Doubts Emerge Over Alleged Google Data Leak via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Many SEOs are coming to the conclusion that the alleged Google data leak was not a leak, did not contain ranking algorithm secrets, was five years out of date and it did not show anything new. While that’s not how everyone feels about it, SEOs in general don’t tend to agree about anything.

As SEJ reported yesterday, there were signs that this was not a ranking algorithm data dump and that there were many unanswered questions.

Our take about the alleged leak was:

“At this point in time there is no hard evidence that this “leaked” data is actually from Google Search… and not related in any way to how websites are ranked in Google Search.”

At this point we have more information and many SEOs are saying that the information is not an algorithm data dump.

Some SEOs Urged Caution

While many in the search community were quick to accept the claims of a data leak at face value, others who care about actual facts cautioned to slow down and think first and to be open minded to all possibilities.

Tweet By Ex-Googler Pedro Dias

Tweet with the following words: There's nothing worse than information without context. Also, there’s no point in trying to explain anything to someone that only accepts what aligns with their predefined assumptions and biases.

Ryan Jones was the first to offer a modest note of caution, advising people in a tweet to view the information objectively and without preconceived ideas.

Ex-Googler Pedro Dias tweeted:

“Have no issues with the shared data. And advising caution on the interpretation of some items.”

Pedro followed up with another tweet to explain why he couldn’t comment on specifics:

“I can only speak for me. I think you understand why I can’t just correct specific items. What I’m saying is that context is needed and room should be given for interpretation.”

Someone tweeted that Pedro’s response didn’t add anything to the discussion.

Pedro responded:

“I didn’t say that. All I’ve been saying is please be careful jumping to conclusions. If you think that’s not helpful, than I’m sorry.”

The ex-Googler later tweeted about the importance of having discussions:

“Let’s remind everyone:
– It’s healthy to bring logical arguments to a discussion.

– It’s not healthy to expect everyone to buy opinions without discussing. Especially when it comes from data sources lacking context.”

Search marketing expert Dean Cruddance tweeted:

“There isn’t anything that gives away the secret sauce.”

To which ex-Googler Pedro Dias responded:

“100%
But the impact of this, fuels a lot of tinfoil hattery and simplistic takes on search, which is suboptimal.

In the end, I believe it’s more detrimental than beneficial. Not for the information it contains, but by how it’s gonna be spun and interpreted.”

This SEO Is Not Buying It

As the day passed more and more SEOs began openly doubting the leak. Twenty-year search marketing expert Trevor Stolber (LinkedIn profile) posted his observations about the alleged leak, indicating that he wasn’t “buying it.”

Some of what he posted on LinkedIn:

  • “It’s from a deprecated code base (still very interesting – but old and not used)
  • It’s not actually from their ranking algorithm, it is an API used internally
  • We already knew most of the things that are in there
  • Good production code documentation would specify ranges and values – I see none of that here
  • Google doesn’t use DA (Domain Authority) – DA is an analog to PR (Page Rank) which was Google’s stand-out differentiator – I am not sure why so much attention is being paid to these nuances.”

Kristine Schachinger, another SEO who I personally know to be an expert, commented in that discussion that the information in the so-called leak dated from 2019.

“I have been reading the raw dump and they are all dated 2019 and there is literally nothing you can gather from 90% of the pages — I so agree. “

Others in that discussion openly questioned if it was actually a leak and most everyone agreed that there was nothing new in it and advised it was better to focus on Google’s new AI Overviews, particularly because AI doesn’t follow ranking factors.

This Was Not A Leak?

Out of all the people in SEO, the person who can most be described as the father of modern SEO is Brett Tabke. He is the founder of PubCon search marketing conference and also the founder of WebmasterWorld, which in the early days of SEO was the largest and most important SEO forum in the world. Brett is also the person who coined the acronym SERPs (for search engine results pages).

Brett devoted five hours to studying the data leak and then posted his observations on Facebook.

Among his observations (paraphrased):

  • This is not a leak
  • There is zero in it that’s directly algorithm related but rather they are API calls.
  • He found nothing that points to how any of the data could be used as part of a ranking algorithm.

Ash Nallawalla, an enterprise SEO with over 20 years experienced commented:

“Like I said a few times, it is merely an API document with a list of calls and not an algo code dump. At the most, we can learn some more internal Google terminology.”

Google Data Leak: Where Are The Facts?

It’s sinking in within the SEO community that this wasn’t the Google algorithm data leak that some expected it to be. In fact, it wasn’t even a leak by a Googler. And far from being algorithm secrets many are agreeing that there is nothing new in there and that it’s just a distraction.

Google Data Leak Clarification via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Over the United States holidays some posts were shared about an alleged leak of Google ranking-related data. The first posts about the leaks focused on “confirming” beliefs that were long-held by Rand Fishkin but not much attention was focused on the context of the information and what it really means.

Context Matters: Document AI Warehouse

The leaked document shares relation to a public Google Cloud platform called Document AI Warehouse which is used for analyzing, organizing, searching, and storing data. This public documentation is titled Document AI Warehouse overview. A post on Facebook shares that the “leaked” data is the “internal version” of the publicly visible Document AI Warehouse documentation. That’s the context of this data.

Screenshot: Document AI Warehouse

Screenshot

@DavidGQuaid tweeted:

“I think its clear its an external facing API for building a document warehouse as the name suggests”

That seems to throw cold water on the idea that the “leaked” data represents internal Google Search information.

As far we know at this time, the “leaked data” shares a similarity to what’s in the public Document AI Warehouse page.

Leak Of Internal Search Data?

The original post on SparkToro does not say that the data originates from Google Search. It says that the person who sent the data to Rand Fishkin is the one who made that claim.

One of the things I admire about Rand Fishkin is that he is meticulously precise in his writing, especially when it comes to caveats. Rand precisely notes that it’s the person who provided the data who makes the claim that the data originates from Google Search. There is no proof, only a claim.

He writes:

“I received an email from a person claiming to have access to a massive leak of API documentation from inside Google’s Search division.”

Fishkin himself does not affirm that the data was confirmed by ex-Googlers to have originated from Google Search. He writes that the person who emailed the data made that claim.

“The email further claimed that these leaked documents were confirmed as authentic by ex-Google employees, and that those ex-employees and others had shared additional, private information about Google’s search operations.”

Fishkin writes about a subsequent video meeting where the the leaker revealed that his contact with ex-Googlers was in the context of meeting them at a search industry event. Again, we’ll have to take the leakers word for it about the ex-Googlers and that what they said was after carefully reviewing the data and not an informal comment.

Fishkin writes that he contacted three ex-Googlers about it. What’s notable is that those ex-Googlers did not explicitly confirm that the data is internal to Google Search. They only confirmed that the data looks like it resembles internal Google information, not that it originated from Google Search.

Fishkin writes what the ex-Googlers told him:

  • “I didn’t have access to this code when I worked there. But this certainly looks legit.”
  • “It has all the hallmarks of an internal Google API.”
  • “It’s a Java-based API. And someone spent a lot of time adhering to Google’s own internal standards for documentation and naming.”
  • “I’d need more time to be sure, but this matches internal documentation I’m familiar with.”
  • “Nothing I saw in a brief review suggests this is anything but legit.”

Saying something originates from Google Search and saying that it originates from Google are two different things.

Keep An Open Mind

It’s important to keep an open mind about the data because there is a lot about it that is unconfirmed. For example, it is not known if this is an internal Search Team document. Because of that it is probably not a good idea to take anything from this data as actionable SEO advice.

Also, it’s not advisable to analyze the data to specifically confirm long-held beliefs. That’s how one becomes ensnared in Confirmation Bias.

A definition of Confirmation Bias:

“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.”

Confirmation Bias will lead to a person deny things that are empirically true. For example, there is the decades-old idea that Google automatically keeps a new site from ranking, a theory called the Sandbox. People every day report that their new sites and new pages nearly immediately rank in the top ten of Google search.

But if you are a hardened believer in the Sandbox then actual observable experience like that will be waved away, no matter how many people observe the opposite experience.

Brenda Malone, Freelance Senior SEO Technical Strategist and Web Developer (LinkedIn profile), messaged me about claims about the Sandbox:

“I personally know, from actual experience, that the Sandbox theory is wrong. I just indexed in two days a personal blog with two posts. There is no way a little two post site should have been indexed according to the the Sandbox theory.”

The takeaway here is that if the documentation turns out to originate from Google Search, the incorrect way to analyze the data is to go hunting for confirmation of long-held beliefs.

What Is The Google Data Leak About?

There are five things to consider about the leaked data:

  1. The context of the leaked information is unknown. Is it Google Search related? Is it for other purposes?
  2. The purpose of the data. Was the information used for actual search results? Or was it used for data management or manipulation internally?
  3. Ex-Googlers did not confirm that the data is specific to Google Search. They only confirmed that it appears to come from Google.
  4. Keep an open mind. If you go hunting for vindication of long-held beliefs, guess what? You will find them, everywhere. This is called confirmation bias.
  5. Evidence suggests that data is related to an external-facing API for building a document warehouse.

What Others Say About “Leaked” Documents

Ryan Jones, someone who not only has deep SEO experience but has a formidable understanding of computer science shared some reasonable observations about the so-called data leak.

Ryan tweeted:

“We don’t know if this is for production or for testing. My guess is it’s mostly for testing potential changes.

We don’t know what’s used for web or for other verticals. Some things might only be used for a Google home or news etc.

We don’t know what’s an input to a ML algo and what’s used to train against. My guess is clicks aren’t a direct input but used to train a model how to predict clickability. (Outside of trending boosts)

I’m also guessing that some of these fields only apply to training data sets and not all sites.

Am I saying Google didn’t lie? Not at all. But let’s examine this leak objectionably and not with any preconceived bias.”

@DavidGQuaid tweeted:

“We also don’t know if this is for Google search or Google cloud document retrieval

APIs seem pick & choose – that’s not how I expect the algorithm to be run – what if an engineer wants to skip all those quality checks – this looks like I want to build a content warehouse app for my enterprise knowledge base”

Is The “Leaked” Data Related To Google Search?

At this point in time there is no hard evidence that this “leaked” data is actually from Google Search. There is an overwhelming amount of ambiguity about what the purpose of the data is. Notable is that there are hints that this data is just “an external facing API for building a document warehouse as the name suggests” and not related in any way to how websites are ranked in Google Search.

The conclusion that this data did not originate from Google Search is not definitive at this time but it’s the direction that the wind of evidence appears to be blowing.

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Jaaak

Google Search Leak: Conflicting Signals, Unanswered Questions via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

An apparent leak of Google Search API documentation has sparked intense debate within the SEO community, with some claiming it proves Google’s dishonesty and others urging caution in interpreting the information.

As the industry grapples with the allegations, a balanced examination of Google’s statements and the perspectives of SEO experts is crucial to understanding the whole picture.

Leaked Documents Vs. Google’s Public Statements

Over the years, Google has consistently maintained that specific ranking signals, such as click data and user engagement metrics, aren’t used directly in its search algorithms.

In public statements and interviews, Google representatives have emphasized the importance of relevance, quality, and user experience while denying the use of specific metrics like click-through rates or bounce rates as ranking-related factors.

However, the leaked API documentation appears to contradict these statements.

It contains references to features like “goodClicks,” “badClicks,” “lastLongestClicks,” impressions, and unicorn clicks, tied to systems called Navboost and Glue, which Google VP Pandu Nayak confirmed in DOJ testimony are parts of Google’s ranking systems.

The documentation also alleges that Google calculates several metrics using Chrome browser data on individual pages and entire domains, suggesting the full clickstream of Chrome users is being leveraged to influence search rankings.

This contradicts past Google statements that Chrome data isn’t used for organic searches.

The Leak’s Origins & Authenticity

Erfan Azimi, CEO of digital marketing agency EA Eagle Digital, alleges he obtained the documents and shared them with Rand Fishkin and Mike King.

Azimi claims to have spoken with ex-Google Search employees who confirmed the authenticity of the information but declined to go on record due to the situation’s sensitivity.

While the leak’s origins remain somewhat ambiguous, several ex-Googlers who reviewed the documents have stated they appear legitimate.

Fishkin states:

“A critical next step in the process was verifying the authenticity of the API Content Warehouse documents. So, I reached out to some ex-Googler friends, shared the leaked docs, and asked for their thoughts.”

Three ex-Googlers responded, with one stating, “It has all the hallmarks of an internal Google API.”

However, without direct confirmation from Google, the authenticity of the leaked information is still debatable. Google has not yet publicly commented on the leak.

It’s important to note that, according to Fishkin’s article, none of the ex-Googlers confirmed that the leaked data was from Google Search. Only that it appears to have originated from within Google.

Industry Perspectives & Analysis

Many in the SEO community have long suspected that Google’s public statements don’t tell the whole story. The leaked API documentation has only fueled these suspicions.

Fishkin and King argue that if the information is accurate, it could have significant implications for SEO strategies and website search optimization.

Key takeaways from their analysis include:

  • Navboost and the use of clicks, CTR, long vs. Short clicks, and user data from Chrome appear to be among Google’s most powerful ranking signals.
  • Google employs safelists for sensitive topics like COVID-19, elections, and travel to control what sites appear.
  • Google uses Quality Rater feedback and ratings in its ranking systems, not just as a training set.
  • Click data influences how Google weights links for ranking purposes.
  • Classic ranking factors like PageRank and anchor text are losing influence compared to more user-centric signals.
  • Building a brand and generating search demand is more critical than ever for SEO success.

However, just because something is mentioned in API documentation doesn’t mean it’s being used to rank search results.

Other industry experts urge caution when interpreting the leaked documents.

They point out that Google may use the information for testing purposes or apply it only to specific search verticals rather than use it as active ranking signals.

There are also open questions about how much weight these signals carry compared to other ranking factors. The leak doesn’t provide the full context or algorithm details.

Unanswered Questions & Future Implications

As the SEO community continues to analyze the leaked documents, many questions still need to be answered.

Without official confirmation from Google, the authenticity and context of the information are still a matter of debate.

Key open questions include:

  • How much of this documented data is actively used to rank search results?
  • What is the relative weighting and importance of these signals compared to other ranking factors?
  • How have Google’s systems and use of this data evolved?
  • Will Google change its public messaging and be more transparent about using behavioral data?

As the debate surrounding the leak continues, it’s wise to approach the information with a balanced, objective mindset.

Unquestioningly accepting the leak as gospel truth or completely dismissing it are both shortsighted reactions. The reality likely lies somewhere in between.

Potential Implications For SEO Strategies and Website Optimization

It would be highly inadvisable to act on information shared from this supposed ‘leak’ without confirming whether it’s an actual Google search document.

Further, even if the content originates from search, the information is a year old and could have changed. Any insights derived from the leaked documentation should not be considered actionable now.

With that in mind, while the full implications remain unknown, here’s what we can glean from the leaked information.

1. Emphasis On User Engagement Metrics

If click data and user engagement metrics are direct ranking factors, as the leaked documents suggest, it could place greater emphasis on optimizing for these metrics.

This means crafting compelling titles and meta descriptions to increase click-through rates, ensuring fast page loads and intuitive navigation to reduce bounces, and strategically linking to keep users engaged on your site.

Driving traffic through other channels like social media and email can also help generate positive engagement signals.

However, it’s important to note that optimizing for user engagement shouldn’t come at the expense of creating reader-focused content. Gaming engagement metrics are unlikely to be a sustainable, long-term strategy.

Google has consistently emphasized the importance of quality and relevance in its public statements, and based on the leaked information, this will likely remain a key focus. Engagement optimization should support and enhance quality content, not replace it.

2. Potential Changes To Link-Building Strategies

The leaked documents contain information about how Google treats different types of links and their impact on search rankings.

This includes details about the use of anchor text, the classification of links into different quality tiers based on traffic to the linking page, and the potential for links to be ignored or demoted based on various spam factors.

If this information is accurate, it could influence how SEO professionals approach link building and the types of links they prioritize.

Links that drive real click-throughs may carry more weight than links on rarely visited pages.

The fundamentals of good link building still apply—create link-worthy content, build genuine relationships, and seek natural, editorially placed links that drive qualified referral traffic.

The leaked information doesn’t change this core approach but offers some additional nuance to be aware of.

3. Increased Focus On Brand Building and Driving Search Demand

The leaked documents suggest that Google uses brand-related signals and offline popularity as ranking factors. This could include metrics like brand mentions, searches for the brand name, and overall brand authority.

As a result, SEO strategies may emphasize building brand awareness and authority through both online and offline channels.

Tactics could include:

  • Securing brand mentions and links from authoritative media sources.
  • Investing in traditional PR, advertising, and sponsorships to increase brand awareness.
  • Encouraging branded searches through other marketing channels.
  • Optimizing for higher search volumes for your brand vs. unbranded keywords.
  • Building engaged social media communities around your brand.
  • Establishing thought leadership through original research, data, and industry contributions.

The idea is to make your brand synonymous with your niche and build an audience that seeks you out directly. The more people search for and engage with your brand, the stronger those brand signals may become in Google’s systems.

4. Adaptation To Vertical-Specific Ranking Factors

Some leaked information suggests that Google may use different ranking factors or algorithms for specific search verticals, such as news, local search, travel, or e-commerce.

If this is the case, SEO strategies may need to adapt to each vertical’s unique ranking signals and user intents.

For example, local search optimization may focus more heavily on factors like Google My Business listings, local reviews, and location-specific content.

Travel SEO could emphasize collecting reviews, optimizing images, and directly providing booking/pricing information on your site.

News SEO requires focusing on timely, newsworthy content and optimized article structure.

While the core principles of search optimization still apply, understanding your particular vertical’s nuances, based on the leaked information and real-world testing, can give you a competitive advantage.

The leaks suggest a vertical-specific approach to SEO could give you an advantage.

Conclusion

The Google API documentation leak has created a vigorous discussion about Google’s ranking systems.

As the SEO community continues to analyze and debate the leaked information, it’s important to remember a few key things:

  1. The information isn’t fully verified and lacks context. Drawing definitive conclusions at this stage is premature.
  2. Google’s ranking algorithms are complex and constantly evolving. Even if entirely accurate, this leak only represents a snapshot in time.
  3. The fundamentals of good SEO – creating high-quality, relevant, user-centric content and promoting it effectively – still apply regardless of the specific ranking factors at play.
  4. Real-world testing and results should always precede theorizing based on incomplete information.

What To Do Next

As an SEO professional, the best course of action is to stay informed about the leak.

Because details about the document remain unknown, it’s not a good idea to consider any takeaways actionable.

Most importantly, remember that chasing algorithms is a losing battle.

The only winning strategy in SEO is to make your website the best result for your message and audience. That’s Google’s endgame, and that’s where your focus should be, regardless of what any particular leaked document suggests.

Google To Shut Down Business Profile Chat Feature via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google has announced that it will discontinue the chat feature in Google Business Profiles.

The wind-down process will start on July 15, and the functionality will complete on July 31.

The news was emailed to businesses, acknowledging the potential difficulty of the decision and emphasizing Google’s commitment to remaining a helpful partner in business management.

Google’s email to businesses reads:

“We are reaching out to share that we will be winding down Google’s chat feature in Google Business Profile on July 31, 2024. We acknowledge this may be difficult news – as we continually improve our tools, we occasionally have to make difficult decisions which may impact the businesses and partners we work with. It’s important to us that Google remains a helpful partner as you manage your business and we remain committed to this mission.

Google will stop creating new conversations after July 15, and chat functionality will fully end on July 31. Please note, customers will still be able to find and contact your business via Google Search and Maps – and learn more information about you from your website links, business description, photos, and anything else you share on your Business Profile.”

Impact On Businesses & Customers

Starting July 15, customers can no longer initiate new chat conversations with businesses through Google.

Customers currently engaged in chat conversations will receive notifications informing them of the upcoming phase-out of the chat feature.

However, customers will still be able to locate and contact businesses using Google Search and Maps and access information through website links, business descriptions, photos, and other elements shared on Business Profiles.

Google’s Decision To Discontinue Business Chat

Google says the decision to wind down the chat feature is part of ongoing efforts to streamline its offerings.

To assist businesses in the transition, Google has provided guidance on the next steps:

  1. Chat History Download: Businesses that wish to retain a record of their past Business Profile chats can download their chat history of customer conversations using Google Takeout.
  2. Alternative Chat Solutions: Google suggests that businesses invite customers to alternative chat solutions to continue conversations seamlessly.

Background & Context

Google Business Profile, formerly known as Google My Business, is a free tool for businesses to manage their online presence across Google, including Search and Maps. The chat feature enabled customers to communicate directly with companies through their Business Profiles.

While the chat functionality will no longer be available, Google remains committed to providing a platform for companies to manage their online presence and connect with customers.


Featured Image: Vladimka production/Shutterstock

New WordPress Plugin Solves Site Navigation Problem via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Joost de Valk, the creator of Yoast SEO plugin, has created a new (and free) plugin for solving a site architecture problem that can silently diminish a website’s ability to rank.

Site Architecture

Site architecture is an important SEO factor because a well-organized website with clear navigation helps users quickly get to the content and products they’re looking for. Along the way it also helps Google find the most important pages and rank them.

The normal and common sense way to organize a website is by topic categories. While some newbie-SEOs believe that organizing a site by topic is an SEO strategy, it’s really just plain old common sense. Organizing a site by topic categories organizes a site in a way that makes it easy to drill-down and find specific things.

Tags: Contextual Site Navigation

Another way to organize a website is through contextual navigation. Contextual navigation is a way to offer a site visitor links to more webpages that are relevant to the webpage and to their interests in the moment. The way to provide a contextual link is through the concept of Tags. Tags are strongly relevant links to content that site visitors may find interesting.

For example, if someone is on a webpage about a new song by a pop star they may in that moment may be interested in reading more articles about that singer. A publisher can create a tag which links to a page that collects every article about that specific pop singer. Ordinarily it doesn’t make sense to create an entire category for hundreds of musical artists because that would defeat the purpose of a hierarchical site navigation (which is to make it easy to find content).

Tags solve the problem of making it easy to navigate to more content that one site visitor is specifically interested in at that moment. It’s contextually relevant navigation.

Too Many Good Things Isn’t Always Good

Creating a long-range plan for organizing a website can be undone by time as a website grows and trends wane. An artist that was trending several years ago may have dropped out of favor (as they often do) and people lose interest. But those tags remain, linking to content that isn’t important anymore, defeating the purpose of internal site navigation, which is to link to the most important content.

Joost de Valk researched a (very small) sample of WordPress sites and discovered that about two thirds of the websites contained overlapping tags, multiple tags linking to the same content while also generating thin content pages, which are webpages with little value.

A blog post sharing his findings noted:

“Tags are not used correctly in WordPress. Approximately two-thirds of WordPress websites using tags are using (way) too many tags. This has significant consequences for a site’s chances in the search engines – especially if the site is large. WordPress websites use too many tags, often forget to display them on their site, and the tag pages do not contain any unique content.”

The sample size was small and a reasonable argument can be made that his findings aren’t representative of most WordPress sites. But the fact remains that websites can be burdened by overlapping and outdated tags.

Here are the three main tag navigation problems that Joost identified:

1. Too Many Tags
He found that some publishers add a tag to an article with the expectation that they will add more articles to that tags when those articles are written which in many cases doesn’t happen, resulting in tags that link to just a few articles, sometimes only to one article.

2. Some Themes Are Missing The Tag Functionality
The next issue happens when websites upgrade to a new theme (or a new version of a theme) that doesn’t have the tag functionality. This creates orphaned tag pages, pages that site visitors can’t reach because the links to those tag pages are missing. But because those pages still exist the search engines will find them through the autogenerated XML sitemaps.

3. Tag Pages Can Become Thin Content
The third issue is that many publishers don’t take the time to add meaningful content to tag pages, they’re just pages of links with article excerpts that are also reproduced on category pages.

Use Fewer Tags

This is where Joost de Valk’s new WordPress plugin comes in handy. What it does is to automatically remove tags that aren’t linking to enough pages, which helps to normalize internal linking. This new plugin is called, The Fewer Tags WordPress Plugin. There’s a free version and a paid Pro version.

The free version of the plugin works automatically to remove all tag pages that contain less than ten posts, which can be adjusted to remove pages with five posts or less.

Added functionality of the Pro version allows greater control over tag management so that a publisher can merge tag pages, automatically create redirects or send a 404 Page Not Found server response.

These are the list of benefits for the Pro version:

  • “Merge & delete unneeded tag pages quickly & easily.
  • Creates redirects for removed tag pages on the fly, in your SEO plugin of choice.
  • Includes an online course in which Joost explains what you should do!
  • Fix a site’s tag issues long-term!
  • Uninstall the plugin when you’re done!”

Where To Download Fewer Tags Plugin

The free version of the plugin can be downloaded here:

Fewer Tags Free By Joost de Valk

Read more about the Pro version here.

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Simple Line

Google Is Now Indexing EPUB Files via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google announced that it is now indexing .epub documents, a format commonly used to print books for e-readers. Google is already showing EPUB books in the search index.

EPUB File Format

EPUB is an XML-based eBook publishing format based on a standard developed by the International Digital Publishing Forum, which in 2016 was subsequently merged with the World Wide Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The goal of the merger was to bring together electronic book publishing with the Internet so that they would mutually enrich each other.

Google Indexing EBUB Content

The intent of merging e-publishing with the Internet aligns with Google’s decision to index (and at some point presumably rank) EPUB content. The only surprise should be that it took eight years to do so. The changelog notes that EPUB file format was added to Google’s documentation of indexable file types and offers no other details.

Google’s official changelog offers a matter of fact notation:

“Adding epub to indexable file types

What: Added EPUB to the list of indexable file types.

Why: Google Search now supports epub.”

Does Google Rank EPUB Content?

I did a site:search for EPUB content, noted the title of a scientific research about eating contaminated fish in Lake Ontario (“Consumption of Contaminated Lake Fish and Reproduction”) that was hosted on the journals.lww.com domain.

I next searched for that document in the regular search using the exact match keyword phrase and a variation of the keyword phrase (“Consumption of Contaminated Fish in Lake Ontario”) and Google didn’t surface the EPUB document but it did surface the webpage that contained the download to the EPUB document.

Screenshot Of EPUB Download Page

Google’s official indexable file type documentation only notes that the listed filetypes are indexable. At this time it’s fair to say that Google isn’t ranking EPUB documents but Google will surface them with a filetype:epub search.

Read Google’s official documentation:

File types indexable by Google

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Simple Line

Google’s AI Overviews Shake Up Ecommerce Search Visibility via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

An analysis of 25,000 ecommerce queries by Bartosz Góralewicz, founder of Onely, reveals the impact of Google’s AI overviews on search visibility for online retailers.

The study found that 16% of eCommerce queries now return an AI overview in search results, accounting for 13% of total search volume in this sector.

Notably, 80% of the sources listed in these AI overviews do not rank organically for the original query.

“Ranking #1-3 gives you only an 8% chance of being a source in AI overviews,” Góralewicz stated.

Shift Toward “Accelerated” Product Experiences

International SEO consultant Aleyda Solis analyzed the disconnect between traditional organic ranking and inclusion in AI overviews.

According to Solis, for product-related queries, Google is prioritizing an “accelerated” approach over summarizing currently ranking pages.

She commented Góralewicz’ findings, stating:

“… rather than providing high level summaries of what’s already ranked organically below, what Google does with e-commerce is “accelerate” the experience by already showcasing what the user would get next.”

Solis explains that for queries where Google previously ranked category pages, reviews, and buying guides, it’s now bypassing this level of results with AI overviews.

Assessing AI Overview Traffic Impact

To help retailers evaluate their exposure, Solis has shared a spreadsheet that analyzes the potential traffic impact of AI overviews.

As Góralewicz notes, this could be an initial rollout, speculating that “Google will expand AI overviews for high-cost queries when enabling ads” based on data showing they are currently excluded for high cost-per-click keywords.

An in-depth report across ecommerce and publishing is expected soon from Góralewicz and Onely, with additional insights into this search trend.

Why SEJ Cares

AI overviews represent a shift in how search visibility is achieved for ecommerce websites.

With most overviews currently pulling product data from non-ranking sources, the traditional connection between organic rankings and search traffic is being disrupted.

Retailers may need to adapt their SEO strategies for this new search environment.

How This Can Benefit You

While unsettling for established brands, AI overviews create new opportunities for retailers to gain visibility without competing for the most commercially valuable keywords.

Ecommerce sites can potentially circumvent traditional ranking barriers by optimizing product data and detail pages for Google’s “accelerated” product displays.

The detailed assessment framework provided by Solis enables merchants to audit their exposure and prioritize optimization needs accordingly.


FAQ

What are the key findings from the analysis of AI overviews & ecommerce queries?

Góralewicz’s analysis of 25,000 ecommerce queries found:

  • 16% of ecommerce queries now return an AI overview in the search results.
  • 80% of the sources listed in these AI overviews do not rank organically for the original query.
  • Ranking positions #1-3 only provides an 8% chance of being a source in AI overviews.

These insights reveal significant shifts in how ecommerce sites need to approach search visibility.

Why are AI overviews pulling product data from non-ranking sources, and what does this mean for retailers?

Google’s AI overviews prioritize “accelerated” experiences over summarizing currently ranked pages for product-related queries.

This shift focuses on showcasing directly what users seek instead of traditional organic results.

For retailers, this means:

  • A need to optimize product pages beyond traditional SEO practices, catering to the data requirements of AI overviews.
  • Opportunities to gain visibility without necessarily holding top organic rankings.
  • Potential to bypass traditional ranking barriers by focusing on enhanced product data integration.

Retailers must adapt quickly to remain competitive in this evolving search environment.

What practical steps can retailers take to evaluate and improve their search visibility in light of AI overview disruptions?

Retailers can take several practical steps to evaluate and improve their search visibility:

  • Utilize the spreadsheet provided by Aleyda Solis to assess the potential traffic impact of AI overviews.
  • Optimize product and detail pages to align with the data and presentation style preferred by AI overviews.
  • Continuously monitor changes and updates to AI overviews, adapting strategies based on new data and trends.

These steps can help retailers navigate the impact of AI overviews and maintain or improve their search visibility.


Featured Image: Marco Lazzarini/Shutterstock

Google Rolls Out Search Profile Feature For Reviewers via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google is rolling out a new social profile feature that will allow you to view, manage, and share written reviews across Google’s various platforms.

This feature was announced via an email to people who have contributed reviews to Google Search.

In the email notification, Google states that the primary purpose of this feature is to “make your reviews more helpful to others.”

Please note that this is separate from users’ Google Maps review history, which is already public.

Centralized Review Management

Google’s search reviews profiles, accessible at profile.google.com, is a centralized hub for you to see all the reviews you’ve previously contributed, including reviews for TV shows, movies, and other content.

This new feature provides a more seamless experience for viewing, updating, and deleting past reviews.

Private Initially, Public Soon

Currently, these profiles are visible only to the individual users themselves.

On June 24th, other Google users can view your profile and written reviews by tapping our name or picture on any published reviews.

Privacy Considerations

By allowing users to access and explore each other’s review histories, Google is making the review ecosystem within its platforms more transparent.

While the profile will make your written reviews publicly accessible, Google has assured that personal details from individual Google Accounts, such as birthdays, won’t be displayed.

If you prefer not to have a public profile, you’ll have the option to delete it.

Why SEJ Cares

This centralized profile could be a helpful way to evaluate the credibility and consistency of reviewers, potentially influencing purchasing decisions.

Conversely, creators may need to adapt their review management strategies to account for the potential impact of individual reviewers.

As the June 24th rollout date approaches, expect to see this new feature integrated into the search experience.

How This Can Benefit You

If you actively contribute reviews on Google’s platforms, this increased visibility may enhance your influence and result in greater recognition within your area of expertise.

For creators, the ability to investigate reviewer profiles could help identify and address potentially misleading or fraudulent reviews, fostering a more trustworthy review ecosystem.

On the other hand, it may necessitate a more proactive approach to monitoring and responding to critical reviews, as they will now be more easily accessible to potential customers.


FAQ

What is the search reviews profile feature introduced by Google?

Google introduced a new type of social profile that allows users to view, manage, and share their written reviews across various platforms.

This feature aims to make users’ reviews more helpful by centralizing them in one hub. It makes it easier for users to update, delete, or view their past reviews. Initially private, these profiles will soon be visible to other users starting June 24th.

How will individual reviewer profiles impact online marketers?

This feature adds a layer of transparency to the review ecosystem. Online marketers might use these profiles to assess the credibility and consistency of reviewers, which can inform their strategies for managing customer feedback.

For reviewers, increased visibility can enhance their reputations, potentially influencing purchasing decisions and improving their authority in specific niches.

What are the key benefits of the new Google profiles for active review contributors?

Active review contributors stand to benefit from increased visibility and recognition. Their reviews will be easily accessible, enhancing their influence as trusted reviewers.

This can be particularly advantageous for users whose reviews focus on specific domains, as it may lead to greater acknowledgment and trust from the community.


Featured Image: BestForBest/Shutterstock

Google’s AI Overviews Go Viral, Draw Mainstream Media Scrutiny via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google’s rollout of AI-generated overviews in US search results is taking a disastrous turn, with mainstream media outlets like The New York Times, BBC, and CNBC reporting on numerous inaccuracies and bizarre responses.

On social media, users are sharing endless examples of the feature’s nonsensical and sometimes dangerous output.

From recommending non-toxic glue on pizza to suggesting that eating rocks provides nutritional benefits, the blunders would be amusing if they weren’t so alarming.

Mainstream Media Coverage

As reported by The New York Times, Google’s AI overviews struggle with basic facts, claiming that Barack Obama was the first Muslim president of the United States and stating that Andrew Jackson graduated from college in 2005.

These errors undermine trust in Google’s search engine, which more than two billion people rely on for authoritative information worldwide.

Manual Removal & System Refinements

As reported by The Verge, Google is now scrambling to remove the bizarre AI-generated responses and improve its systems manually.

A Google spokesperson confirmed that the company is taking “swift action” to remove problematic responses and using the examples to refine its AI overview feature.

Google’s Rush To AI Integration

The flawed rollout of AI overviews isn’t an isolated incident for Google.

As CNBC notes in its report, Google made several missteps in a rush to integrate AI into its products.

In February, Google was forced to pause its Gemini chatbot after it generated inaccurate images of historical figures and refused to depict white people in most instances.

Before that, the company’s Bard chatbot faced ridicule for sharing incorrect information about outer space, leading to a $100 billion drop in Google’s market value.

Despite these setbacks, industry experts cited by The New York Times suggest that Google has little choice but to continue advancing AI integration to remain competitive.

However, the challenges of taming large language models, which ingest false information and satirical posts, are now more apparent.

The Debate Over AI In Search

The controversy surrounding AI overviews adds fuel to the debate over the risks and limitations of AI.

While the technology holds potential, these missteps remind everyone that more testing is needed before unleashing it on the public.

The BBC notes that Google’s rivals face similar backlash over their attempts to cram more AI tools into their consumer-facing products.

The UK’s data watchdog is investigating Microsoft after it announced a feature that would take continuous screenshots of users’ online activity.

At the same time, actress Scarlett Johansson criticized OpenAI for using a voice likened to her own without permission.

What This Means For Websites & SEO Professionals

Mainstream media coverage of Google’s erroneous AI overviews brings the issue of declining search quality to public attention.

As the company works to address inaccuracies, the incident serves as a cautionary tale for the entire industry.

Important takeaway: Prioritize responsible use of AI technology to ensure the benefits outweigh its risks.