this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
884 points (99.8% liked)

Technology

59574 readers
3241 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 79 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

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

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

Most of this article is SEO "experts" complaining that some of the guidelines they were given didn't match what's in the internal documents.

Google is shit, but SEO is a cancer too. I can't be too bothered by Google jacking them around a bit.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 31 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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

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

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

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

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 24 points 5 months ago

need to get their ads more visibility

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

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

[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 5 months ago

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

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

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