This thread is started as a result of my response to a post made by Robert Charlton in the "Google Updates and SERP Changes - January 2020" page 3.
[
webmasterworld.com...]
The background...
Someone made post in the above thread relating to a claim by "Bill Lambert". The veracity of Bill Lambert's claims are disputed as well as the veracity of his persona as a Google Insider. Robert Charlton posted that the claim that Bill Lambert is in fact a Google Insider has been debunked, and he provided the supporting link to an article by Barry Schwartz that quoted John Mueller of Google. Both these individuals are often sited as being "Google friendly" by those that tend ascribe to view point that Bill Lambert is a Google insider. So I made a the following facetious comment:
Are you really going to believe Barry and John Mueller? We all know they can't be trusted, they closely work with or directly for Google.
What I didn't do is explicitly point out that the comment was to be construed as facetious or sarcastic, but I did add further comments that I hoped would make it clear. This lead to confusion. So in attempt to clear up the confusion and discuss the point I was trying to make I am writing this thread. Where it may die a lonely death or hopefully open a discussion on how claims are made and discussed.
The point I was trying to make is that the claims by "Bill Lambert" and similar claims made by others are made in such a way that they are not falsifiable. That is, no matter the arguments, the evidence, the facts or anything it is not possible to prove that the claim is false. Not falsifiable, is then is then commonly misconstrued as being not false and thus true, which is not the case. Not falsifiable, means just that, it cannot be shown to be false and also not false.
Thus given that the claim is not falsifiable, there is then no point in engaging in the discussion by contributing facts as these are of no use because no matter the facts the claim can never be shown to be false. My comment quoted above acts as an example of how an argument based in fact can be put into question and then used to further stoke the divide.
Interestingly, Robert Charlton's reaction to my comment was to provide further support to his argument by showing how trustworthy the individuals in questions are. This is a great example of the point I'm trying to make, no matter what facts are raised the claim in question is no closer to being shown to be false as it is not falsifiable. Moreover, we are now discussing the trustworthiness of individuals that have nothing to do with claim instead of the validity of the claim in question.
So why this post. Is there any point in discussing claims by trying to provide logical rational arguments and facts when the claim is not falsifiable? Would it not be better to discuss how a claim is framed as opposed to trying provide facts, more facts, more better facts to a prove something which cannot be proven either way.
Take the claim that started this discussion, paraphrased here:
when an update is in progress, our ranking dramatically improves as the filter is being dropped.
What exactly constitutes an update?
When does an update start when does it end?
What is a dramatic improvement of ranking?
How is ranking measured?
What is being filtered?
How can one know that a filter is on or off?
Once these these questions are answered then one can begin a discussion on facts.
Over the years that I have been contributing here at WW I have noticed that the conversation has really begun to focus more on these unfalsifiable claims, this is specially true in the Google SERPs thread. The discussions are now more about the same things, people looking for confirmation about how this pattern shows Google is bad and that pattern shows Google is bad. Google has done a great job over the years at obfuscating how search works and making it much more difficult for Webmaster to determine what action are or aren't effective. By focusing discussions on unfalsifiable claims we are not helping ourselves and thus continuing to loose what little control we have left.
As a side note the use these unfalsifiable claims is not specific to WW, I'm seeing this in many areas of society today, this goes unquestioned and it is becoming the norm and I find that very worrisome.
@Robert Charlton: My sincere apology, if I offended you it was not my intention, my post was at some level meant to agree with your position.
