Google Uses Click Data For Ranking & We Knew That

Throughout my career in SEO, Google has continuously denied, obfuscated, and not admitted that click data is used to inform how pages rank.

End of September 2023, Eric Lehman, who worked on Google’s search quality team and ranking products for 17 years, testified that “everyone knows Google uses click data.”

Not only did they use it, they’ve been actively telling employees not to confirm that they do or how they use it.

And then, in admission within the legal setting, they play the “what… you believed marketing material?”

If you’re in SEO and you don’t have a HEALTHY skepticism for 3rd party info, capabilities, Google info, or industry info as a whole, then there is a big problem.

The thing is… many SEOs live their lives as acolytes of Google rather than enjoyers of the reality they can test and verify.

Fools Errand: SEO By The Book

Now, by no means do I play the White hat/ Black hat bullshit. I don’t talk about that or define tactics within a bucket binary like most do.

I simply talk about doing Search Engine Optimization and using tactics that I know work, and more importantly, at which scale they apply within the market. (not every tactic makes sense at a 100 page mom-and-pop, nor does it apply to a 15-million-page website - nuance and context ppl)

Many within the SEO industry. Live and die by what:

• Marketing material is published

• Current employee’s tweet

• Past employee’s tweet

• Office hours discussions

• Comments on podcasts

• Comments on panels during events or conventions

Instead of using their brain, taking anything (from anyone) that they read with a pinch of salt and applying it to the perspective they’ve built through education and action… they toss the baby out with the bathwater and say, “Google said.”

Perfect example. Google recently doubled down/ announced that backlinks aren’t in the top 3 ranking signals.

Cool.

Gary Illyes: “Links aren’t in the top 3… haven’t been for sometime… There isn’t really a universal top 3… It’s possible to rank without links.”

The whole “There isn’t really a universal top 3” really says it all, but we can continue.

Typical smoke and mirrors. When distilled - it doesn’t clarify, just adds to swirl within the industry.

The experts EAT this type of thing up as if it’s definitive and or informative.

And then, they begin to evangelize a perspective as if “backlinks” don’t matter.

People walked away saying “content” was the number one ranking factor. Well, yeah, in some cases, that’s ALWAYS been the case.

You can’t rank for a topic if you don’t cover it, and now you must do so with expertise, experience, authority, and as a whole, build out your footprint as a trusted source on the topic… but realistically.

This isn’t Field Of Dreams. If you write it, publish it, and you’ve done it and are the foremost expert… They (users) still won’t come.

Take that to the bank.

SEO has grown significantly more nuanced than the “top ranking factor = Content.”

Google, just like every other company, doesn't tell you, the consumer, anything you don’t need to know for free.

Marketing material is subterfuge.

Tweets are curated

Panel discussion topics and answers are approved and crafted with legal.

Believe it or not…You’re not getting any breadcrumbs at PubCon from Google.

TF Is everyone smoking?

TBH, this announcement made me laugh, and all I hear is, “stop buying Outlook India links… we’re not sure why that’s still working, but… we’re damn sure it’s not going to continue working.”

FULL DISCLOSURE - I haven’t bought an Outlook India link, but it’s funny to see the niche sites burning (travel blog ladies crying), and the “backlinks” aren’t even “top 3” Messaging all happening at the same time.

I think part of the industry is getting a spanking. Most of the industry forgot Google isn’t the leader, and they aren’t on your team.

Conclusion:

To further drive this home, as I’m sure, some of you reading this think I’m off the wagon and or you can’t fathom a company lying to you for whatever reason (chicken breast, no ridges, having ass).

It’s always been out there.

Right in front of your face.

Publicly message. 

Legally deny - because the consumer is a fucking moron for believing marketing material.

Google Can Directly Edit Search Results - It’s not all algo/ passive:

Google engineers and contractors have and can fine-tune results to show exactly what they want.

This is a 2019 banger. Some of us more discerning and loyal to the foil always knew this.

And no, it’s not a limited scenario or only used to “protect democracy.”

Google actively censors opposing views and shapes SERPs with its preferred narrative within the search product while it leads users to believe - results are party and preference-agnostic.

Google is not the arbiter of truth, nor is it a reliable window to the “internet.” It’s a snapshot and a curated one at that.

Albeit, the best we’ve got in terms of access to eyeballs. No denying that.

None of this stops a person such as myself from wondering… do they make backchannel brand deals?

The US Government and Social Media companies work together to shape narratives:

The Twitter files gave everyone a front-row seat to just how it all works.

Government not only makes a request, they expect results, and make threats in order to ensure preferred action is taken.

Generally, there isn’t much pushback.

It’s the government, after all.

All manner of elected and unelected officials sending takedown and censorship requests.

No reasoning is required.

Welcome to reality for those of you just joining us.

You can read the first Twitter File thread.

There are plenty out there, and they go deep into ONE of the top US social media companies and their storied relationship with actors of the US government at different layers - all playing their part in the Censorship Industrial Complex.

Fact-Checking/ Fact Checks aren’t Facts:

Facebook admitted that Fack Checking is just opinion, and their ability to label a video or post they don’t agree with as “Fact Checked” and slap a warning on or label it as “false” is content that is also protected by the First Amendment.

You have to submit to that reality if you choose to engage on their platforms.

The defense isn’t that they believed the fact check and thought the content was false.

It’s that they are protected under the First Amendment to say it’s false when it’s not, and make people believe that they are providing context to keep people safe.

Again, this a perfect example of marketing material, framing information, and publicly shaping perspective to make people believe that what you do is for one reason when your legal position proclaims - it’s the opposite.

So, as the discerning few. How could we take anyone - reading corporate comms and marketing material at face value - seriously, when (for anyone keeping score at home) we’ve been training our skepticism muscles for decades?

Stay tuned.. Next week, we’ll dive into the leaked emails where the Google VP of Ads begs for help so the team can hit their revenue goals… Presumably at the detriment of organic traffic and advertising customers.

Literally, we can’t make this stuff up.

Don’t think that holds up to the pre-2015 Google motto of “Don’t be evil” or the post-2015 motto of “Do the right thing” either. 🤣

Until next time - Join me as I build - Beyond the Dashboard and share what's on my mind.

-Matt

PS: I am still over here building the content generation habit and finding the proper cadence for getting these shipped weekly. One day, I’ll find something that works.

Cool Cars:

We’ve got a ‘96 911 Gunther Werks 400R Sport Touring Spec….

Current bid is $1.1m and we’ve got a few days left. I can’t wait to see where this one lands.

Check out this ‘89 beautiful example of a 190E.

A ‘24 911 GT3 RS Weissach with 128 miles… absurd bumble bee spec. A few wild options. That Weissach package is an additional $33k on the build sheet, probably due to all of the added carbon fiber…

Total price listed out at $304k on spec. I’m guessing this thing will sell +500k.