But beware of confirmation bias , which is very dangerous. If you already suspected that links are more important than Google acknowledges, you will find a piece or two that will tell you that links are, in fact, very important.
And another professional, who may have suspected that the only thing that matters is the traffic of real users, will find in the references to Chrome the confirmation of his suspicions. Another will find that social networks position, and that it is key to identify the author of a page by his name and surname…
There is no evidence, and above all there is no overview algeria number data no context, as the Google representative said. We do not know how the pieces are connected to each other , nor the specific weight of each piece.
The appearance of a concept in these documents may or may not explain certain behavior of Google's algorithm that seems (only seems) to have no other explanation. But even when something seems to be described very explicitly in the documentation, the lack of context and clarity about specific weights makes me skeptical about whether this information can be transformed into something practical .
For example, I don't think the information we get from here will allow us to find a foolproof method to recover all the sites punished by Google's Helpful Content Update . I don't think we're dealing with information as actionable as that.