Gary Illyes from Google recently discussed why Google places less trust in signals controlled directly by site owners and SEOs. His insights, shared during a live interview at a search conference in May 2024, shed light on what site owners and SEOs should prioritize when optimizing websites.
The interview, though largely overlooked, holds valuable information for digital marketers regarding how Google ranks web pages. One of the topics addressed was authorship signals. SEOs have long fixated on authorship, following Googleβs advice to consult the Search Quality Raters Guidelines to understand ranking aspirations. However, this advice was sometimes misinterpreted, leading to SEOs mining the guidelines for ranking signals.
The concept of EEAT (Expertise, Experience, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness) emerged as perceived signals Googleβs algorithms prioritize. This led to the belief that authorship signals played a crucial role in rankings. While Google did provide a means for site owners and SEOs to convey metadata about webpage authorship, the company ultimately abandoned this initiative.
Illyesβ remarks underscore Googleβs cautious stance toward signals directly influenced by SEO tactics. Instead, he emphasized focusing on elements that genuinely enhance user experience and content quality to achieve better SEO outcomes.
Read more: AI vs. Humanity β Why Humans Will Always Win In Content Creation
SEO-Controlled Markup Is Untrustworthy
Gary Illyes of Google recently addressed concerns about authorship signals and promptly indicated that SEO-controlled markup on web pages often tends to become spammy and thus untrustworthy.
In response to a question about the potential revival of authorship features, Illyes expressed hesitation:
βI donβt know of any such plans, and honestly, Iβm not enthusiastic about anything like that, especially similar to what we had from 2011 to 2013 because essentially any markup accessible to SEOs and site owners can be somewhat spammy.β
Illyes elaborated further, noting that both SEO and author-controlled markup do not serve as reliable signals:
βGenerally, these are not reliable signals. This is why rel-canonical, for instance, is a hint rather than a directive. Similarly, a meta description is not a directive but something we might consider, and so forth. Introducing something akin to authorship would, in my opinion, be a mistake.β
Understanding the limitations of SEO-manipulated data is crucial, as many in the field of search marketing attempt to influence Google by using fake author profiles, reviews that appear genuine but are not, and metadata crafted specifically to target keywords.
The concept of algorithmically determined authorship signals
Gary then discussed the concept of algorithmically determined authorship signals, which may surprise some as he described these signals as lacking in value. This could disappoint SEOs and website owners who have invested significant effort in updating their web pages to enhance their authorship data.
The notion of βauthorship signalsβ and their importance in search engine rankings is something that some SEOs have developed independently, rather than being actively promoted by Google. Figures like John Mueller and the SearchLiaison team have consistently minimized the importance of author profiles over the years.
Gary elaborated on algorithmically determined authorship signals:
βI believe introducing something similar for authorship would be a mistake. If itβs determined algorithmically, it might be more accurate or have higher precision, but honestly, I donβt see the inherent value in it.β
The interviewer noted instances where rel-canonicals are often unreliable:
βIβve personally seen a lot of poorly implemented canonicals, so Iβm relieved to hear that itβs seen more as a suggestion than a strict rule.β
Garyβs response to concerns over inconsistent canonical implementations is intriguing because he acknowledges the significance of βsuggestions,β although he indicates that some suggestions carry more weight but still fall short of being mandates. A directive, such as a noindex meta tag, obliges Google to comply.
Gary clarified the strength of rel-canonicals as a strong suggestion:
βA strong suggestion, but still, itβs just a suggestionβ.
Gary emphasized that while rel=canonical is categorized as a suggestion, it holds significant weight. This suggests a gradient in how Google evaluates the reliability of various inputs provided by publishers.
For rel=canonical specifically, Googleβs higher level of trust likely stems from the understanding that correct implementation aligns with publishersβ interests. In contrast, data such as authorship may be more susceptible to manipulation or falsehoods, making it less reliable in Googleβs assessment.
Read more: Site hit by a Google update? Donβt panic! A Guide to Recover Your Website
What Does It All Mean?
Garyβs remarks provide a solid basis for determining the right priorities when optimizing a web page. He, along with other Googlers, has consistently emphasized that authorship is not a priority for Googleβitβs an idea that SEOs have developed independently, not one encouraged by Google.
This guidance also underscores the importance of not overestimating the significance of metadata controlled by site owners or SEOs.
Β
[ad_2]