There are many conflicting ideas about the best approach to approach Search Engine Optimization.
For every idea presented, there are others in the SEO industry who disagree.
Asking Google for help doesn’t always help because Google ranks information about SEO on Google’s own records that is wrong.
There is a way to cut through the noise and find out what information might be valid and what information is smoke and mirrors.
Statement from Googlers on SEO Information
Googlers’ perceptions of SEO are generally limited to four topics:
- Actions to avoid negative outcomes.
- How to increase the index.
- How to help Google better understand your pages.
- It is important to confirm the promotion of the website.
Of course, Googlers don’t provide holes in how rankings are affected. But the information they do provide is useful and consistent.
For example, Googlers wouldn’t necessarily say that Google has algorithms specifically designed to search and kill SEO-linked guest posts.
But they can suggest that guest posting for SEO is done and the publisher should put a fork in.
By doing so, Google employees are helping publishers avoid possible fines or spending money on services that don’t produce the expected results.
It makes sense to understand what Googlers have to say. What Googlers say is actually the most definitive statement about how Google works.
Why Google Has a Webmaster Outreach
The whole reason there is webmaster outreach is that former Googler Matt Cutts saw the value in communicating with the search community to help them avoid mistakes and misinformation.
So he started talking to publishers under the nickname GoogleGuy on various SEO forums.
This is a 2004 GoogleGuy self-introduction post And explains the origins of Google Outreach and his motivations:
“About three years ago, I was waiting for a program to finish compiling, and I was reading what people were saying about Google online.
I remember seeing a site owner ask a question about how to structure his site for better crawling, and I thought it would be great if a Googler would pop in to answer such a technical question.
Then I thought, I’m a Google engineer. I can answer technical questions like this. So I did.
Since then, I’ve managed to post about 2,000 messages on various web forums, keeping as much record as possible. “
Are Google employees inconsistent?
It’s common to hear people complain that Google contradicts itself. If this is true, how can you believe what the Googlers are saying isn’t SEO misinformation?
However, the reasons for the contradiction are usually not the fault of the Googlers. This is always the fault of the people who wrote what Googlers said.
From my years of listening to Google office hours hangouts, Googlers are very consistent in what they say, and even if you go back 10 years or more to previous statements, their advice is consistent, not contradictory .
It’s always good practice to follow what Googlers have to say. If a publication reports something that seems to contradict a previous statement, listen to the statement itself.
For example, some sites publish ranking factors based on what ex-Googlers say in videos.
But when you listen to the video, the former Google employee never said what people said.
Even so, false claims about fake ranking factors continue to proliferate on the internet because no one stops to listen to the videos.
Don’t take for granted what others have written.
Be sure to check out the video, blog post or podcast for yourself.
Is Google Search Engine a Source of SEO Misinformation?
Although Googlers are trustworthy Source of SEO information, Google itself can be an unreliable source of SEO information.
Here’s an example of Google’s John Mueller Debunking LSI Keywords in Tweets:
-
Twitter screenshot, May 2022
Searching for SEO information on Google yields inconsistent search results.
E.g:
- Searching for LSI keywords (which Mueller says doesn’t exist) shows several sites saying LSI keywords Do exist.
- A search for PBN links (links on your blog) yields a top-ranked page that sells PBN links.
- A search for “link wheel” (building a blog and linking to your own content) yields results recommending the practice.
In general, the top search results for SEO topics these days tend to be fairly reliable.
If you search for risky strategies such as connecting wheel or PBN link).
Sometimes it may be more helpful to find an SEO forum or Facebook group and ask a real person (rather than an algorithm) for information on SEO.
Should You Ignore What Googlers Say?
Googlers are on one side of search engines and publishers/SEOs are on the other. We all experience search differently.
So it makes sense to have differences of opinion on certain topics, especially about what is fair and what is relevant.
However, in some areas of the Internet, it is widely believed that it is best not to listen to what Googlers have to say.
Some have been advising others to do the opposite of what Googlers say.
Others seem to hold grudges and have a persistently negative view of the topic of Google.
Then, there are news reports about Fired Google AI researcher After raising ethical questions.
Should you trust Google?
It’s helpful to follow Googlers who are connected to the search marketing community.
Googlers like Gary Illyes and John Mueller have a long history of sharing high-quality information with the search marketing community.
All the information they share is recorded on YouTube, Twitter and Google blog posts.
This is what John Mueller said when he wasn’t sure about the answer to a question. When he was sure, his answer was clear.
Danny Sullivan was a search marketing reporter before joining Google.
He’s on our side, and he has a proven track record of answering questions, passing on concerns, and responding to the concerns of the search community, such as publishing an article about Core algorithm update Answer questions about what they are and what publishers should do with them.
In general, be wary of anyone consistently People are advised to ignore what Google says.
Distinguish opinion from fact-based insight
It’s important to verify that authors are citing and linking to authoritative sources or just providing opinions.
When someone writes about Google and then links to supporting evidence (like a Google employee statement, patent, or research paper), their statement becomes better than an opinion because now it’s Fact-based insight and supporting evidence.
What they wrote about Google may still not be true, but at least there is supporting evidence that it might be.
We can’t really know unless Googlers say something is true.
So the best thing anyone can do is to use a Google employee’s statement, research paper or patent as supporting evidence to prove something may be true.
For centuries, common sense has suggested that the Earth is the center of the universe. Common sense is no substitute for evidence and data.
An opinion without supporting evidence, no matter how “meaningful” it may be, is unreliable.
Google employee statement must be in context
Some people have agendas. When this happens, they tend to quote Googlers’ statements out of context to push their agenda.
A typical agenda includes sowing fear and uncertainty to generate more business.
It’s not uncommon for search marketers to say that Googlers are contradicting themselves.
I found Googlers to be very consistent, especially John Mueller.
The inconsistency is how some people interpret what he said.
Google’s John Mueller laments on podcast That”Two-thirds of what he was quoted was misquoted or out of context.“
Correlation studies are unreliable
Articles with relevance data tend to get a lot of attention, which makes them useful for clickbait.
Data obtained by studying any number of search results (even millions) will always reveal patterns.
But these patterns are meaningless because…correlation does not imply causation.
Related research Often one or a few factors are viewed in isolation, ignoring all the other 200+ ranking factors that influence search rankings.
Relevance studies also tend to ignore non-ranking factors that affect search results, such as:
- previous searches.
- geographic location.
- Query rewrite.
- User intent.
- There are multiple intents in the search results.
The above are just factors that may confound any attempt to correlate rankings in search results with any particular quality of a web page.
If you want to avoid SEO misinformation, consider avoiding most, if not all, relevance-based SEO research.
Can you trust what’s in the patent?
The problem with writing about patents is that some people don’t know how to interpret them – which can lead to SEO misinformation.
The way a patent can lead to misinformation is that the person making a claim against it uses only a part of the patent, taking it in isolation from the rest of the patent.
If you read an article on a patent and the author doesn’t discuss the entire patent context, but only uses a paragraph from the patent, the conclusions drawn from the patent are likely to be wrong.
A patent or research paper should always be discussed in the context of the entire patent.
It is a common mistake to extract parts of a patent and draw conclusions from parts out of context.
Search Engine Optimization Error Messages
It’s hard to tell the difference between good SEO information, outright lies, and pure misinformation.
Some misinformation occurs because information is not carefully checked and ends up spreading on the Internet.
Some misinformation occurs because some people put too much faith in common sense (which is unreliable).
Ultimately, we can’t determine what’s in Google’s algorithm.
The best thing we can do is understand that SEO information has a rating of validity, starting at the top, starting with Google’s publications, confirming what’s in Google’s algorithm, and then Google’s employees’ statements. This is information that can be trusted.
After that, we entered a kind of gray area with patents and research papers that were not confirmed by Google, whether they were used or not.
The least trusted layers of information are those based on correlation studies and pure opinion.
When I’m in doubt, all I do is ask someone I trust for a reality check.
More resources:
Featured Image: Shift Drive/Shutterstock
