WSJ:Google have been manually changing search results

Google have been manually changing search results, sometimes in response to advertiser pressure.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-go...gorithms-and-changes-your-results-11573823753

WSJ is behind a paywall.
For those without a WSJ subscription, try MSN.

P.S
If this is old news to you , please disregard this thread.

Yes, it has been affecting search rank a lot. It's more important than ever to get quality links now.

This means that Sundar Pichai lies to congress when he said they didn't manually alter results.

If anyone is interested in how the manual changes in search works should try reading the guidelines Lionbridge provides for the Internet Assessor position. The title is just a fancy word for Search Engine Evaluator/Rater. The guidelines are available on the internet and recently got updated with the new EAT buzzword.

The job pretty much expects Raters to check the authority of multiple sites appearing on the search page in 15-20 minutes. The time limit results in sloppy research. You can easily gain some good points in google's eye if you have good reviews and press mentions aka passing the EAT test.

We've already known this.

ChristineAshe said:

Google have been manually changing search results, sometimes in response to advertiser pressure.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-interferes-with-its-search-algorithms-and-changes-your-results-11573823753

WSJ is behind a paywall.
For those without a WSJ subscription, try https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/how-google-interferes-with-its-search-algorithms-and-changes-your-results/ar-BBWOCm2.

P.S
If this is old news to you , please disregard this thread.

Click to expand...

not saying its not true but why do you believe them? half of articles in internet are wrong

hatfromthewilds said:

not saying its not true but why do you believe them? half of articles in internet are wrong

Click to expand...

Half of all WSJ articles are fake? I'd be interested to see your source on this.

While it is true most of the shit spewed out onto cesspits like Twitter and the like is coming from ignoramuses posting their opinions but some sites, including the major news publications will do their best to only publish something if it is true. If they were to post some lies about Google that were to affect their market value then Google could sue WSJ for a large sum and would likely win. This is likely entirely true.