Danny Sullivan’s outstanding presentation last week encourages the SEO industry to reconsider what they take from Google’s documentation
Google’s Danny Sullivan shared information about a recent presentation he gave about how the SEO community may have misunderstood how search rankings work, blaming the misunderstanding on Google’s guidance and documentation.
One of the examples he gave was how nearly the entire publishing industry adopted the idea of adding author pages and bylines on the assumption that Google’s algorithm was looking for it, when in fact Google does not (according to Google’s Danny Sullivan).
The main point of the presentation, however, was not that Google does not look for author pages. The presentation focused on how Google’s guidance may not adequately account for how those outside of Google may interpret it.
“The gap between what Google says to creators and what creators hear about being successful in Google Search needs to get better. That’s largely on us.
It’s something we’ll be working on. People-first content remains the path to success, but we hopefully can find better ways to communicate this…”
He used an example of how some SEOs take what is written in their documentation or in search quality ratings too literally when Google meant what was written in a broad sense rather than in a specific sense. Danny used the documentation on how to evaluate a webpage as an example, which was interpreted as indicating what is in Google’s ranking algorithm.
“Our guidance is generally about a broad goal. For example, we advise people to think of the product content in a way that *makes you want to trust it* (not Google, you – or a reader) with examples of what might cause people to trust content, such as background about an author….”
Danny is implying that when Google says to evaluate your content based on whether it instills trust with features such as an author page, Google is not implying that their algorithm is looking for author pages. Google is simply advising you to evaluate your site in this manner.
“People focus on us talking about an author page as being something that people might expect from people-first content and believe Google itself wants that specific thing, as if we’re going to check for it and rank content better for having it (we don’t).”
How Should SEO Professionals Approach Google’s Documentation?
The following section of Danny’s presentation is noteworthy because it completely alters how we should think about Google’s algorithms based on what is documented by Google. The next step is to reconsider what is commonly assumed about how Google ranks websites.
Danny showed a slide with a quote from Google’s documentation, with the parts that some SEOs focus on incorrectly.
The first slide displays the documentation:
“What we say: a broad goal
‘Does the content present information in a way that makes you want to trust it, such as clear sourcing, evidence of the expertise involved, background about the author or the site that publishes it, such as through links to an author page or a site’s About page?’”
The second slide is the same passage as the first, but with what SEOs learn from it:
- background information about the author
- links to an author page
- ‘About this page?’
Danny goes on to explain how cherry-picked sections of what Google recommends are then transformed into recommendations for things Google never intended. It should be reiterated that Danny was not pointing the finger at SEOs. He accepted responsibility for the documentation’s failure to communicate clearly by considering how it would be perceived from the outside.
“Further complicating things, some read our guidance and make definitive recommendations we’re not actually saying, like “If you have an About page, you rank better!”
You don’t. It doesn’t work that way.”
Danny Promotes Critical Thinking:
Danny then challenged SEOs to think more critically about what others are telling them, as well as to investigate what some SEOs are saying.
He advised that there is a distinction between someone expressing their belief and someone saying that this is what Google does.
“Nothing with Google ranking – or in life in general – is that simple.
If someone is telling you “this is what Google says to do,” are they making clear if it’s what we actually have said or if it’s their interpretation?”
What Is the Real Meaning of Google’s Advice?
An important takeaway from his presentation was that much of the documentation for recent updates was essentially a rehash of decades of guidance and not really new or specific to these recent updates.
And it’s true that Google has been advising people to be helpful and people-first for decades.
The only difference between then and now is that we all knew Google didn’t have the technology to create ranking signals that corresponded to what they were trying to rank at the time. When Google says the same thing today, it’s against the backdrop of artificial intelligence, neural networks, and machine learning. So, unlike in 2002 or 2011, we tend to accept that what’s in the documentation is likely to be in the algorithm in some form or another.
“Some people I’ve interacted with over the past few weeks believe our guidance about success with Google Search is new, that they now have to do something different.
But for us at Google, that’s confusing, because it’s not new.
The guidance is based on years-old and even decades-old guidance…”
He then posted the slides below to demonstrate how there is no difference between Google’s advice then and now.
This Shifts Our Perspective on Google’s Advice
This should give everyone pause about how we should approach Google’s advice. As a result, we may need to reconsider how we think about Google’s algorithms. The big takeaway from Danny Sullivan’s presentation earlier this week was his statement to “buckle up,” which was taken out of context to mean that there would be disruptive updates coming.
What Danny said in his presentation was far more important than that single phrase taken out of context. As can be seen clearly now, the SEO industry may want to consider slowing down in order to reconsider Google’s documentation, as Google may be doing as well.
Check out Danny Sullivan’s Mastodon post for more information.