Google's Cutts Say Search Flux Not Meant To Trick SEOs?

May 6, 2013 • 8:28 am | comments (2) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google Search Engine Optimization

Google Ball Logo - 12/12/12Several months ago we covered discussion around a patent document filed by Google named ranking documents. We said, Patent: Google Faking Search Results To Trick SEOs?

In short, the document described a mechanism for Google to shift, flux, bounce the search results around to detect changes by spammers and then adapt to discover the spammers techniques or patterns.

Neat, very neat.

But does Google actually use this in their algorithms? We do know the search results are constantly changing. We also often have reports of the results bouncing between one ranking and another ranking fairly often. SEOs call this flux, SERPs bouncing and so on. But does it mean Google uses this patent in their algorithms?

Listen to what Google's Matt Cutts said in this video:

A WebmasterWorld thread is in discussion about did Matt say they don't use this in their algorithm or not. One SEO said:

Cutts does not flat out say, "We're not using that patent." I think his point is more that we should NOT read a patent and decide, "Well, I give up." And fair enough.

But why would Matt give this as one of the two examples of the misconception that patent apps does not mean Google algorithms?

What do you think?

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld.

Previous story: Google Maps Images: Can I Use Them?


Travis Waddoups

05/06/2013 03:51 pm

I tend to believe every update Google makes is to trick SEO's in a sense. They don't want anyone to know how to beat the algorithm, so in a way, they are trying to trick us all of the time.

Marie Haynes

05/06/2013 06:32 pm

I'm not sure if you caught this but here is an interesting conversation between Matt Cutts and Bill Slawski (who I believe originally wrote about that particular patent): Matt says, "good point. My main worry was SEOs assuming that we were changing ranking to observe SEOs' actions." It really sounds like Google is not using the technique outlined in this patent. But then, I ask myself what Google's motive is in bringing this up? I don't believe that Matt or any other Google employee makes a statement without there being a motive. Are they truly concerned about webmasters being worried that changes to their site will trigger a potential spam flag? I doubt it. Are they actually doing what Matt says they are not. I doubt that too...because if it is discovered in the future that they actually are using the patent then Matt's credibility is gone. Who knows?

blog comments powered by Disqus