Bad SEO Advice
I come across bad SEO advice all the time. Much of it may seem obvious to those of us who have been involved in search for any length of time, but for people who haven’t, it can be difficult to know what’s concrete advice, what’s speculation, and what’s just plain terrible. For that matter, it can be difficult for those outside of SEO to know what’s smart and what’s considered search engine manipulation.
I was in a meeting a few days ago and someone asked if it was true that for SEO purposes, a page should have as few outbound links as possible. I said outbound links were fine, great even! And then talked a bit about how it’s a bad idea to build pages for nuances in the search engine algorithms anyway, as hundreds of signals exist and they’re changing all the time. Oh, he said. We’ve been talking about implementing the canonical tag. We probably shouldn’t do that then. And I realized, how would a developer know that the canonical tag is awesome and the meta keywords tag isn’t? That you shouldn’t worry about keyword density but you should put important keywords in your title tag?
Recently, someone sent me an “SEO optimization report” for their site that came from automated software that guaranteed top ten rankings in 90 days. Some of the advice was good (use unique title tags), some was harmless (improve your Flesch readability ease score), and some was just crazy talk. Below is a bit of the crazy.
“You should increase your keyword density. You can do this by removing some text.”
This whole notion of keyword density has been around forever, but here’s what it really boils down to. How is your potential audience looking for this content? Put those words in your title tag, H1, and somewhere on the page. And use those words as anchor text in internal links to that page. If other sites link to the page using that anchor text, even better! It’s bad enough when people try to get the “right” keyword density by nonsensically repeating the same words over and over on a page, but removing other text? That’s just sad.
“Keywords in the HTML comment tags help a good ranking in Google.”
Um. Not really.
“Some search engines penalize sites if the terms from the meta keywords tag don’t appear in the body of the page.”
Well, first, search engines (in particular, Google) ignore the meta keywords tag. And also, this statement isn’t true.
“Your page includes the meta Google-Site-Verification tag twice. Search engines could regard it as a spamming attempt and might decide not to index your web site.”
Wow. I assume this is simply a case of automation going awry and whoever wrote this software doesn’t actually think that having two verified Google Webmaster Tools accounts will cause Google to remove the site from the index. But even so, having duplicate meta tags of any kind doesn’t cause Google or Bing to flag the site for spam. I mentioned this was all about the crazy, right?
“Some search engines don’t accept submissions with capitalized letters in titles or meta tags.”
Maybe someone more familiar with old school directories can weigh in on where this comes from. But recommending that your title tags not contain capital letters? This may be automated software, but someone manually wrote that message.
“Some search engines rank sites lower that are hosted at free hosting providers.”
No.
PS – Creative use of bold won’t actually help. And question marks in URLs are just fine.


I get the meta keyword thing weekly from customers. I showed one the video of Matt Cutts denying it and they still wanted to do it because they read on the Internet it would help.
Another one I’ve gotten is “hiding” keywords by making text the same color as the background.
“Some search engines penalize sites if the terms from the meta keywords tag don’t appear in the body of the page.” – Yahoo in the old days, I believe – the REALLY old days.
Vanessa,
I follow all of your articles very closely and appreciate your candid communications and keen sense on what i happening with search engines.
From someone who has a website that is 6+ months old and went from getting 150+ hits a day from Google in March to less than 10 a day in June I wonder if you have any advice.
Most keep telling me that I have been “sandboxed”.
Domain was registered in Feb 2010 and traffic dropped end of May 2010. I am pumping out content, writing for readers and not search engines and doing everything I am supposed to do but not getting any results.
Any suggestions?
Thanks Chad — What’s the domain?
Hah! I love the premise of the post Vanessa. Please do more of these. I hear a few of these gems from time to time as well. For example “I hear my site could be penalized if we syndicate our content” or “I heard we’ll be penalized if the title tag is the same as the H1 tag”
Thanks for the late night laugh Vanessa. This is all good advice…and it made this old SEO smile.
Hi Vanessa,
It’s really quite depressing how hard it is to squash an unfounded or outdated myth about SEO!
There is SO much bad SEO advice on the Internet. The person who is just starting out learning SEO, or the business owner trying to save a few bucks by doing his own website, they come across bad SEO ideas presented as authoritative advice and they can’t tell the difference. I remember being mislead when I first began studying SEO principles. The idea of exact keyword density being an important factor is everywhere.
Not only is it difficult to distinguish the difference between a site that presents good SEO advice and a bad one, but the bad ones typically have a more compelling draw. When a site says “Guaranteed top ten rankings in 90 days or your money back” for $100, the unknowing small business owner can’t fathom why he would possibly need to pay a thousand dollars a month without any sort of guarantee for a local SEO firm.
Possibly an equally troublesome result of bad SEO advice is “experts” who grew up on that bad advice. Now the business owner isn’t paying $100 for a piece of crummy automated software, but several hundred dollars a month for an SEO consultant who thinks he knows what he’s doing but is really causing more harm, or at the least not bringing in any results.
Sorry to rant, but this is something I feel strongly about after working with another SEO who still thinks keyword density is important and that title tags should be loaded with 5 or 6 variations of the same keywords!
Regards
Outbound linking circa 1998
Based on my reading of the Page and Brin 1998 paper http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/ outbound linking may have cost some link juice as of 12 years ago. However, it is laughable to think that this aspect of the algorithm has not changed in 12 years.
Further, Bing’s Webmaster Tools indicates “outbound links are good things to have, but they should be relevant to the subject of the pages you have them on.” and numerous SEO posts suggest relevant outbound linking can boost your ranking on Bing.
O. M. G.
[...] Bad SEO Advice, Nine By Blue [...]
What are your thoughts on asking for links? To me, there’s a fine line between doing outreach and publicity for your site and straight up asking strangers to link to you, in exchange for something (money, a linkback, a pet goldfish):
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100901/how-google-cost-me-$4-million.html
There seem to be a lot of people who believe SEO is all about asking for links, which is somewhat disturbing.
If only meta keyword tag would just go away…
*the* meta keyword tag (typing too fast!)
yes its right Content Aboutness is better then the Keywords Density….. Just provide right content to your visitors…… please do’t try to repeat keyword again and again
Some site-specific search engines use the meta keywords (the search engine for the website of the comany I work for does), but yeah, that’s some funny/sad stuff.
I think to often people are hung up on the myths and the magic surrounding SEO. If you stay up to date and read current blogs such as this one you don’t run into un-indexing problems that could be caused from using some of the methods above.
Thanks for sharing your professional insight, especially your knowledge about how Google sees things.
I generally apply the basics of what I know and it usually works.
They are in line with your suggestions. So, I’ll keep building anchor text links and writing keyword focused content that just naturally flows.
[...] Vanessa Fox/Nine by Blue: Bad SEO Advice [...]
This was a great read, but as someone who has made all his websites on the cheap, I have to disagree with your last statement.
“Some search engines rank sites lower that are hosted at free hosting providers.”
First, Matt was talking about IP addresses not free or cheap hosts. What your talking about is different.
Cheap, free, ancient servers serve content slowly, can’t handle big waves of social media traffic, and go down more often. Ouch.
Those things can all definitely be true of free hosts, but a site being on a free host isn’t a negative ranking factor on its own. (Although it could indirectly impact other ranking factors — such as if the site is down when the bot crawls, it can’t be indexed.)
While it is true that the major search engines in the US do not look at Meta Data Keywords, to my understanding, both Google Search Appliance, and Google Mini (besides a few others, like Dan’s company above) give you the option of including Meta Data Keywords in the algorithm. Also, the big search engine from the East – Baidu, from my understanding, uses Meta Data Keywords as part of their indexing algorithm. So, if you are a global corporation working on web standards you must take this into consideration.
Yup, it’s true that the keywords tag may be used in those instances. But this program was targeted for US customers wanting help with Google rankings, where it’s not used. (And it’s certainly not the case that you’ll be penalized if the keywords tag and body text don’t match up.)
“Keywords in the HTML comment tags help a good ranking in Google.”
By far my favorite. It’s hard to believe people still fall for the automated reports and “rank at tops of Googlez in 90 dayz GUARANTEED!”. Tools that crawl your site for inefficiencies save a ton of time but they need to be analyzed by real SEOs or this kind of stuff happens.
Great post, as always Vanessa.
Vanessa, coming across your site today has been a breath of fresh “blue” air!
Having attempted to master this art or science or is it a game; it is finally nice to known I can believe and trust the advise I read here!
The info you provide is great and so you have a new follower!
Thanks!
Hey Vanessa,
The problem is that the world of SEO is guarded by Google and the other search engines. Yet, knowing how to influence your rankings is exceptionally lucrative. Therefore people are left searching for the answers from anyone who claims to know anything about it. The end result is that you have people offering advice who really have no idea what is right or wrong. They draw their own conclusions from God knows where and spread them. Until they find someone like you who knows what they are talking about, it can be very very challenging figuring out the smart people from the not so smart people.
I really like when you talk about this basic SEO stuff. Thanks.
Hey Vanessa,
Great stuff. I still include some of these things in reports to clients because they think I’m neglecting something if I don’t. It is hard for many of them to let go of old habits. I gradually try to get them out of these old notions, but some are harder than others. I’m still amazed at how hard it is to convince many of the truth about Meta Keyword tags.
I haven’t even tried with the topic of Keyword density. They might call me a heretic, report me to Google, and cancel their contract!
Hi Vanessa,
So glad I found you again. I spend a lot of time reading about SEO and never now who to believe.
Thanks for all your great info and keeping me straight!
Thanks for the advice, and for setting me straight on some of these SEO ‘myths’… theres a lot of them out there! Good luck with the new book too. I will buy a copy soon.
The kind of stuff that stays in circulation as “advice” never ceases to amaze me.
I once went for a meeting and a client said, “Oh, I know about SEO. If I keep clicking on my site url Google will think that the site has a lot of visitors and the site will do well.” I thought it was crazy, how could he even think it was so easy! I don’t know if this has ever happened to any of you out there.
[...] reason I point these things out is because it is all wrong. Very, very wrong. This SEO blasphemy is not new. But it’s not getting [...]