James Dooley: So it is the end of Google, all the patents have been released, all the codes been sent out to everybody, everyone knows how to rank. I'm joined with James. So you've you've looked at every single line of code, haven't you? Every single one of them?

James: Yeah, can you tell me what's on line 555?

James Dooley: 555 is to do with click data.

James: No, so in seriousness, what what's your thoughts on on the actual data, like the information that's in there? To be fair, I mean there's a lot of people in the groups, which is a little bit annoying.

James Dooley: Oh, it's just there's no difference, it's exactly the same. It's just content and links and yeah, that's what the algorithm is. But there's a lot of good information in there that confirms things that they've always said isn't correct. There is a sandbox, yeah? They've always said there's not a sandbox, in there it says there is a sandbox. It talks about site reputation, abuse, it classifies small websites, which I found interesting. It marks down exact match domains, like a lot of these kind of things we kind of knew to a certain degree. And then obviously it talks about content and links and click data and traffic being a really good source. And a big one about the radius of, like you can have, you can go too broad on a site. So there's one of the big ones in the core group. Talks about how wide do you go on topic, and if you go too wide and outside of your radius, it can affect your whole site.

James: So let's let's break it down because there's quite a lot of things that we that have been mentioned. So let's talk about the exact match domains, yeah? Um, and what was said about exact match?

James Dooley: It basically turns out they their issue is that they want to try to promote brands. When you get an exact match domain, is that a brand or is that a keyword? And that is the difficult part. It's confusing for Google. So a lot of exact match domains, what you can end up doing is over optimising your anchor text, thinking that it's like an exact match anchor, but also it can be seen as being a branded anchor. Now the truth of the matter is, if you want know the honest truth, we do a lot of in-house testing, and exact match to work brilliantly, yeah? And they still today work brilliantly, right? So even though they say they mark down, and this is where people need to be a little bit careful, because even though it says in the leaks that they try to mark down some exact match domains, there's other factors in the leak that says they promote sites that have got branded search.

James: Hmm, well is it a branded search or is it an exact match?

James Dooley: So if you can try to make your exact match domains look like a brand, as per that next, when you go from being almost like penalised, penalised, penalised, I on a minute, we don't think this is an exact match like keyword, now we think this is a brand. The minute you can flip it to being it's a brand, it's one of the best brands there is out there because it's getting loads and loads of searches for that keyword, yeah? So I'm definitely not one out there saying exact match domains don't work. I'm saying that yes, Google in there and something that's also very important within these leaks is there's no weighted system. So you don't know how influential that, how much has it been? You know, is it meant to be one per cent? But branded search is get promoted fifty per cent? Well now you are plus forty-nine per cent, right?

James: Yeah, do you get what I mean? So it's like some people are patent pushers and it's frustrating because yes, Google filed a lot of Google patents on certain things, doesn't mean that using those patents and patents so within these leaks, it doesn't mean they using all of this or what weight they might be using it all, but at what weightage are they using it? And people still don't know. That's why still, yeah, testing still very, very, very important and maybe looking through the main parts of the Google leaks. But it's incredible, it's like when the Yandex leaks came out.

James Dooley: So that's exact match domains. Let's quickly go over the small websites because there's going to be a lot of niche website owners that were already pissed off by Google and they're probably going to be more pissed off now because it seems like Google's went after them, which I would disagree. My thoughts are on this, and let let me know what you think. I think that every single style of website probably has got its own pros and cons. So if you're a Google News website, you're probably going to get favoured to going into the news section. If you are, for example, YMYL, they're probably going to give you a little bit more trust talking about women's health. If you are a small blog, you're probably not going to get either one of those things because you don't have enough authority, yeah? Would you say that that's probably the case with with what you've seen?

James: Yeah, I mean it's difficult because I've not, I've not done enough testing to be fair yet on what, even how do you even determine it's a small site? Like, it's a small site, ten pages, fifty pages, two hundred pages? So if I'm a local plumber in Manchester and I've only got ten pages, what I might down, but I just do plumbing in Manchester, like do you know what I mean? And I've got my contact page, about us, my privacy policy and what I do. Like, why do I need five hundred pages? I'm not an SEO, I'm just a good plumber in Manchester.

James Dooley: Yeah, and some of these pages are still ranking. So even though there a classifier set for small, what it doesn't say is that if you are deemed to be a small business, we don't rank you, yeah? All what it's saying is is a classifier. I think that that's where everyone jumped the gun. Every body was already pissed off with Google, obviously, helpful content update, this, that and the other. And they're like, aha, there's there's there's something there. Let's let's just burn down Google. And it's not the case. But yeah, the classifier doesn't mean they're marking it, that yeah? It's just means that they do certain categorisations. And and it might be that okay, if deemed as being a small site, maybe we don't put them in Google News. If they deemed as being a small site, maybe they don't have yet enough trust to rank for these bigger keywords, yeah? But I would say if there are small site, might not deserve to be honest. I I looking at all of the leaks, I think there's a lot of confirmation bias, yeah? Where it's like things that we kind of knew we're going to be seventy per cent certain of, we're like, ah yeah, that makes sense.

James: Um, navvies, let's talk about that. Obviously there was a lot in there about navboost. Who told you about navboost?

James Dooley: You did. You did indeed. So um, navboost, I think I started banging on about it maybe three months ago now. Um, it was initially part of um, when Google got taken to court in in the states, yeah? That was one of the patents that they essentially had to release to the courts. And basically, for anybody that doesn't know about what navboost is, is it tracks your click data for thirteen months. So let's I I'll give you a very dumbed down version of an example. If you're an affiliate site and you're selling, let's say, sandals, you search best sandals, go through to James's affiliate site. They they he then sends you through to Nike, right? So then that click has been tracked, yeah? And over time, Google will realise that the Nike website is essentially holding that click data. So maybe in time it does overtake a lot of affiliate sites, which it looks like, with the helpful content update and stuff, a lot more e-commerce stores have it actually taken taken on the previous rankings. But yeah, what's what's your thoughts on navboost?

James: So do you want a knowledge bomb? Go on, right? So within navboost and within click data, there was something that was exposed, and people might not know about this, but we do a lot of testing with regards to traffic, and traffic is very, very, very important ranking factor. And I've said this for many years, in my opinion, traffic is the number one ranking factor. So however, what was very interesting was, and we kind of knew that this worked because of our testing, if you went and searched for e-commerce SEO in Google, and then you didn't click on to a URL, like you scroll down and came, while you did click on to it, it doesn't matter whether you do or you don't, but then you you do a secondary search, then, and you search for Kazoo Dash, and then you go and click through to Kazoo Dash website, that starts to rank your website better for e-commerce SEO. So they're actually looking at the different searches, the original search and the secondary search, yeah? The pending those together, and saying, we believe that Kazoo Dash is a very good result for e-commerce SEO. You followed on to have to do this secondary search. And Google can't say, well, why don't we just put it in the primary search?

James Dooley: Hmm, so and that's in there now. People might not be able to understand that because they might not understand what they're looking for. That's to do with click data and there's lots of other things. Like, massive shout out to Rand Fishkin, because many, many years ago, he came out and said, at a conference, for everyone to go and search for a keyword that was in, ranking in position number eight. And while it was there, everyone searched for this keyword and clicked, I think it was his Miss Bakery, I might be wrong on that, but to click on to this and then literally, within twenty-four hours, this, what was ranking position number eight, no links, no new content, jump to number one. So click data, we've known for many years, has been like a ranking factor. And Google came out almost with a personal vendetta against Rand for saying this, saying that uh, it's incorrect, the secondary factors that took play in this. And now we know that it's correct, yeah? So like there's so many things that Google, instead of just, I I would prefer him just to ignore the situation, then start saying this doesn't work, and then we find out actually it's in the leaks that it does work.

James: So here's here's my thoughts on it, and obviously we we've heard this before, where Google have said not a single person at Google understands the entire algorithm, which I probably agree with that, knowing that there's fourteen thousand lines of code. You're the only person that's read it, yeah?

James Dooley: No, not you. Do you think that the reason why they sometimes might disagree with people on Twitter and stuff, and it's like no, that's not a ranking factor? Do you think that they might not, just the person that's running that Twitter account, might not, just potentially?

James: Yeah, but like you'd you'd be a little bit more, it could be right? Not there's some definitive nos, hmm, that now turned out to be yeses, yeah? And that's wrong. And I feel like there should be, it it could, it could work that way, yeah? Now the hard part is then a lot of people just are gonna be going sitting on the fence of every single question. And yes, there's so many different moving ranking factors that do change, an update to update. So if they realise the serve doesn't look very good for this, they might dial relevance up, in back links, more, or power up in back links, more, or topical authority up, slightly more. So and people don't know what what's been dialled up and what's been dialled down. So they might know a lot of the Google kind of employees might know a lot of things that influence ranking factors, but not know the weight of it and not know the importance of it. And some ranking, there's so many moving parts. Like, all right, well, what's better, um, doing one hundred clicks in Google for searching that keyword and then searching Kazoo Dash, versus two back links? They're not going to know the difference of what's that much better, no? Employees going to know it until the algorithm works it out mathematically. Do you know what I mean? So for that reason, like they might know things that can influence certain situations, but no, we're all guessing, we're all second guessing.

James Dooley: Here's a here's a controversial one. E-A-T, E-A-T, wasn't mentioned in any of the fourteen thousand lines of code, and I'm saying wasn't mentioned because there's it it was, people are just being dumb, and they're like, well, eat as the word, wasn't mentioned. What's what's your thoughts on that? So what was mentioned to help with E-A-T?

James: You said it was, but there was being done, obviously, links, yeah? Um, topical authority, yeah? Um, branded search, yeah? Um, click data, which can obviously fall into the branded search, and another thing, what you mentioned, searching for one term and then going and searching the actual brand, that can influence the brand being the primary search. So yeah, like going through Twitter, SEO, which I hate, everyone's like E-A-T is not a ranking factor. What what's what's your thoughts on that?

James Dooley: So I would, instead of arguing with people, because I don't try to argue with people that want to argue whether something is or isn't a ranking factor, what a real business do, it and will it help your conversions, and does it make your website look better, and is it having any detrimental effects? And a lot of the answers to them is like no, it's not, definitely not, having any detrimental effects. So I just tick all boxes and look like a real brand, and make certain that I've got everything set up that I can do every policy, I can possibly have on the site, legally that I should have, obviously, I'm making certain that I've got, but actually, if someone is close to placing an order with regards to two businesses, side by side, and you've you score four point eight out of five, and I score four point eight out of five, we're both three thousand pound a month as an SEO agency, I might just go online and search and want to know who who's the team behind this, the head, who who is the head of, who is this person? I might want to know a little bit more about them, what what they've done. Some people might like to know what awards that they've won, right? To go, oh well, these have won these awards. I don't personally like awards, if being honest with you, because a lot of people just buy the awards, with the biggest table. But some customers like knowing these like what certification have they got? What awards have they won? And who's behind the brand, for if they're spending a few thousand pound a month, who, like, oh, hang on a minute, on this about us page, they've got a graphic design, on a videography. Oh, I might be able to work with them and work with these and work with them. So just from a user perspective, I want to take all the boxes for E-A-T. How important E-A-T is compared to topical authority and back links, none of us know. So we could sit there, to a blue in the face, arguing that it's important or not important. But like you said, part of E-A-T is back links, anyway. So like what, you could sit there, and I could sit there on yours now, and argue it's not a ranking factor, and I could sit here, saying it is a ranking factor. I just want to do it, yeah? For the user, which hopefully might mean that I convert more jobs. I want to do it, yeah? For like, returns policies on e-commerce. If I'm buying a big product, and I want, I want to know the returns policy. I want to see what the returns policy is, whether that's E-A-T or whether it's just I'm being a customer, that wants to know this information. I want to know the information, yeah? Definitely, what I mean. So just tick the box and basically don't argue with the people that want to say whether it is or it isn't, because the truth of the matter is, they don't know. So you just turn around and just go, listen, you don't know the algorithm, not individual employees, know the algorithm. What are you arguing me for? Just tick the boxes and do all things right, yeah?

James: Um, and then one other thing that I want to talk about as well is bad links, toxic links. What's your thoughts on that?

James Dooley: So disavows are working better than they ever have. Um, disavow was always working pretty well, when he did a disavow, and you could see like jumps, over COVID, on unnatural link penalties, they took ages to respond. And unnatural links penalties was a nightmare, like, going back and forth with Google, because just wasn't responding. But after COVID, they've started being a lot more responsive. But in the last three months, a disavow has seen pretty quick results. And Gronne and a few others came out with a few case studies, where they've done a disavow, and seen good results, and good jumps. And then Google just came out, instead of, like, because they know, oh God, like, they've found something that does work, that is removing toxic links, where they, if someone's buying links, they want to try and like, get them, hit them with regards to right? You might be buying links, but because you're buying some of them, not toxic, it's going to have negative effects on your site. They want to try and penalise those. But if you know about how to remove toxic links, and do the disavow, we've we've got constant graphs going up from disavow. So of course, I think the the worst position, worse than ever, for determining what a toxic link is and a problematic link, um, they're not just ignoring them anymore. So the disavows, in my opinion, are very, very important, and we've seen good results from him, from doing them.

James: So a a question that I recently got asked is, would you only do a disavow if you've had the manual action penalty?

James Dooley: No, definitely not. So and Google, again, when Google come out saying something like we've just said, they've lied a lot. And then with the leaks, have come out showing, actually, they've been lying. Dominic Grindstone came out with his case studies, showing jumps, from a disavow, only doing a disavow. They come out, says, well, we might get rid of the disavow, that's just response to, well, might get rid of it, anyway, they've been saying that for years. But but in response to the problematic links, like, if you can, if you know some of these scraper links, that people are getting, and some of these links, that they're not actually building themselves, that are being sent through to them, not just necessarily special attacks, they're just scraper links, some of those are the most toxic links that you have pointing into your side. So if you just remove those, to bring your toxicity, fresh all down, means you can build more, link equity. Why wait until you've been penalised? Why not just prevent it? Like, if you can do it yourself, just do it yourself. I'm not doing to sell a product or a service. If you know how to find all of the toxic links, using tools like Mestic, ahrefs, Cushy, spam score, unlink research tools, toxicity, if you can grab every single one of them, going into Google Search Console, extracting all of your links, putting it in, using a link simulator for what the power is, is, and what the trust is, and what the toxicity is, and getting rid of the least powerful, least relevant, and highest toxic links, just do it yourself, yeah? I actually um had a recent consultancy with somebody that had been hit by the HCU. I actually sent you it. But basically, the the scraper links that we've just been talking about, it's not actually even a links problem sometimes, but sometimes some of these websites are scraping like your page title or your H1 and maybe like the first two hundred words of your content. And I don't know how the these aggregator or these scraper sites are doing it, but they're actually picking up your content, getting their page indexed first, prior to your page's index. So it looks like you're actually got trip content, yeah?

James Dooley: So it happened to a lot of yours. This is why I've just recently invested in an indexing tool. I want to make certain that if I'm buying a guest post or buying another big one is if I'm buying a niche edit, even though it's already indexed, I want to that into my indexer, because I want you, it's already indexed, I want Google bot to come back and Bing bot to come back as quickly as possible to pick up the link that's been put into that article. I want it picked up straight away. But every new article that's getting done, I also want to make certain, whether it's a guest post or whatever, it's getting picked up straight away. And on my site, yes, I've got the Google Search Console API. But sometimes you can still take twelve hours to get picked up. Put it into an indexer could could get picked up within ten, fifteen minutes. Get that page indexed. Because these scraper sites, that's what they're doing. And they're actually nicking your traffic and your content. And you're seen as being the duplicated content there. There's other ones where it's not been seen first, and your page has been indexed. And because the amount of scraping that they're doing in the internal linking that they're having on the site, with regards to linking version, they're seeing their scraper site, which is terrible to be, more authoritative than yours, even though it's indexed, yours, a month prior, and theirs is a month later. It's saying, because the link version, people prefer this than that. You then become being duplicated to that, being the unique one, even though they knew, they only seen that a month afterwards, yeah? So just sort it out ASAP, like, it's, and then another one that was mentioned, and we'll probably deep dive into, um, page rank as well, but, um, crawlability of the website, uh, which then leads me on to page rank. There was four or five page rank algorithms, like, different ones, obviously, there's one for like, how important your website is, um, and there was also one for like, the the overall crawlability of your website, um, but yeah, what what's what's your thoughts on that?

James: What was interesting? There's one in there with regards to click data alongside page rank, and it was in the way I read it, and I might be wrong here, right? But this is what we do a lot of with the guys of the traffic. It felt like it was saying, but you, I needed to read between the lines, that if the page doesn't have enough authority, we won't send page rank through on the links, and whether that's traffic, or internal links, or tier twos, or whatever it is. If that page doesn't have enough quality signals, it just neutralises, doesn't send the page rank. So you, and it mentioned click data within it. So you telling me that if let's say I've got a page on my website called best running shoes, and if I was to build a link through to it, that wouldn't pass power? Is that, wouldn't pass any power unless the page that's linking through to your page had some sort of signals?

James Dooley: Ah, the guest post, guest post has some sorts of signals, whether that's an internal link, from another page on that guest post side, tier two back links, going through to it, social signals, or traffic. Now, they didn't they didn't mention these in in the Google leak, but it was, they was talking about neutralisation of page rank, and we'll only pass it, when we feel is need to pass it.

James: I see. And but it kept mentioning click data. That is quite interesting. And mentioned Google Chrome, quite a lot, that they do use Google Chrome for click data, which is that, that's quite interesting, because there's a lot of Swedish gambling sites, yeah, I won't mention which ones, but you'll probably be able to search them up and find them, that do a lot of tiered link building, um, a lot like, for every single guest post, they might do five or ten tier two links, um, and same goes with niche edits, um, one of the one of the gambling sites, actually uses your indexing to um, to recrawl niche edits, to then essentially make Google aware that hey, there's a new link on this page, go and crawl it, pass the page rank through to the website. So that would make a lot of sense, um, if if they are, is there anything in there in the Google leaks that's made you think anything's going to you're going to change anything? As it just kind of reconfirmed?

James Dooley: So there there definitely was a lot of uh bias confirmation, um, a lot of things where you're a little bit uncertain of, and you start reading, and you're like, ah, right, okay, that makes sense, like, the exact match domains, um, they they obviously have got a classifier for e-commerce sites. So they they understand whether it's an e-commerce site or not, um, one of the biggest ones that I found was that was pretty important, um, and I don't remember the specific wording for it, but how I read it was, you need to be seen on various different sources. So forget Google, yeah? But have you got social profiles, like a LinkedIn, a Bonafide LinkedIn, Bonafide Twitter, um, all the trusted sources, like that, are you seen on YouTube? Because again, that helps with the knowledge graph as well, um, if you're trying to get, like, a knowledge panel. And again, going back to to the E-A-T side of stuff, if somebody searches my name, they'll see, like, a big photo of me, they'll see my website, they'll see all my social profiles, pretty trusted face within the SEO space. And I think that that will help with any site, um, going forward. What's what's your thoughts?

James: Yeah, completely agree. I mean, it's not regards to the Google leaks, it's not really turned around and found like, oh, my God, there's a knowledge bomb, I didn't know that. But there's just so many things like you said, that Google come out saying no, and the answer is yes. And then there's just things that I'm like, okay, I might, I might go back to retesting some of that that I thought was like a ranking factor, and I did some testing, and it wasn't conclusive, so I just kind of everyone saying it's not, so I left it. And there's certain things in there, I'm like, oh, that's quite interesting, yeah?

James Dooley: Like, without digging too deep in the semantics, like they've gone crazy in that group. So they there's so many things in there, talking about SPOs and semantic triples, and saying that the density, so one of them was, um, in the Google leaks was talking about the content length, right? Okay? And it says content length is not a ranking factor, where so many people came out saying, truly speaking, that the longer the article means the better you rank, and here's these studies that that show that the longer the article, the better that you rank, right? And they've they've in in the links, it says content length is not a ranking factor, right? But what they did say is that the tokenization versus content, so how dense, how many like entities have you got within the size of the content, important. So removing fluff and contextless words is key and trying to get as many like, like the Kyle Roof scenario, trying to get as many entities as you can on the page without doing it within ten thousand words. If you can do it in two thousand words and get all the main entities on and it's quite dense, and the way it is, that's much better than them having to crawl ten thousand words. But instead of just using entities, they use semantic triples, quite a lot. So trying to get the subject, the predicate and the objects in the sentences, and there's certain GPTs that people have been meant, like, been making now on the back of the Google leak, right? Okay? And also, there's certain leaks that's happened with regards to how they do the SPOs, um, for top, being able to create quick topical maps, yeah? Interesting, with like, topical Titan and stuff like that, that there's certain stuff that people now can start doing that's like, ah, never thought of it being done that way.

James: Do you think that this could be potentially harmful for Google? Because obviously, obviously, they've just given away fourteen thousand, or somebody's given away fourteen thousand lines of code. They've obviously just released Google um overview, the the the AI answers, not that's SG, it's not called SG. I think they call it Google overview, okay? Um, and obviously, have you seen some of the answers it's telling people to like eat glue and stuff, right? But do you think that potentially with these leaks, it could come in for like, as a positive for Bing, and be like, right, we're going to implement some of these? Or I do, I do feel sorry, if I'm being one hundred per cent honest, I do feel a bit sorry for Google, because everyone's, everyone's against them, right? It's easy, it's information bias, it's easy for us to turn around and say, all right, there's some answers out there that says eat glue, right? But for every one of them, there's probably ninety-nine great answers for people, yeah? Right. But everyone's then just jumping on the bandwagon, going to finding these few wrong answers.

James Dooley: Some of these wrong answers might have been a good answer initially, and the SEOs gone in and changed it, and then took the screenshot, or some of them just tweeted the search result that's not even not even true of what Google showing. So some of them have been photoshopped, yeah? Exactly, what I mean. So some of them have been photoshopped. So like, everyone's got to be in them on it because they are up there in the piss is being the number one biggest search engine, and everyone's just trying to knock them down. They are trying. I do believe they are trying to provide good quality content for users. I do believe that because if if I was sat there in the board of directors within Google and I'm a shareholder within Google, right? And I want to get the most out of Google, for me to keep earning money via ads, people have got to keep using it. For people to keep using the search engine, it's got to be the best search engine. So they've got to do things that's good for the user. So for that reason, fundamentally, as a business, you want to do what is best for the user. Now, sometimes what they think is best for the user, SEOs despise and hate, yeah? But is it best for the user or not? Best for the user is debatable within SEOs and within the users. Yes, they could sit down, and people could hate me for saying it, but a lot the SEOs just want to hate on Google, no matter what they do. So like, is it going to harm him? Maybe. But the truth of the matter is, the person who's geeking the most on are all SEOs. They're trying to geek out so they can manipulate the algorithms, where Google are like, we don't want you to manipulate the algs. As what we want you to do is provide good quality content for users. Now I sound very washed out when I say that. But you, that's what people, that's what they want you to do. And yeah, and there, that's what they want you to do and just provide good quality like, if you provide the stuff that users want, or you provide, provide good quality data, people will actually link to you. Now, obviously, I'm a big believer that you want to try and give it that boost, whether that's traffic or whether that's guest post and niche edits and and build good quality content. But like, the internal linking and stuff like that, try to do internal linking not just because screaming frog tells you to do it, think of what the user might want to also know from that page and might want to click through to and if they can visit multiple pages, and the dwell time on your site is good, you're going to be rewarded for it. Google trying to do these ranking signals for what they think the users would want. So they're looking at nav boost and click data and how many pages that they visited and time on site. Why? Because that information is providing information to Google that people have liked this website, yeah? So too many people are just obsessed with trying to cut corners. Like I, and for that reason, sometimes I do feel sorry for him, and I know it's and it's like, probably because they made me a boatload of money over the years, like, by me being able to rank within Google search, and maybe I've got bit of a soft spot for him. But I don't feel they can do any right for wrong. Like, what one thing that was obviously mentioned is that with the Google AI overview, SG, if you want to call it that, is that it's going to steal clips now. I don't know if you saw Ryan Stewart's case study on it, but it basically, it was like an answer, then it had free websites, and the free websites was actually getting more clicks than what it would have before, because, obviously, if you think of it, before, position one, two, three, yeah? So that that was quite an interesting one. And, um, is there anything in the code or the leak that you saw that you've prior to the leak being happening that you were like, that's not a ranking factor, but now you're like, ah, that's that's interesting?

James: So cores methodology at times can be a bit like confusing, yeah? And it can be a bit like, is this really important? And then when you start to realise how many times it's used in semantics, like the SPOs, I'm like, oh, this is very important, like, no, you don't, you can't tell the weight, but the amount of times that it's been used in lots of different parts of it, I'm like, oh, okay, now it must be very important. Like, what he saying? So there's that, um, obviously, page rank or whatever you want to call it, link juice, whatever the thing is. With page rank, a lot of people thought it was a done deal. People like, there was people after I had done a talk. There's something in there that says that page rank, within it, wasn't called page rank. It said it's been replaced with new rals, neural, I can't remember what it was. There's something in there that said something about page rank being replaced with something neural something. But it basically still means linking juice, yeah? But they've not, the the this, obviously, we all know like, but not only that, is you've also got to look at the way, let's say cores methodology, about topical authority, links. You sites here, links that are all pointing to your site are almost still part of your semantic content network. So the more places on the internet you can be spoken about and linked back to you, the more spiders that are coming back to your site, then the better it is. So everything just kind of comes back down to it's dead easy for us to sit down, oh, so it's just built on content and links, yeah? Do you know what I mean? But yes, there was elements within it that was like, oh, might need to pay a bit more attention to that. The one that was good was which we already knew, but there's one or two other bits that we're going to test out now that was to do with traffic. So how important traffic was from click to pogo sticking and stuff like that, and click to other pages and stuff like that. So we're going to, there there's a lot about click data, and I think it all again just comes down to to the user metrics. Are the users having a good user experience? How does Google detect whether they're having a good user experience? They're having to use that data for the best of the ability. Just because a site's got ten thousand backlinks doesn't mean that it's great for everyone's set staying on it for five seconds and bouncing. So they're having to use that as well as links and good quality content, everything else combined. Everything, yeah?

James Dooley: But I to still R, they say new, it's been out like a week or so. But like, I think there's more gonna, there's going to be so much more coming out of it that people are like geeking. It's funny, because I'm in like so many different testing groups. And like, the semantic group are all geeking out on the semantic triples. And they've made all these tools. And it's like, oh, my God, this is the best thing ever. And then these are like, oh, my God, it's the best thing ever, for like, traffic and engagement and behavioural signals. Look at all this information that we have. So like, the testing team has just got mad, yeah? Because like, they've got all these different kind of tests now to run, to see what what weight it has. They're saying it's part of, and it must be, because it's obviously well, unless Google's just leaked on purpose to send people that way. Um, but we're now testing all his elements to see what weight is behind. Because this, if if there is something, it's like, not, not, not, not, not, not, one per cent increase, is like the money involved in doing that. I just build more links, you know what I mean? Like, we want to do things that's going to give us the best bang for our book. So let's do the testing and see what what comes out. But that's going to take a good few months, yeah? To see what what comes it.

James: This is why if anyone's not in any not attending conferences on masterminds or they're not in like subscribing, let's say, Karras's YouTube channel or in it certain groups in certain co-ops, I strongly recommend you doing it. Because a lot of these people, they're becoming better and better and better at SEO because of the networking that they do. And when they're looking to network and they're elevating each other, they're all sharing test data of what's working in today's algorithms. Sometimes I'd say forget the conferences, because some people are going up on stage and just rehashing what they heard five years ago from what somebody else had said. Go and get yourself in the masterminds. Kazra has actually got one called the mastermind.com, yep. Go on to the mastermind.com, check to see when the next event is, sign up to it. Guaranteed be the best one of the best things that you've ever done, yeah?

James Dooley: Anyway, away from that, let's go back to Google leaks. One on there?

James: No, I think I think that's it. Unless there's anything else that you was, there was anything, what was your main, was there anything in there on yours on the Google leaks that you fought to be honest? I I was just smiling at the fact that navboost was mentioned because I I was genuinely like, I don't know anybody else that mentioned it. There was obviously a couple pages live on it, but there'll be tons of pages live on it now, yeah? Um, I think that was that was the main one for me, yeah? Um, yeah, click date is going to be important. There's going to be a lot of testing. If anyone wants to know any of the results, drop a message in the comment section, yeah? Um, and yeah, I'll try and answer it. It might be a couple of months yet before we actually get any bonified data. Part sometimes click data can be done very quickly within twenty-four hours, yeah? It can, it can be pretty quick. So they're running with it, anyway. So there's a lot going out there on click data as well, yeah?

James Dooley: So that's been the video on the Google leaks. Um, if there's anything else that you guys want us to cover, make certain to leave a comment down below. Below, thanks, cheers.