Google Confirms Leak Of Internal Docs, Contains Company's Ways Of Collecting User Data For Ranking

A Google spokesperson stressed on need to avoid misinterpretations. "We would caution against making inaccurate assumptions about Search based on out-of-context information," he said.

Google has acknowledged the authenticity of a trove of internal documents leaked earlier this month. The leaked data reportedly contains insights into the workings of Google Search and the company's methods of collecting user data for webpage ranking. While initially silent on the matter, Google has now addressed the issue, cautioning against jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information.

David Thompson, a spokesperson for Google, emphasised the need to avoid misinterpretations, stating, "We would caution against making inaccurate assumptions about Search based on out-of-context, outdated, or incomplete information." He added that Google is actively safeguarding the integrity of its search results against manipulation and has shared comprehensive details regarding the functioning of its search algorithms.

What Did The Leaked Documents Contain?

The leak came to public attention when search engine optimisation experts Rand Fishkin and Mike King published analyses of over 14,000 attributes, reportedly internal API documents, obtained from within Google's Search division. These documents, said to be part of the company's "Content API Warehouse," serve as a repository for employees. They were shared with Fishkin and King by an undisclosed source. The code from these documents was allegedly uploaded to GitHub on March 27 and remained accessible until May 7 before being taken down.

Fishkin highlighted several discrepancies between the leaked information and Google's public statements over the years. For instance, while Google has previously denied using clickthrough rate (CTR) as a ranking signal, the leaked documents suggest otherwise. Similarly, the documents mention Chrome data as a factor in ranking websites on Search, contrary to Google's official stance.

These contradictions raise questions about Google's transparency and adherence to its stated practices. Fishkin's analysis suggests that the leaked information not only challenges Google's public narrative but also provides insights into the data collection practices employed by the tech giant. While much of the technical details may be better understood by SEO professionals, the leaked documents offer valuable insights into Google's approach to gathering data from searches, web pages, and websites.