddlers. These are reranking functions that operate after the primary search algorithm, known as Ascorer. Twiddlers work similarly to filters and actions in WordPress, where what is displayed is adjusted right before it is presented to the user. They can change the information retrieval score of a document or change the ranking of a document.
Twiddlers are used to implement many of the live experiments and named systems we know. For example, a former Google engineer recounted disabling Twiddlers in the Super Root service, causing YouTube search to be interrupted for several hours, reflecting the centrality of such Twiddlers to the operation of various Google systems.
Twiddlers can also offer category constraints, promoting diversity by specifically limiting the type of results. For example, a Twiddler could be configured to allow only three blog posts in a given SERP, clarifying when ranking is a lost cause based on page format.
When Google states that an update such as Panda is not part of the primary algorithm, this probably means that it was launched as a Twiddler, as a reranking boost or demotion function, and later integrated into the primary scoring function. This is similar to the difference between server-side rendering and client-side rendering.
Twiddlers identified in the leaked documents include:
- NavBoost: A reranking system based on user click logs.
- QualityBoost: System that improves ranking based on content quality.
- RealTimeBoost: System that adjusts ranking in real time.
- WebImageBoost: System that improves the ranking of web images.
These Twiddlers, as their names suggest, are designed to optimize various aspects of search results, improving the relevance and quality of information presented to users.
In summary, the leaked documents reveal that Google’s ranking system is a complex network of microservices coordinated by Super Root, with Twiddlers playing a crucial role in fine-tuning search results. This information offers a new perspective on the complexity and sophistication of Google’s algorithms, highlighting the importance of considering a wide range of factors and signals in the search engine optimization process.
- The relationship between Chrome and SEO
Leaked documents from Google’s Content API Warehouse revealed surprising details about the relationship between the Chrome browser and SEO, raising new questions about how Google uses browsing data to influence search result rankings.
Specifically, one of the most relevant findings is that Google uses clickstream data collected through the Chrome browser to calculate metrics that influence web page rankings. The documents suggest that Google collects detailed information about users’ clicks, including the number of clicks on specific pages and the duration of clicks. This data is used to determine a site’s most popular and important URLs, thereby influencing its ranking in search results.
Google leaks refer to user engagement metrics such as “goodClicks” and “badClicks,” which are linked to systems called Navboost and Glue. These metrics reflect users’ actual behavior and their satisfaction with search results. For example, a “goodClick” might indicate that a user found a page’s content useful and spent time on it, while a “badClick” might indicate that the user quickly abandoned the page, dissatisfied with the content. Google uses this information to refine page rankings, rewarding those that offer a better user experience. And this also rehabilitates in some senses the analysis of behaviors such as pogo-sticking (i.e., when a user clicks on a result and then quickly clicks the back button, dissatisfied with the answer found) and impressions.
Finally, Chrome data are also used to determine Sitelinks, which are the additional links that appear below the main result of a search. Google uses a metric called “topUrl,” which represents a list of the most clicked URLs in Chrome, to determine which pages to include in Sitelinks. This implies that a site’s most visited and popular pages are more likely to appear as Sitelinks, improving the site’s visibility and accessibility in search results.
- The sandbox for new or unknown sites
It would be confirmed that there is a sandbox, which is an environment in which websites are segregated based on their young age or lack of trust signals.
This means that new websites or those that have not yet accumulated sufficient trust signals may be temporarily limited in their rankings in search results. The sandbox serves as a kind of trial period, during which Google evaluates the quality and trustworthiness of the site before allowing it to fully compete in search results.
What SEOs suspected: confirmations on ranking factors
This Google leak also allows us to get confirmation to “old” suspicions we had long had about how what’s under the hood of Search works.
Indeed, these revelations-which, by the way, are also the basis of how some of the main tools in SEOZoom!
- Content quality and user experience
One significant implication concerns the importance of content quality and user experience. The papers confirm that creating high quality content and providing a good user experience are crucial factors for ranking well in search results. This means that SEO professionals must continue to focus on producing content that is not only relevant and informative, but also engaging and useful to users. In addition, optimizing the user experience, such as page loading speed and ease of navigation, remains a key element in improving rankings.
- Link weight and source diversity
The leaked documents confirm that link diversity and relevance remain critical to ranking. Google ranks links in three categories (low, medium, high quality) and uses click-through data to determine which category a document belongs to. High-quality links can convey ranking signals, while low-quality links are ignored. This implies that link building strategies should focus on link quality and diversity rather than quantity.
- Role of entities and author authority
Google stores information about authors associated with content and tries to determine whether an entity is the author of a document. In addition, Google measures entities by “fame” using clicks and links.
This indicates that Google attaches great importance to the authority and credibility of authors, using this information to improve the relevance and quality of search results. SEO professionals must therefore work to build and maintain their authority and credibility in their field through the production of high-quality content and active participation in online communities. All of this seems to suggest a direct link to the concept of E-E-A-T, particularly in the aspects of Trust and Authoritativeness, and implies that domain and author authority can significantly influence the ranking of a piece of content.
- Weight of Brand (and benefits of expired domains)
The papers also reveal the importance of brand history and expired domains. Google takes a domain’s history and associated brand into account when assessing its authority and relevance, using established signals to evaluate these aspects.
This approach-obviously related to the sandbox-advantages older, established sites that have a long history of high-quality content and a recognized brand.
Brand history refers to a brand’s longevity and reputation over time-Google takes into account how long a brand has been active online, the quality of the content it has produced, and its industry recognition. A brand with a long history of high-quality content and a strong online presence is considered more trustworthy and authoritative than a new or lesser-known brand.
This means that websites associated with established brands tend to rank better in search results. Google rewards continuity and consistency, positively valuing sites that have demonstrated that they maintain a high standard of quality over time. This approach favors brands that have invested in building a solid reputation and producing content of value to users-which is what we also noted with our recent ranking study, which empirically started from seeing the same sites consistently emerge at the top of Google.
In addition, Google uses established homepage-level signals to assess a site’s authority. A site’s homepage is often considered the most important and authoritative page, and the signals associated with it, such as PageRank and quality of incoming links, affect the ranking of the entire site. This means that older sites, which have had more time to accumulate high-quality links and build a solid reputation, have an advantage over newer sites.
Another implication of this situation concerns the practice of buying and restyling expired domains. When a domain expires and is repurchased, its previous history can indeed affect its ranking in search results. If a domain has a history of high-quality content and authoritative links, these signals can be maintained even after the domain expires and is repurchased. However, if the domain has a history of low-quality content or spam practices, these negative signals can penalize the new owner.
- Importance of links
Despite numerous evolutions in search algorithms, links continue to play a crucial role in determining the authority and relevance of a page. In particular, link diversity, or the variety of sources pointing to a page, is a key indicator of its authority. A site that receives links from a wide range of reliable sources is considered more authoritative than a site that receives links from a few, perhaps irrelevant, sources.
The concept of PageRank, introduced by Google in its early years, is still very much alive and relevant. PageRank measures the importance of a page based on the number and quality of links it receives. Although Google has introduced many other ranking factors over the years, PageRank remains a key pillar of its algorithm. Leaked documents suggest that the PageRank of a site’s homepage is considered for each document on the site, which underscores the importance of having a strong, well-linked homepage.
- User engagement metrics
Google uses user engagement metrics to influence page ranking. In particular, “goodClicks” and “badClicks” are mentioned, which are used to evaluate the quality of the user experience on a page. “GoodClicks” refers to clicks that indicate a positive interaction with the content, such as a long time on the page or further clicks within the site. In contrast, “badClicks” refers to clicks that indicate a negative interaction, such as a quick return to the search results page or a high bounce rate.
These engagement metrics are crucial because they reflect users’ actual behavior and their satisfaction with search results. Google uses this information to refine page rankings, rewarding those that offer a better user experience. For example, a page that receives many “goodClicks” is considered more useful and relevant, and thus may be ranked higher in search results. Conversely, a page with many “badClicks” may be penalized.
The use of user engagement metrics represents a significant evolution from traditional content- and link-based ranking factors. It reflects Google’s user-oriented approach of providing the most useful and relevant search results. However, it also raises questions about transparency and privacy, as it involves collecting and analyzing detailed data on user behavior.
The reactions of the SEO community: concern, disappointment, anger!
This Google leak has unleashed a storm of reactions in the SEO community, leading to feelings of disappointment, concern, and anger, fueled mainly by the discrepancies between the official statements Google has provided over the years and the information revealed by the leaked documents.
Indeed, for years, Google has publicly claimed that some data, such as user clicks and data collected through the Chrome browser, were not being used directly in its ranking algorithms. However, the leaked information contradicts these claims. This was also confirmed by the federal hearing of Google VP Pandu Nayak, who admitted that “goodClicks” and “badClicks” are indeed part of Google’s ranking systems. Moreover, broadening the picture, the use of Chrome data to influence ranking also raises questions about transparency and privacy.
This discrepancy raises questions about Google’s transparency and the veracity of its public statements, which have often downplayed or denied the importance of certain ranking signals (leading many SEOs to base their strategies on incomplete or misleading information).
Many professionals therefore feel betrayed by Google, which continues to lose trust and esteem especially with regard to the transparency and integrity of its mechanisms, which are practically at an all-time low. This is also amplified by the perception that Google is using the work of content creators to improve its services without adequately recognizing their contributions, as is the case with the introduction of AI Overview.
And Google’s response certainly does not help zero in on concerns about the transparency and reliability of the information provided by the company – nor can it all be reduced to the message “we do not comment on specific elements of the document in order to keep the ranking system safe and secure.”
What does this mean for SEO: how are strategies changing?
This situation has inevitably led to a heated debate in the SEO community on how to interpret and use the leaked information – and even to a clash between the naming of this case, as there are even those who dispute the term “Google leak” by speaking more properly of “revealed” or uncovered documents.
In general, some experts suggest taking the revelations with caution, others see them as a confirmation of their long-standing theories, under the banner of “I told you so.” In any case, the leak has exposed the limits of transparency on Google’s part, especially in its denial of previous official statements.
Rand Fishkin and Michael King, who initiated the analysis of the leaked documents, highlighted some useful aspects for SEO strategies stemming from these documents.
In particular, Fishkin pointed out that storing page versions and using Chrome data are crucial aspects for understanding how Google’s algorithms work. For Rand, “Brand Matters More Than Anything Else”: Google has numerous ways to identify, sort, rank, filter, and use entities, which include brands (brand names, their official websites, associated social accounts, etc.), and as we saw in our research Google is following an inexorable path toward exclusively ranking and sending traffic to the big, powerful brands that dominate the web, at the expense of small, independent sites.
Moreover, it appears that content and links are secondary to user intent factors. Classic ranking factors such as PageRank, anchor text (thematic PageRank based on the link’s anchor text), and text-matching have lost importance over the years-although page titles still remain quite important- compared to search intent. Google is increasingly focused on understanding what users really want to find and delivering results that meet these intentions. Therefore, it is crucial to create content that is not only optimized for search engines, but also meets users’ real needs and intentions.
Furthermore, these leaks seem to suggest that SEO can be a significant challenge especially for small and medium-sized businesses and new creators/publishers: until a site can build strong credibility, browsing demand, and a solid reputation among a broad audience, it is likely to see little results from its optimization efforts. This means that in addition to focusing on traditional SEO techniques, these businesses must invest in building their brand and creating high-quality content that attracts and engages users.
As Fishkin summarizes, the best universal advice “to marketers looking to vastly improve their organic search rankings and traffic” is, “Build a well-known, popular and well-recognized brand in your industry outside of Google search.”
King, on the other hand, stressed the importance of user engagement metrics, such as “goodClicks” and “badClicks,” in determining page rankings. Both agreed that despite the new information, the fundamentals of SEO remain the same: create high-quality content and provide a good user experience.
Amsive’s Lily Ray, on the other hand, urged calm. For her, the leak “is interesting to look into, but there are too many unknowns about the leaked information to make decisions about SEO. We don’t know if the attributes listed in the leak are actual ranking factors, or to what extent they are currently being used, if at all.” Regardless, “the information is worth exploring, as it reveals at least some interesting naming conventions that Google uses for its internal API documentation, including many terms that SEOs have been discussing and debating for years.”
His advice for brands, however, is not to waste too much time analyzing technical documents, but rather “focus on making sure their core SEO practices are sound, such as ensuring content matches search intent, including keywords and images, linking internally, and building strong URLs.”
Ryan Jones was one of the first to advise caution, urging people to evaluate information objectively and without bias. Former Googler Pedro Dias is along the same lines. For him, “there is nothing worse than information without context,” and it can be dangerous to jump to hasty conclusions from data without considering all possibilities. Therefore, he avoided commenting on specific elements precisely because of the absence of context and the difficulty of interpretation, adding that the impact of this leak fuels conspiracy theories and simplistic interpretations of the Research. Dean Cruddance said there is nothing in the documents that reveals the secrets of Google’s algorithm.
Among the more skeptical sources is Search Engine Journal, which reported that there is no concrete evidence that the leaked data is actually from Google Search and that it is in no way related to website ranking. Many SEOs finally agreed that the information does not represent an algorithm data dump.
