Does Google now share data across their properties? What are the SEO implications

[Clinton]

SERoundtable has a good question.

Since Google's now privacy policy allows them to share data across properties, is this the trigger for them to use the vast GA, Adsense, maps, G+ and other data they've accumulated?

If they plugged this intelligence into the SERPs algo would it make a considerable difference to the quality? Why would they now not use this data? Should our SEO activities now include influencing those signals?

Data sharing could have the most profound consequences for everything from Adsense smart pricing to who Google suggests for you as G+ friends.

[JJMcClure]

If it's "more legally and ethically acceptable for Google to do this", they'd be stupid not to.

What they should never do, since I think it would have an adverse effect on quality, is allow the use of one service to benefit you in another. For example rewarding an Adwords user with higher positions in the SERP, that would be stupid.

[tke71709]

For example rewarding an Adwords user with higher positions in the SERP, that would be stupid.

Would it really be? If an advertiser has been buying ads for a search term for quite some time, has a good CTR and quality score for the search term then might it not make sense to deduce that the page is a good match for the search term in question and thus valuable to searchers and should be given a boost in the SERPs?

[JJMcClure]

Would it really be? If an advertiser has been buying ads for a search term for quite some time, has a good CTR and quality score for the search term then might it not make sense to deduce that the page is a good match for the search term in question and thus valuable to searchers and should be given a boost in the SERPs?

I see what you're saying but then you'd be able to 'buy' a SERP position and the whole model would collapse. It's the logic behind me believing Google when they say that there's no connection.

Or...... looking at this from the 'Google is biased' PoV, if you could buy a SERP position but Google wanted to show their own content instead of your page they'd have to shaft their own users, allowing some to show when it doesn't matter to Google, ignoring what those users have 'earned' when it conflicts with Google wanting to show their own content. Nightmare.

It's not a tenable position however you look at it.

[tke71709]

But the SERPs are essentially already for sale, how often does the first organic search result fall below the fold on the page or close to?

[JJMcClure]

But the SERPs are essentially already for sale, how often does the first organic search result fall below the fold on the page or close to?

SERP stands for 'search engine results page(s)', it's not the whole of the Google interface just the organic rankings part, so the SERP isn't for sale.

In any case, the only part of the interface that could appear above the organic listings are a maximum of three PPC ads and that's not enough to push it below the fold. 'Places' are part of the organic listings too(and they're not paid) so the answer to your question is 'never', unless you have a teeny tiny screen.

[Clinton]

Your stand seems inconsistent, JJMcClure.

Google is interested in serving the users, right?

You agree that personalised SERPS/ads are in the users' interest. You agree that Google should use data it has - and that it obtained outside of search - if such use is going to better serve users.

It should similarly benefit the user if he's pointed to the company best able to serve his needs. All in the users' best interest, of course. If Google knows that the user is researching TVs and Google has shown him reviews favouring a particular Panasonic model, does it not make sense for Google to take some further decisions for him and point him to the retailer Google believes is most suitable perhaps because of location or price (or some other undisclosed algorithm Google users to match user to retailer)? All done to best serve the user. It's a good thing, isn't it? The user's entire personalised first page of SERPs would consist of results of Panasonic retailers that Google has chosen specifically for him. It could exclude those retailers Google doesn't have enough data on (perhaps because they aren't using Adwords).

[bwelford]

It's not a tenable position however you look at it.

I agree 1000%. Google must maintain that 'chinese wall' between paid content and editorial content. There are of course lots of problems with how those definitions apply in reality but Google must maintain this principle.

[JJMcClure]

Your stand seems inconsistent, JJMcClure.

Quite possibly, I rely on people like your good self to point it out!

Google is interested in serving the users, right?

Insofar as that serves Google themselves, yes.

You agree that personalised SERPS/ads are in the users' interest. You agree that Google should use data it has - and that it obtained outside of search - if such use is going to better serve users.

That's where I am currently, yes.

Why do I feel like you've anticipated my response to your next question and I'm being set up for a knockout blow ?

It should similarly benefit the user if he's pointed to the company best able to serve his needs. All in the users' best interest, of course. If Google knows that the user is researching TVs and Google has shown him reviews favouring a particular Panasonic model, does it not make sense for Google to take some further decisions for him and point him to the retailer Google believes is most suitable perhaps because of location or price (or some other undisclosed algorithm Google users to match user to retailer)? All done to best serve the user. It's a good thing, isn't it? The user's entire personalised first page of SERPs would consist of results of Panasonic retailers that Google has chosen specifically for him. It could exclude those retailers Google doesn't have enough data on (perhaps because they aren't using Adwords).

I don't think that could happen because it would be contrary to their policy of trying to maintain the diversity (and therefore the 'usefulness') of the SERP.

The fact that Google may not have Adwords data on a different Panasonic supplier and that it could cause them to exclude that supplier from a SERP query is a perfectly good argument for why they shouldn't rely overmuch on that very specific use for the data they have. It also presumes that there's no other reason or signal that would have brought that supplier to Google's attention, which is unlikely.

What they may be able to glean from the data is all sorts of goldmine info on user behavior. It's similar to the position that poker sites like Poker Stars are in, they have billions of hand histories for literally millions of players at all levels. Imagine what it tells them about how people play poker and the meaningful data that they could extract from it that could help them structure the website's interface and game features to maximise their revenue without necessarily changing the rules of poker itself or how people play it.

[tke71709]

SERP stands for 'search engine results page(s)', it's not the whole of the Google interface just the organic rankings part, so the SERP isn't for sale.

I do a search, that search returns a page (the SERP to be exact). That SERP contains both organic and paid and other content (Google content). To suggest that the non organic items are not part of the SERP is a non-starter IMHO. One can split that hair if one wants to but to the end user it's all the SERP.