Why Google Controls Ranking Signals

Google’s Gary Illyes explained that the company prefers to maintain control over its own ranking signals rather than rely on factors they cannot directly manage.

He highlighted that when it comes to external indicators, such as social sharing, these are beyond Google’s control and can be influenced by elements outside their systems.

Illyes made this point in response to a question on why Google does not treat social media shares as a ranking factor, noting that the unpredictability and external nature of such signals make them unsuitable for determining search rankings.

 

Kenichi Suzuki Interview With Gary Illyes

 Google’s Gary Illyes explained that the company prefers to maintain control over its own ranking signals rather than rely on factors they cannot directly manage.

He highlighted that when it comes to external indicators, such as social sharing, these are beyond Google’s control and can be influenced by elements outside their systems.

Illyes made this point in response to a question on why Google does not treat social media shares as a ranking factor, noting that the unpredictability and external nature of such signals make them unsuitable for determining search rankings.

 

Are Social Media Shares Or Views Google Ranking Factors?

During a discussion on SEO and social media, Rio Ichikawa from Faber Company asked Gary Illyes whether the number of views and shares on social media platforms are considered ranking factors by Google.

Gary’s response left no room for doubt – the answer was no. He went on to explain that Google has long held this position, shaped by lessons learned over the years, including a particular incident in 2014.

According to Illyes, the reasoning is straightforward. Google prefers to have full control over its ranking signals. External data, such as those from social networks, falls outside of their control, which creates risks.

He pointed out that if a social platform chose to artificially inflate engagement figures, Google would have no reliable way of verifying whether the change was genuine or manipulated.

Because of this, Illyes stated, Google does not currently use social media metrics as ranking factors – and it is highly unlikely they will in the future.

 

Easily Gamed Signals Are Unreliable For SEO

Google has consistently expressed caution over external signals that it cannot directly control, particularly those that can be manipulated by SEOs. Such factors are seen as unreliable and therefore unsuitable as dependable ranking signals.

This stance isn’t new. Googlers have made similar comments about other elements that could be easily gamed. A common counterpoint from some in the SEO field is: “If that’s the case, what about structured data? SEOs can control that, yet Google still uses it.”

The reality is that while Google does make use of structured data, it isn’t treated as a ranking factor. Instead, it serves to make a page eligible for enhanced search results, known as rich results. Even then, misuse is strictly against Google’s rules. Adding structured data that doesn’t match the visible content on the page is considered a violation and can lead to manual penalties.

A recent case highlighting this issue is the proposal for the LLMs.txt protocol. The idea has largely been abandoned, in part because it’s considered both unnecessary and unreliable. John Mueller from Google explained that the protocol could be exploited to present heavily optimised content intended purely for ranking, drawing a comparison to the outdated keywords meta tag.

Mueller remarked that it’s much like a site owner declaring what their website is about via a tag. But since Google can simply review the actual site content, such declarations offer little value. This is why the keywords meta tag was rendered obsolete and why protocols like LLMs.txt are unlikely to gain traction.

The main issue lies in the fact that SEOs and website owners have complete control over the contents of LLMs.txt and related files. This level of control makes them prone to manipulation, which is exactly the kind of risk Google seeks to avoid.

A similar situation has occurred with author bylines. For years, some in the SEO community claimed that listing an author’s name and credentials could demonstrate “authority” and influence Google’s understanding of E-E-A-T (Expertise, Experience, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness). Predictably, a number of SEOs began creating fake author profiles and linking them to fabricated LinkedIn accounts in the hope of influencing rankings.

This practice underscores the problem—if a tactic can be abused so easily, it becomes far too unreliable for Google to use as a meaningful ranking signal. The supposed benefits of author bylines were undermined by the ease with which they could be faked.

Gary Illyes summed up the company’s position clearly when he said: “…we need to be able to control our own signals.” This philosophy explains why Google avoids relying on data it cannot verify or regulate.

For the SEO community, this is an important reminder to reassess beliefs about certain “unconfirmed” ranking factors—such as brand mentions—that have never been definitively proven. Instead of chasing these questionable elements, it’s far more productive to focus on strategies that genuinely improve user experience, build strong reputations, and naturally attract visitors.