SEO Myths, Mysteries And Misconceptions

**mjtaylor** · #1 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 07:38 PM

It’s hard to get a handle on Search Engines and what really makes them sit up and take notice. Finding the facts is hard. Because of this a lot of myths, mysteries and misconceptions about how SEO works make the rounds.

A current myth is that Google uses speed as a signal for ranking. Googlers have said that they are considering speed as a ranking factor, but as of today they don’t. (And when they do, it will never be a major factor; relevance and quality will always be first. I promise.)

Myth and Mystery shrouds the topic of PageRank. How important is it? And how strong is the correlation between PageRank and a site’s position in the SERPs? SEOs can argue about that all day and night. And do.

Keyword Density, a myth from way back. Or is it? No, there is no magic number of 3-5% of keywords on a page, but there is a threshold, and when you cross it, that’s called keyword stuffing.

That’s three of mine. What are your favorite myths? Can you bust one for us?

**HTMLBasicTutor** · #2 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 07:55 PM

Some SEO myths

Quote:

3 years ago
Matt Cutts answers Google questions: - Myths: 1) sites on the same server, 2) IP, or 2) including off-domain JavaScript - Launching sites with millions of pages: how should I do it best? - Google images: updates on the horizon, and current Google Images technology

See people speaking about these, and here's the answer from the horse's mouth:

[Sorry folks, can't get video to embed, You'll just have to watch it at the link above]

full house · #3 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 08:41 PM

one, is the no follow tags, some say that google consider no follow some say no.

**Cricket** · #4 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 09:40 PM

To me the biggest myth of all is that SEO is complicated. Many people just plain overcomplicate it, or perhaps it is simply that SEO specialist want people to believe that it is much more difficult than it is.

**~CReed** · #5 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 10:12 PM

Myth: a page must be cached to count as a backlink, pass PR or link juice.

So many people overlook what could possibly be the best links because they think a page has to be cached or it will not count.

**mjtaylor** · #6 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by full house

one, is the no follow tags, some say that google consider no follow some say no.

Allow me to put this one to rest: Google's Matt Cutts wrote in his blog (June 15, 2009 - http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/):

"Nofollow links definitely don’t pass PageRank. Over the years, I’ve seen a few corner cases where a nofollow link did pass anchortext, normally due to bugs in indexing that we then fixed. The essential thing you need to know is that nofollow links don’t help sites rank higher in Google’s search results," wrote Matt Cutts.

Google may follow (meaning spider) and may index sites that are linked with a no-follow attribute, but no PageRank will flow from the site where the no-followed link originates.

Ryan6 · #7 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

A current myth is that Google uses speed as a signal for ranking. Googlers have said that they are considering speed as a ranking factor, but as of today they don’t. (And when they do, it will never be a major factor; relevance and quality will always be first. I promise.)

And how do you know that they don't? You don't work for Google.

**Cricket** · #8 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan6

And how do you know that they don't? You don't work for Google.

Perhaps she doesn't, but Matt Cutts does.

http://www.v7n.com/forums/google-for...ml#post1336105

**mjtaylor** · #9 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 11:27 PM

Google has no reason to lie about this.

Seriously, this is how I know: http://www.v7n.com/forums/google-for...ml#post1336105

**mjtaylor** · #10 (**permalink**) 03-09-2010, 11:28 PM

Ha! You beat me to it, Cricket! But only by seconds.

Ryan6 · #11 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cricket

Perhaps she doesn't, but Matt Cutts does.

http://www.v7n.com/forums/google-for...ml#post1336105

lol, I'd take what Matt Cutts says with a pinch of salt! He's in charge of link spam/protecting the search engine. It wouldn't surprise me if he is often advised to mislead and distort various tales all in the name of protecting the SERPS. I'm not exactly sure that he has the authority to know the ins and outs of the algo as well. Would Sergey and Larry dish out all of those golden nuggets? Past employees from their search team have moved on to rival companies such as Cuil - I doubt they knew the specifics and I doubt Matt Cutts does!

**mjtaylor** · #12 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan6

lol, I'd take what Matt Cutts says with a pinch of salt! He's in charge of link spam/protecting the search engine. It wouldn't surprise me if he is often advised to mislead and distort various tales all in the name of protecting the SERPS. I'm not exactly sure that he has the authority to know the ins and outs of the algo as well. Would Sergey and Larry dish out all of those golden nuggets? Past employees from their search team have moved on to rival companies such as Cuil - I doubt they knew the specifics and I doubt Matt Cutts does!

Site speed is a golden nugget? You think?

I will give you that Google might spin out some propaganda about whether reciprocal links work to mitigate their overuse and protect the index. But even so, that is a clear signal that Google is and will continue to do everything within its power to filter out the manipulation of SERPs by recips.

In that sort of example, it makes sense that Google may not tell us the whole truth.

But tell me why you would logically doubt Cutts in this case? If Google were already using site speed as a signal, where is the gain in a pretense that they are only considering it? They have to spend all this time answering our questions and concerns. If speed is already a signal why not simply announce it and be done with it. How could this protect the index?

I can't think of any logical reason for G to misrepresent this and I am pretty sure you can't either.

Before you try, though, please listen in full to what Matt says in the video linked above as well as his colleague's rather detailed information on tools for speed: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/5187761.

If one takes what Matt Cutts says with a pinch of salt and isn't able to logically think through when it's likely to be the truth and when it's not, one will miss one's chance to understand what Google wants. And one would be guilty of contempt prior to investigation, too, I expect.

I believe everything Matt says unless there is reason to doubt it. You doubt everything he says unless it's proven. Let the intelligence of logical thought prove it to you then.

Kalithea · #13 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 01:11 AM

Duplicate content I think is a big myth, of course this could cause a potential argument, but from what I have observed and tested that duplicate content only is relevant when you are speaking about the same article posted twice on the same website.

**mjtaylor** · #14 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalithea

Duplicate content I think is a big myth, of course this could cause a potential argument, but from what I have observed and tested that duplicate content only is relevant when you are speaking about the same article posted twice on the same website.

Good one! Matt Cutts (if you can believe him

) says there is no duplicate content penalty. Where there is duplicate content, Google will simply choose to serve the page it thinks is most relevant.

Ryan6 · #15 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 01:26 AM

In the original post you said "but as of today they don’t"! This "opinion" was stated as "fact" when the truth is that you simply don't know; you said the same about keyword stuffing when the truth is that again you just don't know. I never said "site speed" was a golden nugget either. I just don't really care for potential misleading information. I'd rather try real life testing which is what I have always done. It's worked pretty well for me as well, considering I have always received over 90% of my traffic from Google. I don't find it difficult to rank sites on the first page of Google either, but this is due down to experience and from continuous testing. I'm not trying to argue with you, but you just have to be careful when making such assumptions on Google's algo when you simply have no proof. This can mislead forum users which is never a good thing.

**HTMLBasicTutor** · #16 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 01:46 AM

You guys must be sick of me repeating myself but, regarding the Site Speed issue, for the benefit of those who have missed this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by htmlbasictutor

Actually, Google was already giving advise to be aware of your web page speed prior to the announcement of Site Speed.
Quote:
If you intend to participate in Google Adwords, beginning March 2008, how fast your website downloads will influence your performance with Adwords.

Quote:

...Users value ads that bring them to the information they want as efficiently as possible. A high-quality landing page should load quickly as well as feature unique, relevant content. Fast load times benefit advertisers as well, since users are less likely to abandon a site that loads quickly. ...

How does load time affect my landing page quality? - Google AdWords Help Center

Reference: Improving Download Speed - Optimize Website

Web Performance Best Practices - Google Code Page Speed

http://www.v7n.com/forums/google-for...ml#post1240277

So just because Matt doesn't say it is being used in the areas you are reading, it is being used to evaluate any of you that are participating in Adwords.

Ryan6 · #17 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 02:31 AM

[removed by admin]

HTML Basic Tutor: Thanks for the link there buddy. As you say, it has always been important with PPC landing pages!

**mjtaylor** · #18 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 07:53 AM

You may believe what you like, but until you can show me a test otherwise, I am going to take Matt Cutts and other Googlers at their word on site speed not being a part of the algo now. It is coming, they are making that clear, but it's not here yet to the best of my knowledge -- and yours.

**mjtaylor** · #19 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kalithea

Duplicate content I think is a big myth, of course this could cause a potential argument, but from what I have observed and tested that duplicate content only is relevant when you are speaking about the same article posted twice on the same website.

I ran across another reference that outlines the "Duplicate Content Penalty Myth" by Googler Greg Grothaus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSoXutuj0g.

**Cricket** · #20 (**permalink**) 03-10-2010, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjtaylor

I ran across another reference that outlines the "Duplicate Content Penalty Myth" by Googler Greg Grothaus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSoXutuj0g.

Ugggggh . . . It isn't often that we disagree, but I am gonna voice my own opinion on this. I don't much care what Google calls it, but the moment they choose which information to index, and which information NOT to index, this can cause an issue with duplicate content that the average webmaster needs to deal with. I am not referring to those pages which are duplicated based on dynamic issues, but rather the habit of some webmasters to include way too much duplicate content on some pages, leaving pages not showing in the index. If they needed to be indexed, it is time to take another look at their content.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to ignore it.