Google’s New Infini-Attention And SEO via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google has published a research paper on a new technology called Infini-attention that allows it to process massively large amounts of data with “infinitely long contexts” while also being capable of being easily inserted into other models to vastly improve their capabilities

That last part should be of interest to those who are interested in Google’s algorithm. Infini-Attention is plug-and-play, which means it’s relatively easy to insert into other models, including those in use b Google’s core algorithm. The part about “infinitely long contexts” may have implications for how some of Google’s search systems may work.

The name of the research paper is: Leave No Context Behind: Efficient Infinite Context Transformers with Infini-attention

Memory Is Computationally Expensive For LLMs

Large Language Models (LLM) have limitations on how much data they can process at one time because the computational complexity and memory usage can spiral upward significantly. Infini-Attention gives the LLM the ability to handle longer contexts while keeping the down memory and processing power needed.

The research paper explains:

“Memory serves as a cornerstone of intelligence, as it enables efficient computations tailored to specific contexts. However, Transformers …and Transformer-based LLMs …have a constrained context-dependent memory, due to the nature of the attention mechanism.

Indeed, scaling LLMs to longer sequences (i.e. 1M tokens) is challenging with the standard Transformer architectures and serving longer and longer context models becomes costly financially.”

And elsewhere the research paper explains:

“Current transformer models are limited in their ability to process long sequences due to quadratic increases in computational and memory costs. Infini-attention aims to address this scalability issue.”

The researchers hypothesized that Infini-attention can scale to handle extremely long sequences with Transformers without the usual increases in computational and memory resources.

Three Important Features

Google’s Infini-Attention solves the shortcomings of transformer models by incorporating three features that enable transformer-based LLMs to handle longer sequences without memory issues and use context from earlier data in the sequence, not just data near the current point being processed.

The features of Infini-Attention

  • Compressive Memory System
  • Long-term Linear Attention
  • Local Masked Attention

Compressive Memory System

Infini-Attention uses what’s called a compressive memory system. As more data is input (as part of a long sequence of data), the compressive memory system compresses some of the older information in order to reduce the amount of space needed to store the data.

Long-term Linear Attention

Infini-attention also uses what’s called, “long-term linear attention mechanisms” which enable the LLM to process data that exists earlier in the sequence of data that’s being processed which enables to retain the context. That’s a departure from standard transformer-based LLMs.

This is important for tasks where the context exists on a larger plane of data. It’s like being able to discuss and entire book and all of the chapters and explain how the first chapter relates to another chapter closer to the end of the book.

Local Masked Attention

In addition to the long-term attention, Infini-attention also uses what’s called local masked attention. This kind of attention processes nearby (localized) parts of the input data, which is useful for responses that depend on the closer parts of the data.

Combining the long-term and local attention together helps solve the problem of transformers being limited to how much input data it can remember and use for context.

The researchers explain:

“The Infini-attention incorporates a compressive memory into the vanilla attention mechanism and builds in both masked local attention and long-term linear attention mechanisms in a single Transformer block.”

Results Of Experiments And Testing

Infini-attention was tested with other models for comparison across multiple benchmarks involving long input sequences, such as long-context language modeling, passkey retrieval, and book summarization tasks. Passkey retrieval is a test where the language model has to retrieve specific data from within a extremely long text sequence.

List of the three tests:

  1. Long-context Language Modeling
  2. Passkey Test
  3. Book Summary

Long-Context Language Modeling And The Perplexity Score

The researchers write that the Infini-attention outperformed the baseline models and that increasing the training sequence length brought even further improvements in the Perplexity score. The Perplexity score is a metric that measures language model performance with lower scores indicating better performance.

The researchers shared their findings:

“Infini-Transformer outperforms both Transformer-XL …and Memorizing Transformers baselines while maintaining 114x less memory parameters than the Memorizing Transformer model with a vector retrieval-based KV memory with length of 65K at its 9th layer. Infini-Transformer outperforms memorizing transformers with memory length of 65K and achieves 114x compression ratio.

We further increased the training sequence length to 100K from 32K and trained the models on Arxiv-math dataset. 100K training further decreased the perplexity score to 2.21 and 2.20 for Linear and Linear + Delta models.”

Passkey Test

The passkey test is wherea random number is hidden within a long text sequence with the task being that the model must fetch the hidden text. The passkey is hidden either near the beginning, middle or the end of the long text. The model was able to solve the passkey test up to a length of 1 million.

“A 1B LLM naturally scales to 1M sequence length and solves the passkey retrieval task when injected with Infini-attention. Infini-Transformers solved the passkey task with up to 1M context length when fine-tuned on 5K length inputs. We report token-level retrieval accuracy for passkeys hidden in a different part (start/middle/end) of long inputs with lengths 32K to 1M.”

Book Summary Test

Infini-attention also excelled at the book summary test by outperforming top benchmarks achieving new state of the art (SOTA) performance levels.

The results are described:

“Finally, we show that a 8B model with Infini-attention reaches a new SOTA result on a 500K length book summarization task after continual pre-training and task fine-tuning.

…We further scaled our approach by continuously pre-training a 8B LLM model with 8K input length for 30K steps. We then fine-tuned on a book summarization task, BookSum (Kry´sci´nski et al., 2021) where the goal is to generate a summary of an entire book text.

Our model outperforms the previous best results and achieves a new SOTA on BookSum by processing the entire text from book. …There is a clear trend showing that with more text provided as input from books, our Infini-Transformers improves its summarization performance metric.”

Implications Of Infini-Attention For SEO

Infini-attention is a breakthrough in modeling long and short range attention with greater efficiency than previous models without Infini-attention. It also supports “plug-and-play continual pre-training and long-context adaptation
by design” which means that it can easily be integrated into existing models.

Lastly, the “continual pre-training and long-context adaptation” makes it exceptionally useful for scenarios where it’s necessary to constantly train the model on new data. This last part is super interesting because it may make it useful for applications on the back end of Google’s search systems, particularly where it is necessary to be able to analyze long sequences of information and understand the relevance from one part near the beginning of the sequence and another part that’s closer to the end.

Other articles focused on the “infinitely long inputs” that this model is capable of but where it’s relevant to SEO is how that ability to handle huge input and “Leave No Context Behind” is what’s relevant to search marketing and how some of Google’s systems might work if Google adapted Infini-attention to their core algorithm.

Read the research paper:

Leave No Context Behind: Efficient Infinite Context Transformers with Infini-attention

Featured Image by Shutterstock/JHVEPhoto

Google Crawler Documentation Has A New IP List via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google updated their Googlebot and crawler documentation to add a range of IPs for bots triggered by users of Google products. The names of the feeds switched which is important for publishers who are whitelisting Google controlled IP addresses. The change will be useful for publishers who want to block scrapers who are using Google’s cloud and other crawlers not directly associated with Google itself.

New List Of IP Addresses

Google says that the list contains IP ranges that have long been in use, so they’re not new IP address ranges.

There are two kinds of IP address ranges:

  1. IP ranges that are initiated by users but controlled by Google and resolve to a Google.com hostname.
    These are tools like Google Site Verifier and presumably the Rich Results Tester Tool.
  2. IP ranges that are initiated by users but not controlled by Google and resolve to a gae.googleusercontent.com hostname.
    These are apps that are on Google cloud or apps scripts that are called from Gooogle Sheets.

The lists that correspond to each category are different now.

Previously the list that corresponded to Google IP addresses was this one: special-crawlers.json (resolving to gae.googleusercontent.com)

Now the “special crawlers” list corresponds to crawlers that are not controlled by Google.

“IPs in the user-triggered-fetchers.json object resolve to gae.googleusercontent.com hostnames. These IPs are used, for example, if a site running on Google Cloud (GCP) has a feature that requires fetching external RSS feeds on the request of the user of that site.”

The new list that corresponds to Google controlled crawlers is: 

user-triggered-fetchers-google.json

“Tools and product functions where the end user triggers a fetch. For example, Google Site Verifier acts on the request of a user. Because the fetch was requested by a user, these fetchers ignore robots.txt rules.

Fetchers controlled by Google originate from IPs in the user-triggered-fetchers-google.json object and resolve to a google.com hostname.”

The list of IPs from Google Cloud and App crawlers that Google doesn’t control can be found here:

https://developers.google.com/static/search/apis/ipranges/user-triggered-fetchers.json

The list of IP from Google that are triggered by users and controlled by Google is here:

https://developers.google.com/static/search/apis/ipranges/user-triggered-fetchers-google.json

New Section Of Content

There is a new section of content that explains what the new list is about.

“Fetchers controlled by Google originate from IPs in the user-triggered-fetchers-google.json object and resolve to a google.com hostname. IPs in the user-triggered-fetchers.json object resolve to gae.googleusercontent.com hostnames. These IPs are used, for example, if a site running on Google Cloud (GCP) has a feature that requires fetching external RSS feeds on the request of the user of that site. ***-***-***-***.gae.googleusercontent.com or google-proxy-***-***-***-***.google.com user-triggered-fetchers.json and user-triggered-fetchers-google.json”

Google Changelog

Google’s changelog explained the changes like this:

“Exporting an additional range of Google fetcher IP addresses
What: Added an additional list of IP addresses for fetchers that are controlled by Google products, as opposed to, for example, a user controlled Apps Script. The new list, user-triggered-fetchers-google.json, contains IP ranges that have been in use for a long time.

Why: It became technically possible to export the ranges.”

Read the updated documentation:
Verifying Googlebot and other Google crawlers

Read the old documentation:
Archive.org – Verifying Googlebot and other Google crawlers

Featured Image by Shutterstock/JHVEPhoto

DeepL Write: New AI Editor Improves Content Quality via @sejournal, @martinibuster

DeepL, the makers of the DeepL Translator, announced a new product called DeepL Write, an AI real-time editor that is powered by their own Large Language Model (LLM) that improves content at the draft stage, preserving the tone and voice of the writer.

Unlike many other AI writing tools, DeepL Write is not a content generator, it’s an editor that offers suggestions for what words to choose, how best to phrase ideas, proofreading your documents so that they sound professional and in the right tone and voice. Plus the usual spelling, grammar, and punctuation improvements.

According to DeepL:

“Unlike common generative AI tools that auto-populate text, or rules-based grammar correction tools, DeepL Write Pro acts as a creative assistant to writers in the drafting process, elevating their text with real-time, AI-powered suggestions on word choice, phrasing, style, and tone.

This unique approach sparks a creative synergy between the user and the AI that transforms text while preserving the writer’s authentic voice. DeepL Write Pro’s strength lies in its ability to give writers a sophisticated boost in their communication, regardless of language proficiency—empowering them to find the perfect words for any situation or audience.”

Enterprise Grade Security

DeepL write also comes with TLS (Transport Layer Security) encryption. TLS is a is a protocol that’s used to encrypt data sent between an app and a server, commonly used for email and instant messaging and it’s also the technology that is behind HTTPS which keeps websites secure.

In addition to keeping the documents secure DeepL write also comes with a text deletion feature to ensure that all documents are secure and nothing is stored online.

Standalone and With DeepL Translator Integration

DeepL Write is available as a standalone app and as part of a suite together with DeepL Translator. The integration with DeepL Translator makes it an advanced tool for creating documentation that can be rewritten into another language in the right tone and style.

At this time DeepL Write Pro is available in English and German, with more languages becoming available soon.

The standalone product is available in a free version with limited text improvements and a Pro version that costs $10.99 per month.

DeepL Write Pro comes with the following features:

  • Maximum data security
  • Unlimited text improvements
  • Unlimited use of alternatives
  • Unlimited use of writing styles
  • Team administration

There is also an Enterprise level named DeepL Write for Business which is for organizations that need it for 50 or more users.

DeepL Write Pro

Many publishers and search marketers who depended on AI for generating content have reported having lost rankings during the last Google Core Algorithm update in March. Naturally many publishes are hesitant to give AI a try for generating content.

DeepL Write Pro offers an alternative use of AI for content in the form of a virtual editor that can help to polish up a human’s writing and help make it more concise, professional and in the correct style and tone.

One of the things that stands between a passable document and a great document is good writing, something that an editor is useful for elevating content to a higher quality. Given the modest price and the value that a good editor provides, the timing for this kind of product couldn’t be better.

Read more at DeepL Write Pro

Featured Image by Shutterstock/one photo

Google Further Postpones Third-Party Cookie Deprecation In Chrome via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google has again delayed its plan to phase out third-party cookies in the Chrome web browser. The latest postponement comes after ongoing challenges in reconciling feedback from industry stakeholders and regulators.

The announcement was made in Google and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) joint quarterly report on the Privacy Sandbox initiative, scheduled for release on April 26.

Chrome’s Third-Party Cookie Phaseout Pushed To 2025

Google states it “will not complete third-party cookie deprecation during the second half of Q4” this year as planned.

Instead, the tech giant aims to begin deprecating third-party cookies in Chrome “starting early next year,” assuming an agreement can be reached with the CMA and the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The statement reads:

“We recognize that there are ongoing challenges related to reconciling divergent feedback from the industry, regulators and developers, and will continue to engage closely with the entire ecosystem. It’s also critical that the CMA has sufficient time to review all evidence, including results from industry tests, which the CMA has asked market participants to provide by the end of June.”

Continued Engagement With Regulators

Google reiterated its commitment to “engaging closely with the CMA and ICO” throughout the process and hopes to conclude discussions this year.

This marks the third delay to Google’s plan to deprecate third-party cookies, initially aiming for a Q3 2023 phaseout before pushing it back to late 2024.

The postponements reflect the challenges in transitioning away from cross-site user tracking while balancing privacy and advertiser interests.

Transition Period & Impact

In January, Chrome began restricting third-party cookie access for 1% of users globally. This percentage was expected to gradually increase until 100% of users were covered by Q3 2024.

However, the latest delay gives websites and services more time to migrate away from third-party cookie dependencies through Google’s limited “deprecation trials” program.

The trials offer temporary cookie access extensions until December 27, 2024, for non-advertising use cases that can demonstrate direct user impact and functional breakage.

While easing the transition, the trials have strict eligibility rules. Advertising-related services are ineligible, and origins matching known ad-related domains are rejected.

Google states the program aims to address functional issues rather than relieve general data collection inconveniences.

Publisher & Advertiser Implications

The repeated delays highlight the potential disruption for digital publishers and advertisers relying on third-party cookie tracking.

Industry groups have raised concerns that restricting cross-site tracking could push websites toward more opaque privacy-invasive practices.

However, privacy advocates view the phaseout as crucial in preventing covert user profiling across the web.

With the latest postponement, all parties have more time to prepare for the eventual loss of third-party cookies and adopt Google’s proposed Privacy Sandbox APIs as replacements.


Featured Image: Novikov Aleksey/Shutterstock

Google Warns Of “New Reality” As Search Engine Stumbles via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google’s SVP overseeing Search, Prabhakar Raghavan, recently warned employees in an internal memo that the company’s search division faces a “new operating reality” with fewer resources, according to a CNBC report.

The memo comes amid concerns over softening revenue and user engagement metrics for Google’s core search product. Recent quarters have seen weaker-than-expected growth in search queries and engagement.

The memo raises questions for SEO professionals and website owners about how Google changes could impact their strategies and online visibility.

Google’s Memo To Employees

In an all-hands meeting last month, Raghavan, who oversees Google’s Search, Ads, Maps, and Commerce divisions, acknowledged that the industry has shifted from the tech giant’s earlier dominance.

Raghavan reportedly told a gathering of over 25,000 employees:

“I think we can agree that things are not like they were 15-20 years ago, things have changed.”

Raghavan cited heightened competition and a more challenging regulatory environment as factors necessitating Google’s adaptability without explicitly naming rivals. However, the company faces increasing pressure from Microsoft and OpenAI in the burgeoning field of generative artificial intelligence.

He continued:

“People come to us because we are trusted. They may have a new gizmo out there that people like to play with, but they still come to Google to verify what they see there because it is the trusted source, and it becomes more critical in this era of generative AI.”

In a move to accelerate the company’s responsiveness, Raghavan revealed that he plans to shorten project deadlines for his direct reports, stating:

“There is something to be learned from that faster-twitch, shorter wavelength execution.”

Google Search: From Ideals to Revenue Machine?

Some critics argue that Google’s current search struggles stem from misguided priorities and leadership missteps, not just external market forces.

In an opinion piece, industry analyst Edward Zitron paints a different picture of what ails Google’s search engine.

He believes the company consciously degraded its flagship product to boost revenue under former ad executive Raghavan.

Citing internal Google emails from 2019, Zitron reports that Raghavan, then head of Ads, led a “Code Yellow” emergency mobilization after Search revenues lagged expectations.

In response, Zitron alleges Google rolled back key quality improvements to inflate engagement metrics – including boosting sites previously downranked for spamming tactics.

Zitron wrote:

“The emails … tell a dramatic story about how Google’s finance and advertising teams, led by Raghavan with the blessing of CEO Sundar Pichai, actively worked to make Google worse to make the company more money.”

Zitron depicts this shift as abandoning ethical principles, where the leadership team disregarded Google’s original mission of providing superior search results.

He argues it set the stage for Raghavan’s subsequent promotion to SVP of Search in 2020 – over the objections of veteran search chief Ben Gomes, who was reassigned after nearly 20 years improving the product.

Zitron’s report states:

“Gomes, who was a critical part of the original team that made Google Search work… was chased out by a growth-hungry managerial type led by Prabhakar Raghavan, a management consultant wearing an engineer costume.”

Under Raghavan’s tenure, Zitron claims the search engine has become increasingly “less reliable,” “less transparent,” and overrun with low-quality content optimized purely to rank well rather than meet user needs.

Google hasn’t directly responded to the allegations in Zitron’s report.

What Does This Mean For SEO Professionals & Site Owners?

For website owners and SEO professionals who closely follow Google’s every move, the tensions brewing within the company point to the ongoing challenge of optimizing for Google’s shifting search priorities.

Sudden product changes could disrupt current SEO strategies, whether driven by immediate financial goals or a philosophical change.

Raghavan’s statement about embracing a “new operating reality” with shorter timelines suggests that Google Search may start updating more frequently.

The intense scrutiny on Google highlights the high stakes involved in any significant overhaul of its algorithms and ranking systems.

As Google evolves its products, how the company balances innovation with maintaining its standards could shape the future of search.

Google Revised The Favicon Documentation via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google revised their documentation on Favicons in order to add definitions in response to user questions received about favicons and what to use. The updated version of the documentation is significantly better because it explains the difference between the legacy form of favicon and the latest version of it.

Favicon

A favicon is a visual representation of a site and when properly executed it can draw attention to itself in the search engine results pages (SERPs) and encourage more clicks. The favicon is linked with the “rel” HTML attribute, which shows the relation between a linked resource (the favicon) and the webpage itself. REL stands for relation.

Revision Of Documentation

Google’s support page for favicon was revised in the section about which kinds of favicons are recommended and adds more details that explains which are legacy and which are modern versions.

These Are The Changes

This section was revised and essentially removed:

Set the rel attribute to one of the following strings:

  • icon
  • apple-touch-icon
  • apple-touch-icon-precomposed
  • shortcut icon

The problem with the above section is the use of the word “strings” means text, but it’s needlessly jargony and not informative enough.

That section was replaced with this:

Google supports the following rel attribute values for specifying a favicon; use whichever one fits your use case:

  • icon
    The icon that represents your site, as defined in the HTML standard.
  • apple-touch-icon
    An iOS-friendly icon that represents your site, per Apple’s developer documentation.
  • apple-touch-icon-precomposed
    An alternative icon for earlier versions of iOS, per Apple’s developer documentation.

There is also a new callout box with the following information:

“For historical reasons, we also support shortcut icon, which is an earlier, alternative version of icon.”

Screenshot of new callout box

A “shortcut icon” is a term that refers to an old way of signaling the presence of a favicon by using rel=”shortcut icon” instead of rel=”icon” so what Google’s documentation states is that they will still support the non-standard way of linking to a favicon.

The new documentation is improved with wording that is more descriptive.

Read the new documentation here:

Define a favicon to show in search results

Compare it to the old documentation here:

Internet Archive: Define a favicon to show in search results

Featured Image by Shutterstock/GoodStudio

Google Explains A Weird Domain Migration Outcome via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google’s John Mueller offered an insight into why the domain name migrations between multiple language versions of the same website turned out vastly different even though the same process was followed for each of three websites.

Migrating To Different Domain Names

The person asking the question maintained three websites under three different country code top level domains (ccTLDs). The ccTLDs were .fr (France), .be (Belgium), and .de (Germany). The project was a migration from one domain name to another domain name, each within their respective ccTLD, like example-1.fr to example-2.fr.

Each site had the same content but in different languages that corresponded to the countries targeted by each of their respective ccTLD. Thus, because everything about the migration was equal the reasonable expectation was that the outcome of the migration would be the same for each site.

But that wasn’t the case.

Two out of the three site migrations failed and lost traffic. Only one of them experienced a seamless transition.

What Went Wrong?

The person asking for information about what went wrong tweeted:

“Hi @JohnMu,

AlicesGarden (.fr, .be, .de …) migrated to Sweeek (.fr, .be, .de …)

.FR and .BE lost a lot of traffic in Oct. 23

Other TLD performed well.

Redirects, canonical, hreflang, content, offer = OK
Search console migration = OK

What else could be wrong ?”

Original tweet:

John Mueller Tweets His Response

Google’s John Mueller responded that each site is a different site and should be regarded as differently even if they share the same content assets (in different languages) between them.

Mueller tweeted:

“I don’t know your sites, but even if the content’s the same, they’re essentially different sites (especially with ccTLDs), so it would be normal for a migration to affect them differently (and this seems to be quite a way back in the meantime).”

Here is his tweet:

Are Site Migrations Essentially Equal?

John makes an important observation. It may very well be that how a site fits into the Internet may be affected by a site migration, especially by how users may respond to a change in template or a domain name. I’ve done domain name migrations and those have gone well with a temporary slight dip. But that was just one domain name at a time, not multiple domains.

What Might Be Going On?

Someone in that discussion tweeted to ask if they had used AI content.

The person asking the original question tweeted their response

“Yes a bit of AI for short description, mainly in category pages, but nothing which could be deceptive from an end-user perspective.”

Could it be that the two of the site migrations failed and a third was successful because they coincidentally overlapped with an update? Given that the extent of AI content was trivial it’s probably unlikely.

The important takeaway is what Mueller said, that they’re all different sites and so the outcome should naturally be different.

Featured Image by Shutterstock/William Barton

Google Confirms Links Are Not That Important via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google’s Gary Illyes confirmed at a recent search marketing conference that Google needs very few links, adding to the growing body of evidence that publishers need to focus on other factors. Gary tweeted confirmation that he indeed say those words.

Background Of Links For Ranking

Links were discovered in the late 1990’s to be a good signal for search engines to use for validating how authoritative a website is and then Google discovered soon after that anchor text could be used to provide semantic signals about what a webpage was about.

One of the most important research papers was Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment by Jon M. Kleinberg, published around 1998 (link to research paper at the end of the article). The main discovery of this research paper is that there is too many web pages and there was no objective way to filter search results for quality in order to rank web pages for a subjective idea of relevance.

The author of the research paper discovered that links could be used as an objective filter for authoritativeness.

Kleinberg wrote:

“To provide effective search methods under these conditions, one needs a way to filter, from among a huge collection of relevant pages, a small set of the most “authoritative” or ‘definitive’ ones.”

This is the most influential research paper on links because it kick-started more research on ways to use links beyond as an authority metric but as a subjective metric for relevance.

Objective is something factual. Subjective is something that’s closer to an opinion. The founders of Google discovered how to use the subjective opinions of the Internet as a relevance metric for what to rank in the search results.

What Larry Page and Sergey Brin discovered and shared in their research paper (The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine – link at end of this article) was that it was possible to harness the power of anchor text to determine the subjective opinion of relevance from actual humans. It was essentially crowdsourcing the opinions of millions of website expressed through the link structure between each webpage.

What Did Gary Illyes Say About Links In 2024?

At a recent search conference in Bulgaria, Google’s Gary Illyes made a comment about how Google doesn’t really need that many links and how Google has made links less important.

Patrick Stox tweeted about what he heard at the search conference:

” ‘We need very few links to rank pages… Over the years we’ve made links less important.’ @methode #serpconf2024″

Google’s Gary Illyes tweeted a confirmation of that statement:

“I shouldn’t have said that… I definitely shouldn’t have said that”

Why Links Matter Less

The initial state of anchor text when Google first used links for ranking purposes was absolutely non-spammy, which is why it was so useful. Hyperlinks were primarily used as a way to send traffic from one website to another website.

But by 2004 or 2005 Google was using statistical analysis to detect manipulated links, then around 2004 “powered-by” links in website footers stopped passing anchor text value, and by 2006 links close to the words “advertising” stopped passing link value, links from directories stopped passing ranking value and by 2012 Google deployed a massive link algorithm called Penguin that destroyed the rankings of likely millions of websites, many of which were using guest posting.

The link signal eventually became so bad that Google decided in 2019 to selectively use nofollow links for ranking purposes. Google’s Gary Illyes confirmed that the change to nofollow was made because of the link signal.

Google Explicitly Confirms That Links Matter Less

In 2023 Google’s Gary Illyes shared at a PubCon Austin that links were not even in the top 3 of ranking factors. Then in March 2024, coinciding with the March 2024 Core Algorithm Update, Google updated their spam policies documentation to downplay the importance of links for ranking purposes.

Google March 2024 Core Update: 4 Changes To Link Signal

The documentation previously said:

“Google uses links as an important factor in determining the relevancy of web pages.”

The update to the documentation that mentioned links was updated to remove the word important.

Links are not just listed as just another factor:

“Google uses links as a factor in determining the relevancy of web pages.”

At the beginning of April Google’s John Mueller advised that there are more useful SEO activities to engage on than links.

Mueller explained:

“There are more important things for websites nowadays, and over-focusing on links will often result in you wasting your time doing things that don’t make your website better overall”

Finally, Gary Illyes explicitly said that Google needs very few links to rank webpages and confirmed it.

Why Google Doesn’t Need Links

The reason why Google doesn’t need many links is likely because of the extent of AI and natural language undertanding that Google uses in their algorithms. Google must be highly confident in its algorithm to be able to explicitly say that they don’t need it.

Way back when Google implemented the nofollow into the algorithm there were many link builders who sold comment spam links who continued to lie that comment spam still worked. As someone who started link building at the very beginning of modern SEO (I was the moderator of the link building forum at the #1 SEO forum of that time), I can say with confidence that links have stopped playing much of a role in rankings beginning several years ago, which is why I stopped about five or six years ago.

Read the research papers

Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment – Jon M. Kleinberg (PDF)

The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine

Featured Image by Shutterstock/RYO Alexandre

Google DeepMind RecurrentGemma Beats Transformer Models via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Google DeepMind published a research paper that proposes language model called RecurrentGemma that can match or exceed the performance of transformer-based models while being more memory efficient, offering the promise of large language model performance on resource limited environments.

The research paper offers a brief overview:

“We introduce RecurrentGemma, an open language model which uses Google’s novel Griffin architecture. Griffin combines linear recurrences with local attention to achieve excellent performance on language. It has a fixed-sized state, which reduces memory use and enables efficient inference on long sequences. We provide a pre-trained model with 2B non-embedding parameters, and an instruction tuned variant. Both models achieve comparable performance to Gemma-2B despite being trained on fewer tokens.”

Connection To Gemma

Gemma is an open model that uses Google’s top tier Gemini technology but is lightweight and can run on laptops and mobile devices. Similar to Gemma, RecurrentGemma can also function on resource-limited environments. Other similarities between Gemma and RecurrentGemma are in the pre-training data, instruction tuning and RLHF (Reinforcement Learning From Human Feedback). RLHF is a way to use human feedback to train a model to learn on its own, for generative AI.

Griffin Architecture

The new model is based on a hybrid model called Griffin that was announced a few months ago. Griffin is called a “hybrid” model because it uses two kinds of technologies, one that allows it to efficiently handle long sequences of information while the other allows it to focus on the most recent parts of the input, which gives it the ability to process “significantly” more data (increased throughput) in the same time span as transformer-based models and also decrease the wait time (latency).

The Griffin research paper proposed two models, one called Hawk and the other named Griffin. The Griffin research paper explains why it’s a breakthrough:

“…we empirically validate the inference-time advantages of Hawk and Griffin and observe reduced latency and significantly increased throughput compared to our Transformer baselines. Lastly, Hawk and Griffin exhibit the ability to extrapolate on longer sequences than they have been trained on and are capable of efficiently learning to copy and retrieve data over long horizons. These findings strongly suggest that our proposed models offer a powerful and efficient alternative to Transformers with global attention.”

The difference between Griffin and RecurrentGemma is in one modification related to how the model processes input data (input embeddings).

Breakthroughs

The research paper states that RecurrentGemma provides similar or better performance than the more conventional Gemma-2b transformer model (which was trained on 3 trillion tokens versus 2 trillion for RecurrentGemma). This is part of the reason the research paper is titled “Moving Past Transformer Models” because it shows a way to achieve higher performance without the high resource overhead of the transformer architecture.

Another win over transformer models is in the reduction in memory usage and faster processing times. The research paper explains:

“A key advantage of RecurrentGemma is that it has a significantly smaller state size than transformers on long sequences. Whereas Gemma’s KV cache grows proportional to sequence length, RecurrentGemma’s state is bounded, and does not increase on sequences longer than the local attention window size of 2k tokens. Consequently, whereas the longest sample that can be generated autoregressively by Gemma is limited by the memory available on the host, RecurrentGemma can generate sequences of arbitrary length.”

RecurrentGemma also beats the Gemma transformer model in throughput (amount of data that can be processed, higher is better). The transformer model’s throughput suffers with higher sequence lengths (increase in the number of tokens or words) but that’s not the case with RecurrentGemma which is able to maintain a high throughput.

The research paper shows:

“In Figure 1a, we plot the throughput achieved when sampling from a prompt of 2k tokens for a range of generation lengths. The throughput calculates the maximum number of tokens we can sample per second on a single TPUv5e device.

…RecurrentGemma achieves higher throughput at all sequence lengths considered. The throughput achieved by RecurrentGemma does not reduce as the sequence length increases, while the throughput achieved by Gemma falls as the cache grows.”

Limitations Of RecurrentGemma

The research paper does show that this approach comes with its own limitation where performance lags in comparison with traditional transformer models.

The researchers highlight a limitation in handling very long sequences which is something that transformer models are able to handle.

According to the paper:

“Although RecurrentGemma models are highly efficient for shorter sequences, their performance can lag behind traditional transformer models like Gemma-2B when handling extremely long sequences that exceed the local attention window.”

What This Means For The Real World

The importance of this approach to language models is that it suggests that there are other ways to improve the performance of language models while using less computational resources on an architecture that is not a transformer model. This also shows that a non-transformer model can overcome one of the limitations of transformer model cache sizes that tend to increase memory usage.

This could lead to applications of language models in the near future that can function in resource-limited environments.

Read the Google DeepMind research paper:

RecurrentGemma: Moving Past Transformers for Efficient Open Language Models (PDF)

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Photo For Everything

Google On 404 Errors And Ranking Drops via @sejournal, @martinibuster

In a Google Office Hours podcast, Google’s Gary Illyes answered a question about 404 Page Not Found errors that coincided with a drop in rankings.

Fake External 404 Errors

There are probably many reasons for 404 errors created by bots. One reason for those error responses could be that they are originating from automated scanners that are looking for files or folders that are typical for specific vulnerable plugins or themes.

Checking the the IP address and user agent of the bot that’s causing the 404 server error responses can also yield clues if those 404 responses are from automated scanning bots. If the IP address indicates it’s originating from a web host, or a Russian or Chinese IP address then it’s probably a hacker. If the user agent is an out of date version of Chrome or Firefox then that’s probably a hacker’s bot, too. That’s just one reason out of many.

Google Answers The Question

The person asking the question correlated a drop in rankings with 404 Page Not Found server responses.

This is the question that was asked:

“False 404 URLs hitting my website from external source, could this be related to ranking drop? What can I do to fix it?”

Google’s Gary Illyes responded:

“Fake 404s that Googlebot might’ve crawled cannot be reasonably attributed to a ranking drop. It’s normal to have any number of 404s on a site and you don’t have to fix them, though if you see in your analytics software that a larger number of actual users are also coming through those 404 URLs, I would personally try to convert them somehow by, for example, showing them some relevant content instead.”

Ranking Drops And 404 Page Not Found

Gary said that 404s are normal and unlikely to cause a drop in search rankings. It’s true that 404 errors are a common occurrence. In general that’s okay and most of the time there’s no need to fix anything.

404s That Are Generated By Actual Users

There are other cases where 404s are created by real people who are following a link from somewhere and getting a Page Not Found response. This is easy to diagnose by checking if the URL the site visitors are trying to reach closely resembles an actual URL. That’s an indication that someone misspelled a URL and the way to fix that is by creating a redirect from the misspelled URL to the correct one.

About The Drop In Rankings

Something that Gary didn’t mention but is worth mentioning is that there may be a small possibility that a bot did find a vulnerability and the 404s were caused by a scanner that was scanning for vulnerabilities before eventually finding one.

One way to check for that is to use phpMyAdmin, a server app, to view your database tables in the section for users and see if there’s an unrecognized user.

Another way, if the site is hosted on WordPress, is to use a security plugin to scan the site to see if it’s using a vulnerable theme or plugin.

Jetpack Protect is a free vulnerability scanner that’s created by the developers at Automattic. It won’t fix a vulnerability but it will warn a user if it finds plugin or theme related vulnerabilities. The paid premium version offers more protection.

Other trustworthy WordPress security plugins are Sucuri and Wordfence, both of which do different things and are available in free and premium versions.

But if that’s not the case then the ranking drops are pure coincidence and the real reasons lie elswhere.

Listen to the question and answer at 12:27 minute mark of the Office Hours podcast:

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Asier Romero