what google doesnt want you to know about their se with timestamps YoutubeScribe.com

[0:00] A few months ago, thousands of leaked
documents surfaced from Google's fault,
[0:03] revealing secrets to their search engine
algorithm they never wanted us to see.
[0:07] Buried within were four discoveries
that, if true, changed everything.
[0:12] For over a decade, Google has
denied that these things exist.
[0:16] And while lone wolves have called out
Google for spreading misinformation,
[0:21] they were often ignored and neglected.
[0:23] After pulling people on Twitter, 72%
believe Google is actively deceiving us.
[0:29] I had to uncover the truth. Why would Google lie?
[0:32] What could they gain by misleading millions of us
who rely on their guidelines to optimize our websites?
[0:38] Is it just a misunderstanding or could
something more sinister be at play?
[0:43] Because if Google, the company that once
vowed "don't be evil", is manipulating us,
[0:50] then who can we trust?
[0:52] The first piece of this puzzle takes us back
to two 2012, centered around a product
[0:56] you're probably using right now.
[0:58] "Google Chrome. They're moving toward
taking over every part of our computing life."
[1:02] At a search engine marketing conference, Matt Cutts,
former engineer and head of web spam at Google,
[1:08] was asked if Chrome browser data is used in their
search ranking algorithm, to which he denied.
[1:13] Cuts eventually left Google and with him,
the rumors about Chrome data faded away.
[1:18] But a decade later, John Mueller, a senior
analyst at Google, faces similar question.
[1:23] What data does Google Chrome
collect from user for ranking?
[1:28] I don't think we use anything
from Google Chrome for ranking.
[1:32] These denials planted the seeds
for what would become the first
[1:35] of Google's four lies exposed in the leak.
[1:38] The documents revealed
a module called Chrome in Total.
[1:41] According to the source of the leak,
Google wanted the full click stream
[1:44] of billions of internet users.
[1:46] Click stream data is basically like
a map of everything you do online.
[1:50] It tracks the websites you visit, the
links you click, where you pause,
[1:54] and how long you stay.
[1:56] And it's a gold mine of data for businesses
because it helps them understand how users
[2:00] interact with their apps and websites so they
can improve user experience and ultimately
[2:06] boost conversions.
[2:07] And Chrome handed it to
them on a silver platter.
[2:11] Thing is, click stream data is usually
limited to sites and apps you own.
[2:16] And since Google owns Chrome, the app
where sixty three percent of Internet users
[2:21] do their browsing, Chrome data can be used to
understand how over half the planet interacts
[2:27] not just with search, but with the entire web.
[2:31] But why would Google lie
about using Chrome data?
[2:35] "My strong suspicion is it started
because when Google started,
[2:38] they were competing for market share in
the search world with Dogpile and Alta Vista,
[2:44] Lycosk and HotBot and MSN
search and Ask Jeeves.
[2:47] And they they rose to the top of that pile
fairly quickly, but I think internally at Google,
[2:52] they believed for decades after they
had to keep all this stuff secret.
[2:56] I also would strongly suspect Google is using
their monopoly power in search to dominate video,
[3:05] to dominate maps, to dominate flight search, to
dominate finance search, to dominate news search.
[3:11] Leveraging your monopoly power in one
sector to unfairly compete in other sectors,
[3:16] that is what specifically
called out in US antitrust law."
[3:19] "I mean, look, the the most basic takeaway is if
somebody has data to make a product better,
[3:24] they're probably gonna use it."
[3:26] And the motivation? Money.
[3:29] "Google's a public company.
[3:31] They have to make more
money every single quarter.
[3:35] The data that's in Chrome,
it allows them to profile users.
[3:39] It gives them all kinds of
competitive intelligence data
[3:42] that just no one else has and
kinda they can use that to keep
[3:46] other competitors out of the market."
[3:48] Contrary to popular belief, advertising
isn't Google's main product.
[3:53] Search is.
[3:53] And for a company that
sells ads within search,
[3:57] they need their search engine to
deliver the best results every time.
[4:02] Chrome data may have been the
secret weapon that's kept them
[4:05] miles ahead of the competition, making
them nearly impossible to catch.
[4:09] And arguably, the most valuable data point
that comes from Chrome is click data.
[4:16] Clicks are the bridge between searchers
and search results, and they're a key part
[4:20] to understanding intent at scale.
[4:23] So, I just Googled "running shoes," and I'm
trying to decide which result to click on.
[4:28] So, you can see that the majority of
results are ecommerce category pages,
[4:32] but I'm actually interested in
reading a comparison guide.
[4:35] This one happens to be
the only one, so I'll click it.
[4:39] It's pretty good.
[4:40] I read it, and I didn't return to the search
results because I got what I was looking for.
[4:45] But this is just my experience.
[4:47] What if seventy percent of
searchers that enter this query
[4:51] each month click on the same
page and behave in a similar way?
[4:56] That's a clear signal to Google that most
searchers prefer a comparison guide.
[5:01] So logically, Google should
rank that page higher and
[5:05] probably feature more comparison
guides in the top 10 results, right?
[5:09] All of that insight comes from a single click,
the very thing Google has spent billions
[5:15] trying to master.
[5:16] Yet despite common sense and even
a 2006 patent where Google explicitly
[5:21] states "results on which users often
click will receive a higher ranking."
[5:27] Google denies using clicks
in their ranking algorithm.
[5:30] In fact, in a 2015 AMA, Gary Illyes, an analyst
at Google, said that using clicks directly in
[5:36] ranking would be a mistake.
[5:38] Four years later, he was asked if user experience
signals like click through rates are used in RankBrain,
[5:44] a deep learning system in Google's algorithm.
[5:46] His response?
[5:47] "Dwell time, CTR, whatever Fishkin's new
theory is, those are generally made up crap."
[5:53] "So I did that test, like, sixteen
times between 2011 and 2013.
[5:59] Whatever event I was at.
[6:00] And I'd be like, hey, let's
all do it, t's really fun.
[6:01] Right? Like, let's go
search for wedding dresses.
[6:04] We're all we're all gonna
click on the sixth result.
[6:06] Everybody disconnect from Wi Fi.
[6:08] And sure enough, you know, you could get it
from number six to number three or number
[6:11] five to number two or or at MozCon,
I think what the famous one was, like,
[6:15] page two to position one in the
forty five minutes I was on stage."
[6:19] The leaked document also supports that click
through rate is used in the system called Navboost,
[6:24] which helps Google learn and understand
patterns leading to successful searches,
[6:28] just as Rand had theorized and tested.
[6:31] Now, Google isn't just using CTR and Navboost,
but they also look at different types of clicks
[6:37] to understand user experience.
[6:38] The document shows different
attributes like good clicks,
[6:42] bad clicks, and last longest
clicks, among others.
[6:45] And to put this discussion to rest,
Google's VP of search, Pandu Nayak,
[6:49] confirmed in his DOJ testimony
the existence of Navboost and
[6:53] how it helps find and rank the stuff
that ultimately shows up in the SERP.
[6:57] But here's what doesn't add up.
[7:00] Google doesn't deny the importance
of CTR for YouTube videos.
[7:03] They even give us CTR data for
keywords in Google Search Console,
[7:07] which is telling of its importance.
[7:09] So why lie about using
clicks in search rankings?
[7:13] My best guess is to stop people
from manipulating their search
[7:17] rankings and data.
[7:18] "Back in the day when I had 400,000 Twitter
followers who were active there, you know,
[7:23] I could put up a link to a Google search, get a click.
[7:25] Google shut that down, which I think is smart.
[7:27] You don't want people like me
or anybody else being able to
[7:30] manipulate the rankings even
for a short period of time."
[7:32] If Google publicly acknowledged clicks as a ranking
factor, click farms and bots would flood the system,
[7:38] trying to manipulate the algorithms,
just as Fishkin and others had tested.
[7:42] But many of these tactics became less
effective and for some stopped working.
[7:47] And that's where Chrome data may
have come to the rescue yet again.
[7:51] "Essentially, they are using click data,
which is a very elegant solution.
[7:55] Right? Because they know which
Chrome browsers are real.
[7:58] They know which ones have history.
[7:59] You can see in the docs. Right?
[8:00] They've got stuff around, like, did this Chrome
browser visit YouTube and watch YouTube videos?
[8:06] How much history does it have?
[8:07] Does it have a normal click pattern?"
[8:09] As I pieced together this puzzle,
a pattern began to emerge.
[8:13] Everything was connected to two key
elements, Chrome and Rand Fishkin.
[8:19] In fact, Rand Fishkin pioneered a metric called
Domain Authority that became a cornerstone
[8:24] for SEO professionals and ignited
widespread debate.
[8:27] This controversy only fueled the lie
revealed in the leaked documents.
[8:32] Google doesn't use site
authority in their rankings.
[8:35] Both Gary and John have stated
on multiple occasions that Google
[8:39] doesn't use Domain Authority.
[8:40] But the leak reveals a metric
literally called site authority.
[8:45] But it's not as straightforward
as it might seem.
[8:47] As Mike King pointed out in his analysis,
Google could be playing with semantics.
[8:51] They might specifically deny using Moz's
Domain Authority metric or claim they don't
[8:56] measure authority based on a website's
expertise in a particular subject area.
[9:01] This confusion by wordplay allows them to
dodge the question of whether they calculate
[9:06] or use sitewide authority metrics.
[9:09] While these metrics may not be exactly what
Google uses internally, the bottom line is this,
[9:14] site authority, whatever it
means to Google, does exist.
[9:19] So why deny it?
[9:21] "The site authority metric they had
was in a section about quality.
[9:25] It wasn't in a section about links.
[9:27] So I don't think it's site
authority as SEO see it."
[9:30] In the context of search engine optimization,
site authority often boils down to backlinks.
[9:36] If you have plenty of quality
links from authoritative sites,
[9:39] your authority score rises.
[9:41] But what about for new sites
that don't have authority?
[9:44] Well, according to some SEO tinfoil,
it might be worse than you think.
[9:48] Thanks to something called the Sandbox.
[9:51] The Google sandbox was a theorized place
where new and young websites lacking trust
[9:55] signals, like backlinks, were placed
and they were forced to wait it out.
[10:00] It was like SEO purgatory.
[10:02] The idea was that Google needed
time to evaluate the quality of
[10:06] these sites, preventing spam
from infiltrating search results.
[10:10] For instance, if someone bought 10,000 new
domains and flooded them with spammy
[10:14] content and purchased a ton of links,
the Sandbox would spare Google from
[10:19] having to crawl those pages and
potentially pollute their search results.
[10:24] But this also made it unfair for legitimate
new businesses trying to gain visibility,
[10:29] which is probably why every Googler
in this story has denied its existence.
[10:33] Cuts in 2005, Gary in 2016, and John Mueller in 2019.
[10:38] In fact, the tweet you're looking at right now is from
the Wayback Machine because Mueller deleted it.
[10:44] But the leak changed everything.
[10:46] In the per doc module of
the Google algorithm leak,
[10:48] the documentation reveals an
attribute called host stage
[10:51] used specifically to Sandbox
fresh spam and serving time.
[10:56] As I continued piecing
this puzzle together,
[10:58] I became convinced that Google
was intentionally lying to us.
[11:02] But the deeper I dug, the more I realized
that I was solving the wrong puzzle.
[11:08] There was a key piece missing, context.
[11:12] "These weren't ranking factors.
[11:14] We don't know what anything on
that document is actually used for.
[11:19] Could be used for quality
testing or evaluation.
[11:23] We just don't know."
[11:24] People like Matt Cutts, John Mueller, and Gary
Illyes have devoted much of their careers to
[11:29] helping the SEO community better understand
and optimize for Google search.
[11:34] And there's no logical reason to
believe that they had ill intent.
[11:39] Maybe they weren't even
aware of the full picture.
[11:41] As Mike King put it, Google's public statements
probably aren't intentional efforts to lie, but rather
[11:46] to deceive potential spammers to throw us
off the scent of how to impact search results.
[11:53] So how should we, as content creators,
webmasters, and SEO professionals move
[11:58] forward knowing that we can't take
Google's every word at face value?
[12:03] "We've got a test thing.
[12:04] And, you know, there's this fear right now
that we're not gonna hear as much from
[12:08] the Google spokespeople because
of what has happened here.
[12:11] And I think that's fine.
[12:12] I think it's better if we spend
more time using the power of
[12:16] our community to be doing this,
sharing what we've learned,
[12:20] and continuing to refine
our understanding.
[12:23] Because anything that they're gonna
tell us is always gonna be aiming for
[12:26] the middle anyway, because they can't
be specific about everybody's use case."
[12:31] Test, verify, and share with the community,
which is what we're trying to do here.
[12:36] But with Google contradicting
themselves time and time again,
[12:39] can we really trust them?
[12:40] Watch this video here to see
how one of their core updates
[12:43] crushed a small business overnight.

本文档为站内渲染。原始文件本地路径：saas/source/knowledge-people/Knowledge-World-人物-seo方法论-youtube-seo-scripts-ahrefs-scripts-0caac3.txt（仅本地保留，不入库不部署）