Good morning, Search Marketer, is transparency always a good thing—I mean, from Google Search?
I've been covering Google Search and SEO for a long time, literally almost half of my lifetime. Sometimes I wonder if it makes sense for Google to be more or less transparent. Would it benefit Google more to be more transparent or would it benefit Google more to be less transparent?
In the early 2000s, Google was very secretive about how anything worked organically in Google Search. We had GoogleGuy who was Matt Cutts, but no one really knew who GoogleGuy was. He spent his 20% time helping SEOs understand Google Search, while also keeping tabs on SEO spammers. Then, over the years, Matt Cutts helped form teams devoted to working with SEOs, webmasters, site owners, publishers and creators.
I'd say today Google is at an all time high for transparency on how Google Search works. But it might not be a good thing. The more Google tells us, the more questions we have, the more doubts we have in our own theories. The more Google communicates, the more we twist those words to benefit our own agenda. And of course, Google has to be careful about how much it says because there are spammers looking to game the system.
For one thing, I think transparency from a Google point of view is a lose-lose situation. The more they share the more we want them to share, the more questions we have, the more we call them liars and the more we don't believe them. Does the transparency help us, publishers, site owners, developers, etc? Sure, but at what cost? What do you think? Let me know on Twitter @rustybrick.
Barry Schwartz,
Chief Transparency Officer
