Tips for preventing misinformation in SEO resources and conversations

There are many conflicting ideas about the best approach SEO.

For every idea proposed, there are others in the SEO industry who disagree.

Contacting Google for help is not always helpful because Google ranks information about SEO that employees themselves say is incorrect.

There is a way to overcome noise and determine what information is likely to be valid and what smoke and mirrors are.

Google Worker Statements on SEO Information

What Google employees say about SEO is generally limited to four topics:

1. Measures to prevent negative outcome.
2. How to increase indexing.
3. How to help Google better understand your website.
4. Confirmation that site promotion is important.

Of course, Google employees don’t offer a gap in how to influence rankings. But the information they provide is useful and consistent.

For example, a Google employee may not necessarily say that Google has an algorithm specifically designed to find and kill guest posts for SEO links.

However, they can advise that the publication of guests for SEO is done and that the publishers forks should be driven into it.

By doing so, a Google employee helps publishers avoid possible penalties or spending money on a service that will not deliver the desired results.

It makes sense to find out what Google employees say. What Google employees say is literally the most authoritative statement about how Google works.

Why Google has access to webmasters

The whole reason why there is access to webmasters is that former Google employee Matt Cutts sees value in communicating with the search community to help them avoid mistakes and misinformation.

So he started communicating with publishers on various SEO forums under the nickname GoogleGuy.

Here is a a 2004 post introducing GoogleGuy and explain the origins of Google’s reach and motivation:

“About three years ago, I waited for the program to end with translation, and I read what people online say about Google.

I remember seeing a website owner’s question about how to structure their site for better content search, and thought it would be great if a Google employee could come in and answer such technical questions.

And then I thought I was a Google engineer. I can answer such technical questions. So I am.

Since then, I have managed to post around 2,000 posts on various online forums, breaking the record whenever possible. ”

Are Google employees inconsistent?

It is often heard that people complain that Google contradicts itself. If this is true, how can you trust that Google employees say there is no misinformation about SEO?

But the reason for the contradictions is usually not the fault of the Google employee. It’s always the person’s fault who writes about what a Google employee said.

In my experience of years of listening to Google chats during office hours, Google employees are very consistent about what they say, even if you refer to previous statements for 10 or more years, what they advise is consistent and not contradictory.

Paying attention to what Google employees say has always been a good practice. And if what the publication reports seems to contradict the previous statement, listen to the statement itself.

For example, some sites post ranking factors based on what a former Google employee says in a video.

But when you listen to the video, the former Google employee never said what people say he said.

Nevertheless, the false statement about the wrong ranking factor continues to spread on the internet because no one stops listening to the video.

Don’t take what someone writes for granted.

Always check out a video, blog post, or podcast yourself.

Is Google search engine a source of misinformation about SEO?

While Google employees a trustworthy as a source of SEO information, Google itself can be an unreliable source of SEO information.

Here is an example of Google’s John Mueller revealing LSI keywords in a tweet:

Searching for SEO information on Google yields inconsistent search results.

For example:

• LSI Keyword Search (which Mueller says above doesn’t exist) shows several sites that say LSI keywords to do to exist.
• Searching for PBN links (blog links) yields the highest ranked site that sells PBN links.
• Searches for “Link Wheels” (creating blogs and linking to your own content) yield results that recommend practice.

Overall, the best search results on SEO topics today are quite reliable.

Google typically displays search results that promote risky strategies if you search for risky strategies (e.g. connecting wheels oz PBN connections).

Sometimes it might be more helpful to find a forum for an SEO or Facebook group and ask the right person (instead of an algorithm) for SEO information.

Should we ignore what Google employees say?

Google employees are on their search engine page, and publishers / SEO are on the other side. They both experience the search differently.

It therefore makes sense that there are differences of opinion on certain topics, in particular what is fair and what is relevant.

However, in some areas of the Internet, it’s best not to listen to what Google employees say.

Some consistently advise others to do literally the opposite of what Google employees say.

Others seem to resent it and offer consistently negative opinions on the topic of Google.

Then there is the news about Google AI researchers who have been fired after expressing ethical concerns.

Do you have to trust Google?

It’s helpful to focus on Google employees who are connected to the search marketing community.

Google employees like Gary Illyes and John Mueller have a long history of sharing high-quality information with the search marketing community.

A record of all the information they shared is on YouTube, Twitter, and Google blog posts.

When John Mueller is unsure about the answer to a question, he says so. When he is convinced, his answer is unequivocal.

Danny Sullivan was a search marketing reporter before joining Google.

He is on our side and he also has good results in answering questions, communicating concerns and answering concerns in the search community, such as publishing an article on Basic algorithm updates in response to questions about what they are and how publishers should deal with them.

In general, be wary of anyone consistently advises people to ignore what Google says.

Distinguish between opinion and fact-based insight

It is important to check whether the writer is quoting and linking to a credible source or simply offering an opinion.

When someone writes about Google and then connects to supporting evidence, such as a Google employee statement, patent, or research paper, their statement becomes better than an opinion because it is now fact-based insight with supporting evidence.

What they write about Google may still not be true, but at least there is evidence that it could be true.

If a Google employee doesn’t say something is true, we can’t really know.

Therefore, the best thing anyone can do is to point out a Google employee statement, research paper, or patent as supporting evidence that something maybe true.

For centuries, common sense has dictated that the Earth is at the center of the universe. Common sense is not a substitute for evidence and data.

Opinions without supporting evidence, no matter how “reasonable” they are, are unreliable.

Google employee statements must be in context

Some people have an agenda. When this happens, they usually cite statements from Google employees out of context to encourage their plans.

A typical agenda is sowing fear and uncertainty in order to create more business.

It’s not uncommon for search marketers to say that Google employees contradict themselves.

I find that Google employees are extremely consistent, especially John Mueller.

What is inconsistent is how some interpret what he says.

Google John Mueller lamented in the podcast Yes “two thirds of what he quotes is misquoted or quoted out of context.”

Correlation studies are not reliable

Articles that contain correlation data tend to attract a lot of attention, making them useful as a click bait.

Data obtained by examining any number of search results, even millions of search results, will always show patterns.

But the patterns are meaningless because … correlation doesn’t mean a causal relationship.

Correlation studies we often look at one or a few factors separately, ignoring all the other more than 200 ranking factors that affect search rankings.

Correlation studies tend to ignore non-ranked factors that affect search results, such as:

• Previous searches.
• Geolocation.
• Query redesign.
• User intention.
• More purposes in search results.

The above are just factors that can obscure any attempt to associate ranking in search results with any particular quality of a website.

To avoid misinformation about SEO, consider avoiding most, if not all, correlation-based SEO research.

Can you trust what is in the patent?

The problem with articles written about patents is that some people don’t know how to interpret them – and this can lead to misinformation about SEO.

The way a patent can cause misinformation is that the person claiming it uses only one part of the patent, isolated, taken out of the context of the rest of the patent.

If you are reading an article on a patent and the author does not discuss the context of the entire patent and uses only one paragraph from the patent, there is a high probability that the conclusions from the patent are wrong.

A patent or research paper should always be discussed throughout the patent.

It is a common mistake to draw one part of a patent and draw conclusions from this section.

SEO misinformation

It can be difficult to distinguish between good SEO information, outright lies and pure misinformation.

Some misinformation happens because the information has not been double-checked and eventually spreads over the internet.

Some misinformation happens because some people trust common sense too much (which is unreliable).

After all, we can’t know for sure what’s in Google’s algorithm.

The best we can do is understand that SEO has validity levels that start at the top with Google publications that offer confirmation of what’s in Google’s algorithm, followed by statements from Google employees. This is information that can be trusted.

After that, we come to a kind of gray zone with patents and research documents for which Google has not confirmed whether they are used or not.

The least trusted level of information is that based on correlation studies and pure opinions.

When in doubt, I seek a reality check from people I trust.

More sources:

---

Selected image: Shift Drive / Shutterstock