Best Digital Marketing Agency in India | SEO | SMM | Website Design | Public Relation | Lead Generation | Content Marketing | Whatsapp Marketing | Native Ads
Best Digital Marketing Agency in India | SEO | SMM | Website Design | Public Relation | Lead Generation | Content Marketing | Whatsapp Marketing | Native Ads

How Google’s Ranking Factors Changed Last Year and What They Mean

Digital marketing Agency in Meerut

This Photo is taken from istock

This is an updated version of an excerpt from Kobait’s Ranking Factors 2023 ebook. Seo is always evolving!

It is becoming increasingly challenging to completely classify ranking variables.

Instead of “ranking factors,” Google now more often uses “systems” and “signals.”

Regarding its ranking algorithm, Google states:

“Google uses automated ranking systems that look at many factors and signals about hundreds of billions of web pages and other content in our Search index to present the most relevant, useful results, all in a fraction of a second.”

Many distinct ranking systems exist, each based on a unique set of signals.

Google is moving away from a methodology where a set of quantitative parameters dictates ranking, and it has been doing so for a while.

On the contrary, Google is assembling sets of qualitative signals that, when combined, resemble more general, human-level inquiries and conclusions, like:

How can we define authority and how does it relate to this question?
What influence does the question’s purpose have on the efficacy of potential responses?
How useful is this material on a direct level, and how satisfied is the consumer likely to be after reading it?
So, how does this page fare with visitors? Is it a positive or negative experience?
There are a lot of SEOs that are good with figures. Researchers. Divers in data. When Google shares some details about its algorithms, we cling on like limpets.

Booast traffic by 6x

Get in touch for professional Marketing services

Some have even spent years trying to piece together the algorithmic effects of social media, co-citation, and other phenomena by analyzing clues from deciphering patents.

But patents from Google aren’t the Constitution.

Although I would be interested in seeing a film about a robbery involving the theft of the ranking algorithms from Google HQ, there is no definitive document that contains this information. (Nick Cage’s participation is a given.)

A talent that can yield valuable insights is the ability to understand and interpret patents.

However, before you lean into knowing your audience, consider the financial implications of fixating on particular parts.

It will become increasingly difficult to identify the precise data sources used by algorithms and AI as these technologies evolve.

There will always be ranking variables, but they will change with time.

Although ranking’s foundations will remain constant, it becomes less useful to probe every possible signal as system complexity increases.

What occurred with "Page Experience" and what is a ranking system?

A number of entries were relocated in April 2023 from Google’s “ranking systems” documentation:

  • Page experience.
  • Easy access on mobile devices.
  • Website loading time.
  • Ensuring the safety of content across HTTPS.

This adjustment caused a number of SEO professionals to lose their collective cool.

This was tweeted by the Google Search Liaison account on X (the platform that was once known as Twitter):

“Our guidance on page experience is here, as we shared last week along with our blog post: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/page-experience It does *not* say page experience is somehow ‘retired’ or that people should ignore things like Core Web Vitals or being mobile-friendly. The opposite. It says if you want to be successful with the core ranking systems of Google Search, consider these and other aspects of page experience. We also made an update to our page on ranking systems last week. Ranking *systems* are different than ranking *signals* (systems typically make use of signals). We had some things listed on that page relating to page experience as “systems” that were actually signals. They shouldn’t have been on the page about systems. Taking them off didn’t mean we no longer consider aspects of page experience. It just meant these weren’t ranking *systems* but instead signals used by other systems. … The big takeaway? As our guidance on page experience says in the first sentence: ‘Google’s core ranking systems look to reward content that provides a good page experience.’ … ”

It appears that the modifications were more about streamlining the process than making any meaningful adjustments to the program.

In order to achieve a targeted evaluation or objective, a ranking system employs a wide range of signals.

Although ranking signals are not always applicable or even necessary for all queries, they can be utilized by ranking systems.

A ranking system is not what “page experience” refers to.

There are a number of ranking algorithms that utilize this data to determine which pages provide the best user experience and which ones don’t.

Data from Clicks—The Antitrust Case and CTR as a Ranking Component

As part of the antitrust case against Google, a software developer who departed the company in November 2022 was summoned to testify.

Concerning his damning comments regarding click data in ranking, I began to see a flurry of online discussion.

As a result of his evidence, it is more likely than not that Google’s ranking algorithms take clicks and other data regarding interactions with SERPs into account, and that Google is trying to hide the fact that it does this in order to stop SEO experts from manipulating the results.

Law360 stated that this data might not be utilized for the foreseeable future: The ex-Google employee testified that the “situation is changing rapidly” and that the company has developed systems that can be taught well even in the absence of user data.

I thought, “That’s fantastic. How many conclusions do I have to reevaluate?”

Luckily, there haven’t been any thus far. My initial consideration was CTR; but, despite the additional data, we remain sceptical of CTR as a ranking criteria.

Analytical data and realtime ranking signals are not the same thing.

In a LinkedIn post, Pedro Dias, who was formerly a member of the Google Search Quality team, offers a brilliant perspective on the matter:

“There’s a difference between: Directly using a signal in rankings; Looking at the data and assess which parts could be useful for rankings”

There is a world of difference between utilizing data for live result delivery and using it for analysis and algorithm training. Rather than sorting findings in real time, these signals are employed for training and assessment.

In the long run, it doesn’t matter if CTR and other user behavior are ranking factors as long as you prioritize content, authority, and user experience.

Click data is not under your control; it is only a metric that you may utilize.

Even while there’s more and more evidence that “click data” is a feedback mechanism in search, it’s not a useful metric for your goals. Take Google’s lead and use it as a test.

User Signals In Search

It seems like the matter of user data becomes more open to conjecture the more we learn and the more new things happen.

  • Google reiterates that user behavior is not a factor in search engine rankings.
  • If Google decides to end its partnership with Appen, a key contractor for AI and search engine optimization, what will this mean for the company?
  • The quality of search results is in shambles at the moment.

There are valid points on both sides of the Appen debate. Instead of human quality assessments, Google may utilize automated algorithms to compile user data.

On the other hand, this can be an indication of a determination to minimize costs amid layoffs and adverse court rulings.

The argument against using data on user activity as a ranking component is, in my view, the falling quality of search results.

Search results are causing a lot of people to be dissatisfied.

If this is so, then a user-behavior-aware algorithm should pick up on this and make the necessary adjustments, correct? In my opinion, this gives rise to four potential outcomes:

  • To put it in technical terms, the algorithms are utterly broken.
  • There are no direct ranking indications derived from user activity or click data.
  • Both of those things.
  • In the fourth scenario, you’ll need to speculate on the significance of a recent Google announcement on the forthcoming Gemini AI model.

This post concludes with the following statement: 


“We’re already starting to experiment with Gemini in Search, where it’s making our Search Generative Experience (SGE) faster for users, with a 40% reduction in latency in English in the U.S., alongside improvements in quality.”

Here, two things are happening at once:

“Our Search Generative Experience (SGE) is going to be faster thanks to Gemini, which we’re already testing out in Search…”
At least Gemini is in the Labs. Does live Search also include some of its components?

When Gemini goes down, will SGE follow suit?

Things are moving quite quickly. It is probable that Google has determined that the present algorithms are unable to resolve the current challenges and is instead rushing forward with Gemini. This has the potential to alter our understanding of ranking signals and algorithms.

Will Google’s Future Ranking Signals Be Based On Click/Behavior Data?

There is still an argument supporting the fact that Google uses, or at least would like to use, behavioral data to rank content.

Actually, it’s factual that it does this in YouTube search.

Engagement is one of the three pillars of YouTube search. A video’s ranking on YouTube is directly affected by the aggregated signals of user engagement.

The documentation for YouTube’s search algorithm explains how it works by saying:

"At YouTube Search, we prioritize three main elements to provide the best search results: relevance, engagement and quality. These three elements are given differing importance based on the type of search. To estimate relevance we look into many factors, such as how well the title, tags, description, and video content match your search query. Engagement signals are a valuable way to determine relevance. We incorporate aggregate engagement signals from users, i.e. we may look at the watch time of a particular video for a particular query to determine if the video is considered relevant to the query by other users. Finally, for quality, our systems are designed to identify signals that can help determine which channels demonstrate expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness on a given topic.”

According to YouTube’s creator guide on how to grow a channel:

“Insider tip: Our algorithm doesn’t pay attention to videos, it pays attention to viewers. So, rather than trying to make videos that’ll make an algorithm happy, focus on making videos that make your viewers happy.”

If Google could reliably employ click and behavior cues in search, it would definitely do so.

That is where the issue resides. All the information it needs is already available on YouTube.

Since not every website uses Google Analytics and not every user uses Chrome, this does not apply to Google Search.

Moreover, videos make it much easier to understand good and bad engagement patterns compared to text.

These two facts are true in my opinion:

  • Google would include direct user feedback into live results ordering in Search if it could as it understands this is the best method to judge content quality.
  • Both now and in the past, this was not possible algorithmically.

Possibly, as AI evolves, additional options will become available.

This is a long-winded method of expressing:

Immediate distribution selections are most likely not based on user behavior data, but rather on evaluation and fine-tuning of search results. If this is how it’s utilized, it shouldn’t matter to you much; the only way to manage engagement is to provide better material, which is your purpose anyhow.

How Google’s Ranking Factors Changed Last Year and What They Mean

Digital marketing Agency in Meerut

This Photo is taken from istock

This is an updated version of an excerpt from Kobait’s Ranking Factors 2023 ebook. Seo is always evolving!

It is becoming increasingly challenging to completely classify ranking variables.

Instead of “ranking factors,” Google now more often uses “systems” and “signals.”

Regarding its ranking algorithm, Google states:

“Google uses automated ranking systems that look at many factors and signals about hundreds of billions of web pages and other content in our Search index to present the most relevant, useful results, all in a fraction of a second.”

Many distinct ranking systems exist, each based on a unique set of signals.

Google is moving away from a methodology where a set of quantitative parameters dictates ranking, and it has been doing so for a while.

On the contrary, Google is assembling sets of qualitative signals that, when combined, resemble more general, human-level inquiries and conclusions, like:

How can we define authority and how does it relate to this question?
What influence does the question’s purpose have on the efficacy of potential responses?
How useful is this material on a direct level, and how satisfied is the consumer likely to be after reading it?
So, how does this page fare with visitors? Is it a positive or negative experience?
There are a lot of SEOs that are good with figures. Researchers. Divers in data. When Google shares some details about its algorithms, we cling on like limpets.

Booast traffic by 6x

Get in touch for professional Marketing services

Some have even spent years trying to piece together the algorithmic effects of social media, co-citation, and other phenomena by analyzing clues from deciphering patents.

But patents from Google aren’t the Constitution.

Although I would be interested in seeing a film about a robbery involving the theft of the ranking algorithms from Google HQ, there is no definitive document that contains this information. (Nick Cage’s participation is a given.)

A talent that can yield valuable insights is the ability to understand and interpret patents.

However, before you lean into knowing your audience, consider the financial implications of fixating on particular parts.

It will become increasingly difficult to identify the precise data sources used by algorithms and AI as these technologies evolve.

There will always be ranking variables, but they will change with time.

Although ranking’s foundations will remain constant, it becomes less useful to probe every possible signal as system complexity increases.

What occurred with "Page Experience" and what is a ranking system?

A number of entries were relocated in April 2023 from Google’s “ranking systems” documentation:

  • Page experience.
  • Easy access on mobile devices.
  • Website loading time.
  • Ensuring the safety of content across HTTPS.

This adjustment caused a number of SEO professionals to lose their collective cool.

This was tweeted by the Google Search Liaison account on X (the platform that was once known as Twitter):

“Our guidance on page experience is here, as we shared last week along with our blog post: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/appearance/page-experience It does *not* say page experience is somehow ‘retired’ or that people should ignore things like Core Web Vitals or being mobile-friendly. The opposite. It says if you want to be successful with the core ranking systems of Google Search, consider these and other aspects of page experience. We also made an update to our page on ranking systems last week. Ranking *systems* are different than ranking *signals* (systems typically make use of signals). We had some things listed on that page relating to page experience as “systems” that were actually signals. They shouldn’t have been on the page about systems. Taking them off didn’t mean we no longer consider aspects of page experience. It just meant these weren’t ranking *systems* but instead signals used by other systems. … The big takeaway? As our guidance on page experience says in the first sentence: ‘Google’s core ranking systems look to reward content that provides a good page experience.’ … ”

It appears that the modifications were more about streamlining the process than making any meaningful adjustments to the program.

In order to achieve a targeted evaluation or objective, a ranking system employs a wide range of signals.

Although ranking signals are not always applicable or even necessary for all queries, they can be utilized by ranking systems.

A ranking system is not what “page experience” refers to.

There are a number of ranking algorithms that utilize this data to determine which pages provide the best user experience and which ones don’t.

Data from Clicks—The Antitrust Case and CTR as a Ranking Component

As part of the antitrust case against Google, a software developer who departed the company in November 2022 was summoned to testify.

Concerning his damning comments regarding click data in ranking, I began to see a flurry of online discussion.

As a result of his evidence, it is more likely than not that Google’s ranking algorithms take clicks and other data regarding interactions with SERPs into account, and that Google is trying to hide the fact that it does this in order to stop SEO experts from manipulating the results.

Law360 stated that this data might not be utilized for the foreseeable future: The ex-Google employee testified that the “situation is changing rapidly” and that the company has developed systems that can be taught well even in the absence of user data.

I thought, “That’s fantastic. How many conclusions do I have to reevaluate?”

Luckily, there haven’t been any thus far. My initial consideration was CTR; but, despite the additional data, we remain sceptical of CTR as a ranking criteria.

Analytical data and realtime ranking signals are not the same thing.

In a LinkedIn post, Pedro Dias, who was formerly a member of the Google Search Quality team, offers a brilliant perspective on the matter:

“There’s a difference between: Directly using a signal in rankings; Looking at the data and assess which parts could be useful for rankings”

There is a world of difference between utilizing data for live result delivery and using it for analysis and algorithm training. Rather than sorting findings in real time, these signals are employed for training and assessment.

In the long run, it doesn’t matter if CTR and other user behavior are ranking factors as long as you prioritize content, authority, and user experience.

Click data is not under your control; it is only a metric that you may utilize.

Even while there’s more and more evidence that “click data” is a feedback mechanism in search, it’s not a useful metric for your goals. Take Google’s lead and use it as a test.

User Signals In Search

It seems like the matter of user data becomes more open to conjecture the more we learn and the more new things happen.

  • Google reiterates that user behavior is not a factor in search engine rankings.
  • If Google decides to end its partnership with Appen, a key contractor for AI and search engine optimization, what will this mean for the company?
  • The quality of search results is in shambles at the moment.

There are valid points on both sides of the Appen debate. Instead of human quality assessments, Google may utilize automated algorithms to compile user data.

On the other hand, this can be an indication of a determination to minimize costs amid layoffs and adverse court rulings.

The argument against using data on user activity as a ranking component is, in my view, the falling quality of search results.

Search results are causing a lot of people to be dissatisfied.

If this is so, then a user-behavior-aware algorithm should pick up on this and make the necessary adjustments, correct? In my opinion, this gives rise to four potential outcomes:

  • To put it in technical terms, the algorithms are utterly broken.
  • There are no direct ranking indications derived from user activity or click data.
  • Both of those things.
  • In the fourth scenario, you’ll need to speculate on the significance of a recent Google announcement on the forthcoming Gemini AI model.

This post concludes with the following statement: 


“We’re already starting to experiment with Gemini in Search, where it’s making our Search Generative Experience (SGE) faster for users, with a 40% reduction in latency in English in the U.S., alongside improvements in quality.”

Here, two things are happening at once:

“Our Search Generative Experience (SGE) is going to be faster thanks to Gemini, which we’re already testing out in Search…”
At least Gemini is in the Labs. Does live Search also include some of its components?

When Gemini goes down, will SGE follow suit?

Things are moving quite quickly. It is probable that Google has determined that the present algorithms are unable to resolve the current challenges and is instead rushing forward with Gemini. This has the potential to alter our understanding of ranking signals and algorithms.

Will Google’s Future Ranking Signals Be Based On Click/Behavior Data?

There is still an argument supporting the fact that Google uses, or at least would like to use, behavioral data to rank content.

Actually, it’s factual that it does this in YouTube search.

Engagement is one of the three pillars of YouTube search. A video’s ranking on YouTube is directly affected by the aggregated signals of user engagement.

The documentation for YouTube’s search algorithm explains how it works by saying:

"At YouTube Search, we prioritize three main elements to provide the best search results: relevance, engagement and quality. These three elements are given differing importance based on the type of search. To estimate relevance we look into many factors, such as how well the title, tags, description, and video content match your search query. Engagement signals are a valuable way to determine relevance. We incorporate aggregate engagement signals from users, i.e. we may look at the watch time of a particular video for a particular query to determine if the video is considered relevant to the query by other users. Finally, for quality, our systems are designed to identify signals that can help determine which channels demonstrate expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness on a given topic.”

According to YouTube’s creator guide on how to grow a channel:

“Insider tip: Our algorithm doesn’t pay attention to videos, it pays attention to viewers. So, rather than trying to make videos that’ll make an algorithm happy, focus on making videos that make your viewers happy.”

If Google could reliably employ click and behavior cues in search, it would definitely do so.

That is where the issue resides. All the information it needs is already available on YouTube.

Since not every website uses Google Analytics and not every user uses Chrome, this does not apply to Google Search.

Moreover, videos make it much easier to understand good and bad engagement patterns compared to text.

These two facts are true in my opinion:

  • Google would include direct user feedback into live results ordering in Search if it could as it understands this is the best method to judge content quality.
  • Both now and in the past, this was not possible algorithmically.

Possibly, as AI evolves, additional options will become available.

This is a long-winded method of expressing:

Immediate distribution selections are most likely not based on user behavior data, but rather on evaluation and fine-tuning of search results. If this is how it’s utilized, it shouldn’t matter to you much; the only way to manage engagement is to provide better material, which is your purpose anyhow.

Rohan Parashar

Rohan Parashar

Leave a Replay

Boost your traffic:

Recent Posts

Follow Us

Weekly Tutorial

Sign up for our Newsletter

Rohan Parashar

Rohan Parashar

Leave a Replay

Sign up for our Newsletter

Scroll to Top