Tips For Avoiding Misinformation In SEO Resources & Conversations

There are many conflicting views about the best way to approach SEO,

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

Turning to Google for help isn’t always helpful because Google ranks information about SEO that Googlers themselves have on record and is inaccurate.

There is a way to cut down on noise and find out what information is valid and which information is smoke and mirrors.

Googlers’ Statements on SEO Information

What Googlers say about SEO is generally limited to four topics:

  1. Measures to avoid negative consequences.
  2. How to increase indexing.
  3. How to help Google better understand your webpages.
  4. Confirmation that site promotion is important.

Googlers don’t give loopholes to affect rankings, of course. But the information they provide is useful and consistent.

For example, a Googler can’t necessarily say that Google has an algorithm specifically for SEO links to find and kill guest posts.

But they can advise that guest posting has been done for SEO and that publishers stick a fork in it,

By doing so, Googler is helping publishers avoid potential penalties or spending money on a service that won’t produce the desired results.

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

Why Google Has Webmaster Outreach

The whole reason webmaster outreach happens is because former Googler Matt Cutts sees the importance in communicating with the search community to help avoid mistakes and misinformation.

Therefore, he began to communicate with publishers in various SEO forums under the alias GoogleGuy.

here is one 2004 post where GoogleGuy introduces itself And explained the origins and inspiration of Google’s outreach:

“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 question from a site owner asking how to structure their site for better crawling and wondering if a Googler could just pop in to answer technical questions like this .

And 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 in various web forums, setting the record straight whenever possible.

Are Googlers inconsistent?

It’s common that people complain that Google is contradictory. If this is true, how can you trust that what Googlers say isn’t SEO misinformation?

But, the reason for the contradictions is usually not the fault of the Googler. It is constantly the fault of the person who is writing about what the Googler said.

In my experience of many years listening to Google office-hours Hangouts, Googlers are pretty consistent about what they say, even when you step back 10 or more years from previous statements. The advice they give is consistent and not contradictory.

It has always been a good practice to pay attention to what Googlers say. And if a publication report seems to contradict a previous statement, listen to the statement itself.

For example, there are some sites that post about ranking factors based on what ex-Googlers said in a video.

But when you listen to the video, the ex-Googler never said what people said.

Nevertheless, false statements about the wrong ranking factor are circulating on the internet as no one stops to listen to the video.

Do not take lightly what someone writes.

Always watch the video, blog post or podcast for yourself.

Is the Google Search Engine a Source of SEO Misinformation?

While Googlers are a Reliance Source of SEO information, Google itself can be an unreliable source of SEO information.

Here’s an example from John Mueller of Google Dismissing LSI keywords in a tweet,

Screenshot of John Mueller explaining that there is no such thing as an LSI keywordScreenshot from Twitter, May 2022

Searching Google for SEO information yields inconsistent search results.

For example:

  • Searching for LSI keywords (which Muller says above does not exist) shows many websites that say LSI keywords. Doing Present.
  • Searching for PBN links (links on blogs) yields a top ranked page that sells PBN links.
  • A search for “link wheels” (building a blog and linking to your content) yields results that recommend practice.

In general, top search results about SEO topics are pretty reliable nowadays.

If you explore risky strategies (eg link wheels either pbn link,

Sometimes it can be more helpful to find SEO forums or Facebook groups and ask a real person (instead of an algorithm) for information about SEO.

Shouldn’t you pay attention to what Googlers say?

Googlers are on the search engine’s side and publishers/SEOs are on the other side. We both experience discovery differently.

Therefore, it is understandable that there are differences of opinion about certain topics, particularly what is appropriate and what is relevant.

However, there are some areas of the Internet where it is generally believed that it is best not to listen to what Googlers have to say.

Some people constantly advise others to do literally the opposite of what Googlers say.

Others seem to be hostile to Google’s topic and consistently offer negative opinions.

Then, there are news about Google AI researchers fired After raising ethical concerns.

Should Google be trusted?

It is helpful to focus on the Googlers who interact with the search marketing community.

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

All the information he shared is on record on YouTube, Twitter and Google blog posts.

When John Mueller is unsure of the answer to a question, he says so. When he is certain, his answer is obvious.

Danny Sullivan used to be a search marketing reporter before joining Google.

He’s on our side, and he also has a solid track record of answering questions, going through concerns, and responding to concerns in the search community, such as publishing an article. core algorithm update In response to questions about what they are and how publishers should treat them.

In general, be wary of anyone who Continuously Advises people to ignore Google’s words.

Distinguish between opinion and fact-based insights

It is important to verify whether the author is citing and linking to an authoritative source or merely offering an opinion.

When someone writes about Google and then links to supporting evidence such as a Googler statement, patent, or research paper, their statement becomes better than an opinion because it is now a Fact-Based Insights with Supporting Evidence,

What they write may still not be true of Google, but at least there is evidence to support that it may be true.

We can’t really know until a Googler says something is true.

Therefore, the best one can do is to point to a Googler statement, a research paper, or a patent as evidence supporting that some may be true,

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

Opinions without backing up of evidence, no matter how “understanding” it may be, are unreliable.

Googler statement must be in context

Some people have an agenda. When this happens, they take Googler’s statements out of context to further their agenda.

The specific agenda involves sowing fear and uncertainty with the aim of creating more businesses.

It is not uncommon for search marketers to say that Googlers contradict themselves.

I think Googlers are remarkably consistent, especially John Mueller.

What is inconsistent is how some people interpret his words.

of google John Mueller mourns in podcast He “two-thirds of what he has quoted has been misquoted or quoted out of context,,

Correlation Studies Aren’t Reliable

Articles with correlation data tend to get a lot of attention, which makes them useful for clickbait.

Data obtained from studying any number of search results, even millions of search results, will always show patterns.

But patterns are meaningless because … correlation does not imply causation.

correlation study Searches often look at one or a few factors in isolation, ignoring all other 200-plus ranking factors that affect ranking.

Correlation studies also ignore non-ranking factors that affect search results such as:

  • search of the east.
  • geographic location.
  • query correction.
  • user intention.
  • Multiple intents in search results.

The above are just factors that can sabotage any attempt to correlate rank in search results with a particular quality of a webpage.

If you want to avoid SEO misinformation, consider avoiding most, if not all, of, correlation-based SEO research.

Can you believe what’s in the patent?

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

The way in which a patent can result in misinformation is that the person making a claim about it uses just one section of the patent and, in isolation, the rest of the patent is taken out of context.

If you read an article about a patent and the author does not discuss the context of the entire patent and is using only one passage from the patent, it is highly likely that the conclusions drawn from the patent are incorrect.

A patent or research paper should always be discussed in the context of the patent as a whole.

It is a common mistake to draw a part of a patent and draw inferences from that section out of context.

SEO Misinformation

It can be hard to differentiate between good SEO information, outright lies and pure misinformation.

Some misinformation occurs because the information was not double-verified, and it spreads across the Internet.

Some misinformation is because some people rely too much on common sense (which is unreliable).

Ultimately, we can’t know for sure what Google’s algorithm is all about.

The best we can figure out is that SEO information has levels of validity, starting at the top with Google’s publications offering confirmation about what’s in Google’s algorithms, then statements from Googlers. This is information that can be relied upon.

After that, we get into a kind of gray zone with patents and research papers that are not confirmed by Google whether they are being used or not.

The least reliable level of information is based on correlation studies and pure opinion.

When I’m in doubt, what I do is do a reality check with people I trust.

more resources:

Featured Image: Shift Drive / Shutterstock

Source link

Leave a Comment