Alleged Google Rank Data Leak Linked to Document AI Warehouse

During the festive season across the United States, rumors began to circulate concerning a putative leak of data connected to Google’s ranking algorithms. The initial reports on these purported leaks largely strove to validate deep-seated beliefs already held by Rand Fishkin, an industry figurehead. However, these discussions lacked a full exploration of the context surrounding this information and its deeper implications.

Scrutinising the Context: Document AI Warehouse

One key factor to understand is the connection the leaked document has with a publicly available platform provided by Google Cloud, named Document AI Warehouse. This platform is predominantly utilized for the analysis, organization, search, and storage of data. This public document can be referred to as the Document AI Warehouse overview.

An interesting revelation via a Facebook post suggests that the so-called “leaked” data aligns with the internal equivalent of this public-facing Document AI Warehouse information. This is a crucial piece of the contextual puzzle.

Tweet Reactions

In response to these developments, a Tweet from @DavidGQuaid, appeared to quench the anticipation that this “leaked” data could reveal hidden truths about Google’s internal search algorithms:

“I think it’s clear it’s an external facing API for building a document warehouse as the name suggests”.

At present, the only solid connection identified between the alleged “leaked data” and the public Document AI Warehouse page is their striking similarity.

An Intriguing Query: Did Internal Search Data Leak?

Contrary to initial assumptions, the original post on SparkToro does not assert that the information is derivative of Google Search. Instead, it highlights that the individual who sent this intriguing data to Rand Fishkin made such a claim.

Fishkin possesses an admirable ability to write with precision, especially when it comes to cautionary details. He clearly distinguishes that the claim that this data has originated from Google Search, is in fact, a conjecture from the person who supplied the data, not an assertion supported by proof.

In his insightful discourse, Fishkin shared:

“I received an email from a person claiming to have access to a massive leak of API documentation from inside Google’s Search division.”

Furthermore, Fishkin didn’t assert that ex-Google employees had confirmed the data’s origin from Google Search. Once again, this was a claim made by the person who generously shared the data. This person mentioned in an additional email:

“The email further claimed that these leaked documents were confirmed as authentic by ex-Google employees, and that those ex-employees and others had shared additional, private information about Google’s search operations.”

Fishkin recounts a follow-up video meeting where the leaker reveals their connections with ex-Googlers: a causal encounter during an industry event. The truth implication behind these stories and their authenticity remains dependent on the word of this leaker. Fishkin explains that he contacted three ex-Googlers about these revelations. Notably, none of them conclusively confirmed the data originated within the Google Search division. Their consensus was that the leaked data appeared to resemble Google’s internal content, an assertion devoid of a direct reference to Google Search.

Fishkin sums up their views as follows:

  • “I didn’t have access to this code when I worked there. But this certainly looks legit.”
  • “It has all the hallmarks of an internal Google API.”
  • “It’s a Java-based API. And someone spent a lot of time adhering to Google’s own internal standards for documentation and naming.”
  • “I’d need more time to be sure, but this matches internal documentation I’m familiar with.”
  • “Nothing I saw in a brief review suggests this is anything but legit.”

The statement suggesting that something originates from Google Search is markedly different from the assertion that it arises from Google—a nuance worth considering.

Retaining Objective Judgment

Considering the vagueness surrounding the data’s origin and purpose, there’s a pressing need to approach this data with an open mind. For instance, we lack concrete evidence to substantiate that it’s an internal document from Google’s search team. Therefore, it might be hasty to extract any specific SEO advice from this phenomenon. Moreover, it’s equally unwise to analyze the data to objectively validate preconceived theories. A popular cognitive pitfall in this context is confirmation bias.

A definition of Confirmation Bias could provide further clarity here:

“Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values.”

In essence, confirmation bias often leads one to deny empirically true facts. To illustrate, the enduring perception that Google artificially prevents a new site from ranking—a hypothesis identified as the Sandbox Theory—disputes everyday occurrences. Numerous reports suggest that new sites and pages can secure spots in Google’s top ten search results within a short period. However, the firmly entrenched believers in the Sandbox Theory will dismiss even these observable experiences, regardless of their frequency.

Brenda Malone, a freelance senior SEO technical strategist and web developer (LinkedIn Profile) shared about her experiences challenging the Sandbox Theory:

“I personally know, from experience, that the Sandbox Theory is wrong. I just indexed a personal blog with two posts in two days. According to the Sandbox Theory, there’s no way a tiny two-post site should have been indexed that quickly.”

Therefore, if the contested material does originate from Google Search, it would be unwise to analyze it solely from the perspective of affirming long-held hypotheses. Rather, we should use it as a means to challenge our established beliefs and explore new aspects of data interpretation.

Glimpsing into the Alleged Google Data Leak

There are five key aspects to reflect upon when considering the leaked data:

  • The context of the leaked information is unclear. Is it related to Google Search or does it serve other purposes?
  • The purpose of the data remains unknown. Was this information employed in actual search results or was it used for managing or manipulating data internally?
  • Ex-Googlers have not confirmed that the data is specific to Google Search. They’ve only said that it appears to originate from Google.
  • Keeping an open mind will be beneficial. Searching for vindication of long-held beliefs could lead to confirmation bias.
  • Evidence lends weight to the idea that the data concerns an externally facing API used for building a document warehouse.

Differing Opinions on “Leaked” Documents

Ryan Jones, a seasoned SEO expert with a robust understanding of computer science offered insightful observations on the purported data leak. Ryan tweeted:

“We don’t know if this is for production or for testing. My guess is it’s mostly for testing potential changes.
We don’t know what’s used for web or for other verticals. Some things might only be used for Google Home or news, etc.
We don’t know what’s an input to a machine learning algorithm and what’s used to train against. My guess is clicks aren’t a direct input but used to train a model for how to predict clickability. (Outside of trending boosts)
I’m also guessing that some of these fields only apply to training datasets and not all sites.
Am I saying Google didn’t lie? Not at all. But let’s examine this leak objectively and not with any preconceived bias.”

@DavidGQuaid tweeted:

“We also don’t know if this is for Google Search or Google Cloud document retrieval. APIs seem pick & choose – that’s not how I anticipate the algorithm to be run – what if an engineer wants to bypass all those quality checks – this looks like I want to build a content warehouse app for my enterprise knowledge base.”

Is the “Leaked” Data Related to Google Search?

Currently, there’s no concrete evidence to support that this so-called “leaked” data originated from Google Search. An overwhelming ambiguity shrouds the purpose and origin of this information. Notably, the existing indicators suggest that this data represents “an external-facing API for building a document warehouse,” unrelated to the ranking of websites on Google Search.

While it’s not fully confirmed whether this information emerged from Google Search, the evidence thus far is steering the narrative towards that direction.

Image/Photo credit: source url