Understanding the Google Data Breach: Key Information Revealed

Context Matters: Document AI Warehouse

During the United States holidays, there were posts circulating about a supposed leak of Google ranking data. Initially, these posts mainly supported Rand Fishkin's existing beliefs without delving into the context of the information and its actual implications.

The leaked document is related to a public Google Cloud platform known as Document AI Warehouse. This platform is used for analyzing, organizing, searching, and storing data. The leaked data is actually the "internal version" of the publicly available Document AI Warehouse documentation. This provides context to the data leak.

Screenshot: Document AI Warehouse

Screenshot

@DavidGQuaid tweeted:

It appears that the API is designed for creating a document warehouse for external use, as indicated by its name. This implies that the data supposedly leaked does not pertain to internal Google Search information.

As far we know at this time, the “leaked data” shares a similarity to what’s in the public Document AI Warehouse page.

Leak Of Internal Search Data?

The original post on SparkToro does not mention that the data comes from Google Search. Instead, it states that the person who shared the data with Rand Fishkin is the one who made that assertion.

One of the aspects I appreciate about Rand Fishkin is his attention to detail in his writing, particularly when it comes to clarifications. Rand specifically points out that the claim about the data originating from Google Search is made by the individual who provided the data. There is no evidence to support this claim, only a statement.

He writes:

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

Fishkin himself does not confirm that the data came from Google Search, as ex-Googlers supposedly claimed. He mentions that the person who sent the email made this assertion.

The email also stated that the leaked documents were verified as genuine by former Google workers, who also disclosed more private information about Google's search activities.

Fishkin shares insights from a recent video meeting where the leaker disclosed his connections with ex-Googlers, whom he met at a search industry event. We have to trust the leaker's account of his interactions with the ex-Googlers and the information they shared, after carefully analyzing the data rather than taking it as a casual remark.

In his investigation, Fishkin reached out to three ex-Googlers for further clarification. Interestingly, these individuals did not explicitly confirm that the leaked data belonged to Google Search. They only acknowledged that the data bore a resemblance to internal Google information, without confirming its origin within Google Search.

Fishkin writes what the ex-Googlers told him:

“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.”

Saying something originates from Google Search and saying that it originates from Google are two different things.

Keep An Open Mind

It's essential to approach the data with an open mind since much of it remains unconfirmed. For instance, we can't be certain if this document is from the internal Search Team. Therefore, it's best not to consider any information from this data as actionable SEO advice.

Moreover, it's not recommended to analyze the data solely to validate long-standing beliefs. This approach can lead to falling into the trap of Confirmation Bias.

A definition of Confirmation Bias:

“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.”

Confirmation Bias can cause a person to reject things that are proven to be true. For instance, some people still believe in the theory of the Google Sandbox, which suggests that Google delays new sites from ranking. Despite many new sites and pages ranking quickly on Google, those who strongly believe in the Sandbox theory will dismiss this evidence.

Brenda Malone, a Freelance Senior SEO Technical Strategist and Web Developer (LinkedIn profile), reached out to me to discuss the Sandbox theory:

According to Brenda, she has firsthand experience that the Sandbox theory is incorrect. She recently managed to index a personal blog with only two posts in just two days. This goes against the belief that a new website with minimal content would be subjected to the Sandbox theory.

The Google Data Leak refers to a situation where sensitive information from Google Search is made available to the public. If you come across such documentation, avoid the mistake of trying to validate your existing beliefs through the data.

There are five things to consider about the leaked data:

The context of the leaked information is unknown. Is it Google Search related? Is it for other purposes?

The data was collected for a specific purpose. Was it used for search results, data management, or internal manipulation?

Former Google employees did not confirm if the data was exclusively from Google Search. They only confirmed that it seems to be sourced from Google.

Keep an open mind. If you only seek validation for your existing beliefs, you will easily find it everywhere. This is known as confirmation bias.

It is believed that information is connected to an external API that is used to create a document repository.

Reactions to "Leaked" Documents

Ryan Jones, a seasoned SEO expert with a strong background in computer science, offered some insightful comments on the alleged 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 are unsure about the specific purposes for which certain things are used on the web or in other areas. It is possible that some items are exclusively utilized for Google Home or news platforms.

It is unclear what serves as an input for a machine learning algorithm and what is utilized for training purposes. Based on my speculation, clicks may not directly function as inputs but are instead utilized to train a model on predicting clickability, excluding trending boosts.

I think some of these fields may only be relevant for training data sets and not all websites.

Am I suggesting that Google was being dishonest? Absolutely not. Let's analyze this leak objectively and without any preconceived biases.

@DavidGQuaid tweeted:

“We also don’t know if this is for Google search or Google cloud document retrieval

Is The “Leaked” Data Related To Google Search?

APIs can sometimes feel like a pick and choose situation. It may not align with the way I envision the algorithm to be executed. What if an engineer decides to bypass all the quality checks? It appears as though I am aiming to create a content warehouse app for my enterprise knowledge base.

Currently, there is no solid proof that the data being circulated is indeed from Google Search. The purpose of this data remains unclear, causing a lot of confusion. Some clues suggest that it might just be an external API for creating a document repository, rather than being linked to the ranking of websites on Google Search.

While it cannot be confirmed yet that the data did not come from Google Search, the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.

Featured Image by Shutterstock/Jaaak

Editor's P/S:

The article delves into the complexities surrounding the supposed leak of Google ranking data, highlighting the importance of context and critical analysis. It emphasizes that the leaked document pertains to a public Google Cloud platform known as Document AI Warehouse, which focuses on data analysis and storage. This context casts doubt on the initial claims that the data originated from Google Search.

The article underscores the need to approach the data with an open mind, avoiding confirmation bias and relying solely on evidence. It highlights the varying perspectives of experts, including Rand Fishkin and Ryan Jones, who caution against making assumptions based on unverified information. The article concludes by urging readers to consider the possibility that the leaked data may not be directly related to Google Search, emphasizing the need for further investigation and clarification.