SEO 8 min read

Information gain in SEO: what we know and how we add original information

Information gain in SEO: what we know and how we add original information explains a concept discussed in Google optimization and the limits of the available evidence. The existence of a...

2026-05-01

Information gain in SEO: what we know and how we add original information explains a concept discussed in Google optimization and the limits of the available evidence. The existence of a patent about estimating additional information does not confirm that the mechanism is implemented in current ranking.

By information gain in SEO we mean here the informational contribution of a page. Google recommends original information, but the sources consulted do not confirm a public score with this name.

Information gain in SEO: what we know and how we add original information

For a GOAI article, the contribution can be a verified explanation, a documented test or a comparison built from identifiable sources. The editorial assessment looks at what the reader can learn and how they can verify the information.

Below we separate the description of the patent from Google's recommendations and from the editorial procedure proposed by GOAI. The sources were consulted on 14 September 2026.

What the patent describes about information gain

The patent "Contextual estimation of link information gain", assigned to Google LLC, describes estimating the additional information in documents compared with the information already shown to the user. The record indicates a filing date of 18 October 2018 and a grant date of 7 June 2022.

The description includes selecting documents based on a score and using document representations in a machine learning model. The context of the information already shown to the user is part of the described mechanism.

This patent does not yield an editorial percentage that the site administrator must reach in an article. Linking the mechanism to a particular Google update requires further evidence beyond the existence of the document.

What Google's documentation confirms

In the guide to helpful, reliable content, Google recommends assessing originality, sources and added value compared with simple rewriting. Its questions also concern the accuracy of the information, the author's expertise and whether the title matches the material.

The Google ranking systems guide describes the use of several signals, including at page level and site level. The documentation is a presentation of some known systems, not a complete inventory of every internal mechanism.

In the official sources consulted for this review, I did not find confirmation that an "information gain score" was introduced through a 2026 update. For this reason, the article does not attribute traffic increases or drops to this mechanism.

For dated announcements and the differences between events, see the guide to Google's 2026 updates. An editorial recommendation about originality must be presented separately from the timeline of updates.

Start with the reader's question

In the working document for a GOAI article, we recommend writing down the concrete question the page will answer. For a guide about WordPress migration, this could concern checking addresses after the site has been moved.

Specify what information the reader must have before applying the instructions: the access available, the type of platform and the situation they are investigating. These conditions help the writer choose the right explanations, without stretching the article toward topics that require other procedures.

Note the problem and the action the reader should be able to carry out.
Identify the official documentation that supports the proposed instructions.
Mark the checks that require access to the CMS or the server.
Establish what information is missing before you start writing.

These items can be included in the SEO brief for writers. GOAI's recommendation is to keep the sources, the open questions and the materials that can be published in the same document.

In a WordPress article for administrators without technical experience, check whether each step can be followed from the interface described. We recommend recording in the brief the limits of the procedure too, such as situations where the reader must ask the server administrator to step in, to avoid instructions being applied outside their context.

Compare contributions, without invented percentages

In the research file, compare the proposed article with pages relevant to the same question in Google. Record the addresses and the date of consultation, so that the choice of materials can be verified later.

For each page, note what explanation it offers, what sources it cites and what conditions of application it specifies. This analysis is a GOAI editorial method, with no claim to reproduce an internal calculation of the search engine.

Identify the claims that are already explained and supported by sources.
Look for questions relevant to the reader that have gone unanswered.
Check whether you can document the answer through sources or through your own test.
Remove assumptions that the available materials do not support.
Describe the article's contribution in the writing sheet, without attributing a Google score to it.

Information absent from the selected pages may exist in the WordPress documentation or in other sources you have not consulted. Use wording limited to the research carried out and avoid declaring an explanation a first on the basis of a narrow selection.

Document the information before publishing

For the GOAI procedure proposed here, every observation from a test must be linked to the file or screenshot that supports it. In the case of WordPress, record the installed version, the relevant configuration and the steps carried out.

Your own tests and results

In the test log, separate the observed result from the possible explanation. If changing a WordPress module coincides with an error disappearing, describe the checks made before definitively attributing the cause to the module.

Keep screenshots in their original form and state the date of the observation in the article. Publish only the information needed for the explanation, after removing passwords, personal data and confidential project details.

For a result obtained in WordPress, also keep the settings that stayed constant during the check. If you changed the theme and the modules at the same time between attempts, note this limit in the log and avoid presenting the result as isolated proof of the effect of a single change.

Comparisons from public sources

When comparing WordPress features, use the same criteria for each option and cite the pages that confirm their availability. If a feature depends on a subscription or a version, record the condition next to the description.

A summary like this can help the reader even if the basic information comes from public documentation. We recommend explaining the criterion of the comparison and distinguishing the vendor's claim from the check carried out by the writer.

Instructions for concrete situations

In a Search Console guide, specify the report used and the information the reader should check. The instructions must also show which conclusion remains unconfirmed after the check.

For example, a screenshot of an inspected address documents the situation of that address at the time of the check. In the GOAI procedure, we recommend not automatically extending the finding to all the pages of the site.

An editorial example: checking after a migration

The following example proposes the structure of a WordPress guide and does not describe a project carried out for a client. The aim is to show what materials should be collected before publishing.

Instead of a vague recommendation to check the migration, the article can explain how the addresses were chosen and how the responses received were recorded. The worksheet would include the old address, the expected destination and the result of the actual check.

Describe how the list of checked addresses was put together.
State the tool used and keep the original results.
Explain the difference between the expected destination and the observed one.
Document the fix and the result of the repeated check.

Publish the results only after the checks have been carried out, with the real data from the log. For explanations about indexing, you can point the reader to the guide to indexing errors.

Before publishing the WordPress guide, ask a person who did not write the procedure to follow the instructions in the test environment. Record the step at which the explanation was insufficient and complete the article with the necessary information, without turning this editorial check into a claim about Google positions.

How to use AI in writing

Google's recommendations for AI-generated content accept that the tools are useful for research and structuring. Producing many pages with no value to users can violate the policy on scaled content abuse.

In the GOAI editorial workflow proposed here, give the tool the verified materials and ask it to flag the information that is missing. Then verify each claim in the original document, including the names of features and the terms of use.

A generated text about a WordPress test must be checked against the real log of the test. If the log does not exist, remove wording that suggests the author carried out the procedure or obtained results of their own.

What we can say about visibility in AI answers

Google's documentation for AI Overviews and AI Mode states that existing SEO principles remain relevant. Eligibility does not guarantee display, and Google does not require special markup for these features.

This documentation does not justify the promise that a figure of your own will turn the article into a cited source. For context, see the guide on adapting content for AI Overviews and check separately the appearances you observe.

In the GOAI editorial sheet, we recommend keeping the verified question and the screenshot of the answer together with the date. A documented appearance supports the finding for that answer, without proving a general selection rule.

For observations about AI Overviews, keep separately the cited address and the passage of the article that supports the displayed answer. GOAI's recommendation is to check whether the interpretation matches the content of the page before using the screenshot in a report or in a commercial presentation of services.

Review existing articles based on evidence

In the CMS inventory, start with pages that contain outdated information or claims without a source. We recommend noting for each address the problem, the material needed and the person who can verify the change.

Keep a copy of the previous text and describe the intervention in the editorial log. A WordPress update, a factual correction and a structural change must be recorded separately, so that you can explain what was changed.

To track progress in Search Console, use the method from the article on measuring the impact of a Google update. A later variation in traffic does not by itself identify the ranking mechanism that produced it.

Before closing the review, check in the CMS whether the title and description reflect the evidence in the article. Remove ranking or citation promises that the documentation and the saved observations do not support.

To identify the articles that need corrections and to verify their sources, see GOAI's SEO audit service. To investigate page access and indexing problems, check the activities in the technical SEO service.

Source references

Dorel Tănase

Original author at GOAI. Published here in English with permission.

Share this article

Back to Blog