Apart from fresh and relevant content, Google search algorithms depend on several factors. Although we are not sure regarding Google’s penalizing method but we have seen many websites get de-ranked in search engines due to fake or irrelevant content while websites with authentic information are usually found in the topmost ranks.
Up until now, we simply believed that Google has a ‘secret’ method in place to determine the accuracy of the content that also controls its search engine rankings.
However, in a recent Twitter thread, Google’s Danny Sullivan exclaimed that Google does not determine the accuracy of the content. Instead, they rely on signals that align with the relevancy of the topic and its authority. According to the tweets made by Sullivan on September 9 and 10, machines can’t tell the accuracy of the content. And sometimes humans cannot as well. This is why they primarily focus on determining authority.
We always knew Google had complex algorithms in place. But the recent information conveyed by Sullivan twists our understanding further.
Up until now, we simply believed that Google has a ‘secret’ method in place to determine the accuracy of the content that also controls its search engine rankings.
However, in a recent Twitter thread, Google’s Danny Sullivan exclaimed that Google does not determine the accuracy of the content. Instead, they rely on signals that align with the relevancy of the topic and its authority. According to the tweets made by Sullivan on September 9 and 10, machines can’t tell the accuracy of the content. And sometimes humans cannot as well. This is why they primarily focus on determining authority.
Machines can't tell the "accuracy" of content. Our systems rely instead on signals we find align with relevancy of topic and authority. See: https://t.co/O65v1PTehr and https://t.co/cTveD8XNxp— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) September 9, 2019
That doesn't say popularity = authority. Not, again, speaking as someone who work within Google Search, does it. That would be a far too simplistic signal to use & wouldn't apply for the myriad of queries we handle, 15% of which are new....— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) September 9, 2019
So again, popularity doesn't equal authority and would be far too simplistic a signal to use. As for featured snippets, this covers how we try to keep improving and methods and policies when they fall short https://t.co/GPAtqNCuik— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) September 9, 2019
As for highlighting stats, we or any system that looks across the web can't know if stats are accurate. We can identify things that appear to be stats, which appear to be from authoritative content & that often aligns with accuracy.— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) September 10, 2019
There are things machines & humans could do to try & verify accuracy, absolutely. I'm sure we'll explore such more. But there's so much content that isn't even factually based, so AccuracyRank™ wouldn't be that helpful. For now, we focus on trying to determine authority.— Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) September 10, 2019
We always knew Google had complex algorithms in place. But the recent information conveyed by Sullivan twists our understanding further.
