In SEO news, there has been more talk of how valid Google search is regarding the best results based on relevancy across the web rather than the best results based on what is most relevant according to views and shares on their platforms. Google has maintained they are impartial, but independent tests seem to differ. It was noted almost immediately that irregularities such as mark Zuckerburg’s G+ page which he never used a single time were outranking his personal Facebook. Since then, more and more “algorithmic irregularities” have been noted, making it seem clear that there is definite bias.
It hasn’t just been individuals seeing such strange search results in which nearly vacant or wholly unused G+ accounts have skyrocketed in rankings, it’s businesses as well. While conspiracy theorists have any number of strange reasons why this is, the answer seems far simpler and logically – but still unproved. It seems that +1 and share clicks of content related, even loosely, to a brand or name on a Google platform are being inequitably weighted against similar actions on other platforms.
Google continues to deny this is possible stating that such actions are a miniscule portion of their algorithm and the same as would be true for any platform, but the search results are inexplicable otherwise. SEOs tinkering with G+ have often found this to be true. Even for big Google supporters, impartiality is hard to make an argument for as do no evil seems to have been undone.