Does SEO matter any more?

SEO myths, facts and fiction

[Kendo]

We are currently interviewing SEO experts and finding some anomalies in their reports. Some are amusing and some so ridiculous that, well, that is what prompted this post.

Engagement

One suggestion was that articles should display an image every so many words to improve user engagement. Dunno about you, but I get bored looking at the same type of stock photography on every website that I visit today. Anyway, how can a search crawler appreciate an image and tell whether it is related to the topic or not, or if it adds anything not already explained. But hey, bots can solve captcha tests, right? So perhaps they can tell that the image is a recognisable icon.

Missing Alt Tags

Why add an ALT tag to a spacer? If Google cannot tell the difference between a clear image and a photo, then how can they evaluate image content and its connection with the topic?

Modern Design

Why do so many consider that websites not using a WordPress theme look old. Yes, they might look interesting at first glance, but after a while they all start looking the same. Same old carousel header followed by info boxes in columns. Same old stock photography and icons and the info in the boxes usually nothing more than contrived nonsense to fill the space.

Yes, they are all looking the same. Whether the pros with good product are imitating the copy cats or the copy cats are imitating the pros is too difficult to tell any more. Yet the SEO experts talk about engaging content suggesting that Google can tell the difference. If so, why is it that when I encounter yet another WordPress looking site, that I know that when scrolling down the page that I will only see the same old BS.

Toxic Backlinks

I have seen lists tendered from SEO reports before that listed backlinks claimed to be toxic. But when I checked one, I found that 90% of those sites had absolutely no reference to us at all. At the time I assumed that report was fabricated to frighten us into hiring their services.

I am now looking at a list of 40,000 backlinks claimed to be toxic for us. A lot of those sites I have never even heard of, but as I have mentioned before, being in the software industry and using the PAD system which was then the industry standard for promoting products, we will have a lot of backlinks and many beyond our control. PAD files can be downloaded and their info used to review software without limitation. The fact that Google now penalises such sites and in turn penalises us for those sites recommending our product is beyond ludicrous!

Now while we have all found it difficult to get pages indexed, I have to wonder about all of the toxic links that are being reported... because on that list of 40,000 backlinks I see a lot of websites that were closed more than 10 years ago. How and why does Google store the content of dead websites when it ignores the content of the living?

I also see some sites that display our affiliate banners. If Google is penalising us for advertising the only way we can (short of paying for Adwords), do they also penalise their own affiliates and advertisers because Adwords banners are displayed on websites that by their BS reckoning have a low DA?

[Kendo]

Today I am updating our disavow list. I have no idea where all of the new links came from over the last few months. One excuse will of course be a "change in algorithm" but I for one am getting tired of that lame excuse.

Most of the links that I am supposed to disavow do not even exist... the domains expired a decade ago. So how can these lists be considered to be reliable information?

For example I see a lot of backlinks from a website that 20 years ago provided a rural internet service, back in the days of 56k modem connections. As an internet service they provided a lot of inhouse services to their dialup customers like classified ads for the local community. Well the backlinks in question come from the sponsor's banner that was displayed at the bottom of each classified ad.

I know that service well because I created it, and I was also the advertising sponsor.

It is ludicrous to think that those backlinks can be considered toxic, even if they still existed.

But what this screams loud and clear, is the fact that Google is penalising everyone for not advertising via their own Adwords scheme.

How is that "do no evil"?

[tangor]

Never asked for a backlink. RARELY ever give one, even if I KNOW the site and it is valid for my users. When g broke lnking back in the day because of games people play, I decided that NOT TO PLAY was the winning move. I get unsolicited "beware the odious backlinks!" SEO expert-wannabes send. Immediately file in 13 with a new filter applied to make sure it keeps going there.

MEANWHILE, I am NOT going to do g's work to clean up their defunct "links" thing since I'm not getting paid to do it.

[Kendo]

I am NOT going to do g's work to clean up their defunct "links"

I was thinking the vary same think as I logged in here.

That is all we seem to be doing, forever cleaning up after their mistakes.

It's like look, look, and everyone runs to the port side and the ship starts rolling, then its look, that didn't work so we fixed it, and everyone runs to the starboard side, and so on. But most of what we hear and read is disinformation.

The bottom line is that they should have no right to dictate how we advertise, who promotes us, or how much more efficient we could all become if left alone.

[Whitey]

The common theme here isn’t whether SEO “matters,” it’s that Google has made it feel like endless busywork ; chasing dead backlinks, disavowing links that don’t exist, and second guessing arbitrary rules. Design, images, and “engagement hacks” are mostly theatre. What’s left looks less like optimisation and more like cleaning up after Google’s mess while they profit from ads.

[bgweb]

We're UK based and have had links from many of the major national news outlets across the political spectrum. I'll make a few observations, but won't draw conclusions:

1) The click through rate from back links has dropped steadily over the years. Therefore, if you're expecting a traffic "bonanza" it isn't likely to materialise

2) Domain authority appears to plateau, and "getting off the plateau" is very difficult

3) Following on from point 2, referrals from search engines also appears to plateau and other factors become a lot more important

4) I'm not convinced about "toxic" back links and their impact or lack of it

[BigKat]

Does SEO matter any more?

Not for us in the USA with AI Overviews at the top of most queries. That report by Pew summed it all up. Users click on a citation in AIO 1% of the time. Organic results get 8% of the clicks. Combined, that's a 91% zero click search rate and for us it's much worse even when ranking #1 and/or cited in AIO. We would need to have an extraordinary conversion rate to justify anything more than the basic set it and forget it onpage SEO. Time, effort and money is better spent on developing relationships and traffic sources with those inside our industry since doing so will help provide some protection from future increases in zero click searches.

[tangor]

Time, effort and money is better spent on developing relationships and traffic sources with those inside our industry

THAT is what I could call REAL SEO!

G just made things easy n the early days ... and now they aren't. But the need for ADVERTISING a business has always been the Business' work. DIY is the first and best method of getting the word out, creating a market, and keeping an ever increasing clientele/market.

g made it "free to play" in the "ad space", but never promised to PAY (unless YOU PAY).

If, on the other hand, YOU pay for your own marketing you will have better results, predictable expensing, and RELIABLE data on which to make future marketing attempts.

g broke it. Only we can fix it. The way to do that is to shun it.

Won't happen, of course. Too many are dependent on pennies in hand when faced with real work and use of own time and money.

[Kendo]

Regarding toxic backlinks... the lists that we are getting from SEO pundits are useless.

Apparently they all get them from MOZ and what I see in my own list of 40,000+ backlinks is:

1. Most links belong to sites that no longer list
2. Most links with an extremely high spamscore come form sites displaying affiliate banners.

For example, the list still contains backlinks from Tucows which was shut down years ago.

But the most ludicrous part is the links that come from bribie.net.au which was a rural ISP back in the day of 56k diallup modems. That ISP provided many services for locals including online classified ads, and at the bottom of each ad was a sponsor's banner. I know this because I was the ISP and the sponsor.

That website was taken offline more than 10 years ago. The domain no longer exists, but still we have 100s of backlinks with low DA and extremely high score spamscore... allegedly.

This is the stuff that SEO pundits are sending to clients, begging to be paid to create disavow lists (for toxic backlinks that do not exist).

[tangor]

This is the stuff that SEO pundits are sending to clients, begging to be paid to create disavow lists (for toxic backlinks that do not exist).

Just another version of the protection racket. When one approaches me I send them a bill for $95.00 for wasting my time. Never get paid---then again---I never hear from them again.

YMMV

[Kendo]

I am discovering more and more about ranking formulas that is so ludicrous that it is not even funny.

Redirects

Apparently a high number of page redirects lowers credibility?

Why do redirects exist?
1. Because the information has been moved to a place where it can be better indexed.
2. Because a product/service has been superseded and replaced with something better.
3. Because the page/service is protected by member login.

We use redirects to enhance visitor experience by providing them with what they were looking for, rather than provide a dead end (404).

Any website/service that has been in business for as long as we have, and with a plethora of solutions that have been innovative and eventually superseded by our next innovation, will have a lot of redirects.

So if anything, the higher number of redirects should be an indicator of long history and the care taken in providing for clients.

Only a primary school student could get that wrong.

[tangor]

Then again, redirects have routinely been used to hang on to link juice as an SEO trick. Kind of difficult for search engines to determine good or evil, so just default to demote and go from there.

[Kendo]

redirects have routinely been used to hang on to link juice as an SEO trick

I don't see how or why anyone would bother.

In any case, isn't their algorithm intelligently devised to do anything more than downgrade any sites that don't pay for their ads?

Does it check for real authority? No.

Goes it check for duplication? No.

Does it check for plagiarism? No.

[Kendo]

Duplicate, Google chose different canonical

This is so lame it is not funny!

All pages, hundreds of them, do include a meta-tag for canonical user. But Google is so lame that it uses case-sensitive checks, probably because their developers only consider Linux type server systems. But Windows servers, being more sophisticated, are not case-sensitive.

Google was unable to match Default.asp and default.asp for a website’s home page!

[tangor]

Hmmm.... Winstuff does exist, but is it majority (ala 'nix)?

When I worked with several winserve clients always maintained case sensitive (and no spaces) JUST TO MAKE SURE.

Merely a comment that some of these things can be self-inflicted. NOT SAYING THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED! Just been there, done that, paid the cost and made the corrections, and avoided making the same mistake ever again.

[Brett_Tabke]

I get asked for SEO agency or consultant referrals all the time. I am more stuck answering that question today than ever before. In the past, I could dig out a default list of the top 10 people and agencies without regret and know they would take care of whoever was asking. Today, I am not so sure. So much confusion going on in the space that it is hard to trust anyone to do the right job.

[Kendo]

Winstuff does exist

It sure does but it won't be everyone's cup of tea because it is not free. For a dedicated server you have to add the cost of server software licence and that is per machine. So before you start, you have an upfront cost of several hundred dollars.

But it has its advantages. The big plus for us is that you can run Windows software as a service. For example on one of our sites users can upload a large variety of document formats, including Microsoft Word, and have them converted to PDF. Any app that runs on a Windows desktop can be interfaced with web pages.

The interfaces available for working on server content are the same as your Windows desktop and you can run any tools at your disposal like Visual Studio which is ideal for search and replacing needles in a haystack. The WYSIWYG experience makes the alternatives look like the stone age.

it is hard to trust anyone in SEO to do the right job

I doubt if it has changed much. Just more obvious. Of more than a dozen applicants for our job we found that they all make the same noises, use the same buzzwords and use the same tools. Those tools seem to be the key to their existence and they rely on them for reports on all sorts of statistics and metrics as a starting point for their campaign... to get them hired.

While they swear by their SEO software, no one seems to know where that software gets its data. Some think it comes from the app makers and others think they all come from MOZ (nothing to do with Mozilla) data. But how that data is supposed to reflect what search engines like Google does with its own data is confounding because there is no chance it can be the same.

And that is where discrepancies come into it. For example Google's backlink count, for it to be credible, needs to be a count of backlinks that really do exist, while the backlinks lists provided by SEO software include almost every site that may have linked to a site in the last 20 years.

The same SEO software is evaluating our content and making recommendations and we are expected to believe that search engines use the same formulas. Yet we are reminded every day about how broken those "algorithms" have become.

[Whitey]

So much confusion going on in the space that it is hard to trust anyone to do the right job.

Ditto. This is what I see too.

This thread’s consensus isn’t that SEO is dead, but that Google has turned it into endless busywork; chasing phantom toxic backlinks, fighting arbitrary rules, and second-guessing flawed metrics. Then delivering ever-less organic return in an era of AI overviews and zero-click searches. The takeaway: basic on-page SEO still matters, but long-term resilience now comes more from owning your audience and diversifying traffic than from playing Google’s moving-goalpost game.

[bgweb]

Any views on the importance (or otherwise) of Core Web Vitals right now? For example, Cumulative Layout Shift? I've done a lot of work improving them overall, but it doesn't seem to make a quantifiable difference.

[tangor]

Never played. Site is viewable in all devices, maybe NOT as "snazzy" with bright shiny objects and zippitydodah (though tests better than average when last checked) so leave it alone and concentrate on what matters: Content and Community. Those are things that neither g nor SEO can mess with as BOTH are required for anything else to exist---with g being a content thief and SEO has no "friends-to-send".

Then again "Don't Do Anything Stupid" works a lot better than SEO and K.I.S.S. works even better!

Sadly, it appears that all this g turmoil, suggestions, etc. is meant as distractions for the fiduciary extractions being not so subtly instituted over time. Check the frog. Is the pot hot yet?

[tangor]

Prediction:

G is making things more difficult in hopes that more will "self-deport" (quit) in disgust now that their ad business is firmly established and "publishers of all kinds" are to be replaced by "advertisers to major tech portals" can command MUCH larger budgets and no little fry to drag along with pennies per month...

[Whitey]

I think we’re now in a phase where the trust gap between SEO providers, their tools, and what Google actually values has widened so much that even seasoned operators are struggling to filter signal from noise.

For agencies, the temptation is to wrap services around tool-driven deliverables - audits, backlink sweeps, CWV (core web vitals) reports - because they’re tangible and easy to productise. But as @Kendo said, the provenance and weighting of that data are often a black box. That’s why clients can end up paying for activity rather than outcomes.

On Core Web Vitals - yes, they’re worth doing for UX, but I’ve yet to see them be the decisive factor in a competitive SERP. They seem more like a hygiene signal than a growth driver. Once you’re “good enough,” the extra ROI comes from brand demand and audience capture, not chasing a perfect 100 in Lighthouse.

@Tangor’s point about “content and community” is the one I’d double down on. Google’s volatility and monetisation shift means we can’t just optimise for Google - we need to use Google while we can to grow owned audiences we can reach without them. That’s the hedge against AI overviews, zero-click, and whatever the next revenue-protection move is.

In short:

Basic on-page + UX: still essential.

Tool reports: useful, but not gospel.

CWV: fix to a “good” standard, then stop obsessing.

Biggest resilience play: move resources into building a direct, loyal audience before Google closes more of the funnel.

Otherwise, we’ll all end up chasing metrics that are just moving goalposts designed to tire us out.

[bgweb]

@Whitey: That seems like excellent advice to me. The only point I would add (and it's not intended to contradict you at all) is that, in my experience, optimisation is often trivial compared to the impact of the ad scripts, over which we have no control.

[Kendo]

scripts over which we have no control

Why not? Because they are not transparent?

A solution to that problem is letting webmasters govern what is acceptable and what is just outright stupidity.

[Trisha122]

You’re asking why some SEO reports look odd or funny. Often it’s because people use outdated tricks or inflate numbers. For example, “10,000 backlinks in a week” is usually spam, not real progress. A good SEO report should focus on real growth—traffic, rankings, and conversions. Always ask experts to explain results in simple terms; if they can’t, that’s a red flag.

[tangor]

@Trisha122 ... Welcome to Webmasterworld!

Always glad to meet new folks, even more so those who come endowed with common sense regarding "bright shiny objects of promise."

[Kendo]

Pagespeed

Pagespeed has always seemed a bit of a joke when considering how many routers need to be hurdled for data to get to one place or another.

Cloud hosting is supposed to fix that but I prefer to host on a good backbone and partners from all locations report good connectivity.

But recent tests have proven what I thought all along, that the Internet is not a constant and that data travelling between to points on the globe can be affected by too many things. Take for example, my tests using several different "pagespeed" services that gave different results each time.

None of the results from any one of them were consistent. For example, using the main one, I got a page speed of 75, then 5 minutes later 76, then 10 minutes later 64 and then 20 minutes later 86. Now this was apparently a test for mobile while the PC test was as high as 97.

Then they have the audacity to try and meter things like pageshift?

[gatormark]

SEO doesn't matter these days.
Pagespeed doesn't matter. I don't think it ever has.
Great content is always essential, but it is less relevant in these AIO days.
Paying for traffic via Adsense, sadly, is all that's left for me.

[tangor]

Paying for traffic via Adsense, sadly, is all that's left

COMMUNITY is the lynch pin. Always has been. Develop that and it won't make a difference what the other stuff is doing. OTOH, not all niches are conducive to community building, though "brand awareness" comes in as a close second.

That said, the net as we KNEW it is gone. The old ways are no longer productive. Time to change is now, rather than later. It is the HOW DO WE CHANGE which is causing confusion and uncertainty---and when one is distracted it is difficult to see a way forward.

Step back, take a breath, evaluate, make a plan. Re-engage.

[Kendo]

When they started talking about a shortage of IP numbers, I thought that they might wiped the plate by now.... or a new reassignment that didn't have netblocks nested in other netblocks, ie: netblocks assigned by country without backdoors for reprobates to hide.

Then the waste could be cleared and everyone (especially children) can be protected.