seo

How to Avoid Misinformation in SEO Resources and Conversations

There is a wealth of online material concerning search engine optimization (SEO), but not all are reliable. Avoiding SEO myths may be achieved by following these steps.

When it comes to search engine optimization, there are a lot of conflicting schools of thought.
There are always some in the search engine optimization field who disagree with every given proposal.

Because Google ranks material regarding SEO that Googlers claim is inaccurate, turning to Google for guidance isn’t always beneficial.

The vast majority of the information is likely false, but there is a technique to determine which is which.

Statements on SEO Information from Google Employees

Four main themes go across what Google employees have to say about search engine optimization:

Measures are taken to forestall or mitigate an undesirable consequence.
Methods for boosting indexing
Third, the steps you may take to enhance Google’s indexing of your sites.
4. Verification of the significance of advertising your site.

Google employees don’t give out secrets on how to manipulate search results, and they don’t provide you with a ton of data, but what they give you is reliable and helpful.

A Google employee, for instance, would have a hard time claiming that the search engine actively seeks and destroys guest articles only to gain SEO link juice.

But they may suggest that guest writing for SEO is done and that publishers should poke a fork in it.
By doing so, the Googler protects the publisher from potential penalties and wastes money on ineffective services.

It makes perfect sense to look at what the Google employees say. What current and former Google employees have to say is the single most reliable source of information about the company’s inner workings.

The purpose of Google’s Webmaster Outreach

Webmaster outreach exists because former Googler Matt Cutts thinks it’s essential to have open lines of communication with the search community to correct any misinformation that could be floating around.

To reach out to publications, he joined many online discussion groups where SEO specialists congregated and used the handle “GoogleGuy” in all his posts.

Read GoogleGuy’s 2004 self-introduction and explanation of Google’s outreach’s roots and his motivations here.

About three years ago, while waiting for a program to complete building, I decided to browse the Internet and see what others were saying about Google.
It would be fantastic if a Googler could come by to address technical issues, like the one time I saw a site owner ask about how to arrange his site for improved indexing.
And suddenly, it hit me: I work at Google as an engineer, and those are the technical queries I like answering. Therefore, I acted upon it.
Since then, I’ve published roughly 2,000 posts in different online communities, mainly to correct misinformation.

How Consistent Are Google Employees?

Contradictory statements from Google are a typical source of user frustration. If that’s the case, how can you be sure that what Google employees say isn’t just SEO hype?

In most cases, though, it is not the Googler’s fault that there are inconsistencies. Whenever a journalist misrepresents what a Google employee stated, it’s the reporter’s responsibility.

In my experience of listening to the Google office-hours hangouts over the course of many years, I have found that Google employees are relatively constant in their advice.

There has never been a worse time to take Googler’s advice. And if anything you read in a newspaper seems to go against what you heard, it’s best to go back and listen to the original.

Some websites, for instance, have begun to base their posts on the opinions of a former Google employee who has given a video interview on ranking issues.

But if you watch the video, you’ll hear that the ex-Googler never really stated such things.
Quickly Assess Key Online Metrics

Is the user experience something you’ve given much thought to? Increasing your site’s loading time, content consistency, and interaction may help your SEO, brand recognition, and bottom line.

Nonetheless, the bogus claim of a phony ranking element persists online because nobody bothers to watch the video.

Never assume the worst from what someone has written.
Inspect the clip, article, or podcast for accuracy before relying on it.

Does Google Contribute to Incorrect Knowledge Regarding Search Engine Optimization?

Regarding search engine optimization (SEO), Google employees tend to be dependable, but Google itself might be suspect.
Here’s a tweet where Google’s John Mueller dispels the myth of LSI keywords:

When searching for SEO-related content, Google returns mixed results.

Put another way:

Even if Mueller claims they don’t exist, a search for “LSI keywords” returns results from many websites claiming they are real.
PBN links (blog links) are sold on the first page of search results.
When people look for “Link Wheels” (creating blogs and linking to your material), they find resources that endorse the strategy.

Top search results on SEO-related subjects are, on average, entirely trustworthy these days.

If you type in a search for “risky strategies,” Google will likely return results that encourage you to take such risks (like link wheels or PBN links).

Finding an SEO forum or Facebook Group and asking an actual human (as opposed to an algorithm) for advice may sometimes be helpful.

Should You Disregard What Employees at Google Say?

Google employees are on the opposite side of the debate and search engine optimization specialists. We each have our own unique search experiences.

It’s only natural that people would have varying views on some issues, especially regarding questions of fairness and significance.

However, there are several subreddits where it is generally agreed that you shouldn’t take Google’s advice.

People are always telling each other to go against what the Googlers say. thers seem bitter, as they always have something terrible about Google.

Then there are the reports of AI researchers at Google being let go because they raised ethical issues.

Should Google Be Believed?

Those Googlers who act as liaisons between the search marketing community and Google are worth targeting.

Gary Illyes and John Mueller are just two examples of Google employees with a history of providing helpful insights to the search marketing industry.

There is a record of everything they said on Google blogs, YouTube videos, and Twitter feeds.

John Mueller will admit to not knowing the answer when pressed. When he knows something for sure, his response is obvious.

Before joining Google, Danny Sullivan covered the search marketing industry as a journalist.

In addition to being on our side, he has a history of addressing questions, relaying concerns, and providing responses to those questions and problems in the search community, such as writing an article about Core Algorithm Updates in response to questions about what they are and how publishers should deal with them.

Be aware of anybody who repeatedly tells you to disregard what search engines like Google suggest.

Learn to distinguish opinion from complex data.

Always check whether the author is referencing reputable sources or making up their facts.

When someone writes about Google and includes a link to a Googler’s comment, a patent, or a research paper, the writer’s statement is elevated from the status of opinion to that of fact, providing valuable insight backed by credible proof.

What people say about Google may or may not be `true, but at least there is some evidence to suggest it.
We can’t be sure of anything until someone who works at Google confirms it.

As a result, the most someone can do when arguing for the plausibility of an idea is to cite a Googler’s comment, a research paper, or a patent.

It was thought that Earth was the center of the cosmos for a long time, and this view was supported by scientific consensus. There is no alternative to hard facts and proof, and common sense is no exception.
A person’s “sense” of what is right or wrong is not proof of its veracity.

Statements by Googlers Must Be Considered in Context

Some people have hidden motivations. When this occurs, the perpetrators will often take quotes from Google employees and use them in a way that is detrimental to their intended meaning to further their objectives.

Ordinarily, the plan of action involves spreading panic to attract more customers. Search engine marketers often claim that Google employees contradict one other.

Google employees, and notably John Mueller, impress me with their reliability. Some people’s interpretations of what he says are inconsistent.

Google employee John Mueller expressed frustration in a podcast about how often his words were taken out of context or misquoted.

Studies of correlations tend to be unreliable.

It’s easy to get people to click on an article with correlation data. The data acquired from analyzing thousands or millions of search results will always reveal trends.

However, these patterns are completely useless since… There is no necessary link between the two.
While over 200 different ranking parameters might affect search engine ranks, most correlation studies only examine a small subset of them.

Furthermore, correlation studies often overlook important, though unmeasured, aspects of search engine performance, such as:

Past inquiries are a must.
Geolocation.
Reformulating the query is a must.
The intent of the user.
The search results now support multiple user goals.

All of those, as mentioned above, are simply examples of elements that might make it difficult to draw direct connections between search engine rankings and specific aspects of a website.

Avoiding correlation-based SEO research is recommended if you wish to stay away from SEO misconceptions.

Can You Believe Everything a Patent Says?

The difficulty with patent-related content is that some readers may not understand them, which may lead to incorrect SEO practices.

Someone making claims based on a patent may mislead others if they take a single sentence or paragraph out of context.

If you read an article that quotes a patent but doesn’t explain why that quote was chosen or how it fits into the larger context of the patent, you might assume that the author is drawing unwarranted inferences.

Whenever discussing a patent or academic article, it is essential to do so in the context of the complete document.

Taking a single sentence or paragraph out of context and using it to draw broad inferences about the patent is a typical error.

SEO Misconceptions

Knowing what is true and what is plain wrong regarding SEO resources may be challenging.
Sometimes false information spreads widely online because it was never verified.

The over-reliance of individuals on their common sense is one source of the misinformation that circulates online (which is unreliable).

As a result, there is no way to know for sure what Google’s algorithm entails. The best we can do is recognize a hierarchy of authenticity in SEO resources, with official Google publications and Google employees’ remarks at the top of the chain. You may put your faith in this data.

After that point, there is a bit of a limbo with patents and research papers, the usage of which Google has not verified.

Correlation studies and unsupported personal assertions make up the lowest layer of reliability in the information hierarchy.

When I need a dose of reality from the folks I trust, that’s what I do.

Get More

More Resources