5 Dumb SEO Myths & Ideas Going Around That Are Really Stupid

[Boy]

Okay so if I have a product review article, that product is no longer continued/discontinued, should I draft it?

When that inevitably happens, I swap out the link with a link to an "alternative to [discontinued item]" article with a disclaimer at the top.

You should know that item is discontinued, so here are ten alternatives to [discontinued item] that can help you X.

 

[miketpowell]

I'd say it depends. Is the content useful to users? You may want to keep it live and noindex it. As far as I can think at the moment, in any other case, if it's not good enough to keep in the index, delete it or improve it.

The reason is that you still flow page rank out to the pages instead of flowing it to ones that have a chance of performing in the SERPs. You also will waste some crawl budget. On giant sites this matters a lot. Just because a page is marked to not be indexed doesn't mean Google doesn't crawl through it to discover other content and understand the link graph better.

In the grand scheme of things, could you get away with doing it "the less better way", probably. But it's less better. It's not optimized.

In my specific case, I'm thinking about the "main" site is pretty much done. However, there is one section we might be messing with and changing often for a few months. Would it be safe to launch the entire site and have the "main" site indexed and keep that section noindex until we stop constantly changing the content?

 

[Ryuzaki]

In my specific case, I'm thinking about the "main" site is pretty much done. However, there is one section we might be messing with and changing often for a few months. Would it be safe to launch the entire site and have the "main" site indexed and keep that section noindex until we stop constantly changing the content?

I see no reason that would be harmful since you'll eventually "launch" this extra section of the site later. I just wouldn't want any large portion of my site set to noindex indefinitely. It's a page rank sink hole, basically. Again, I'd also emphasize that page rank isn't the end-all-be-all it used to be, too. You can still succeed with minor technical SEO "errors" going on. I'm just all about being optimal. My opinion is if you do Google the favor of saving them resources and money, they'll prefer you more.

 

[AmicableSkipper]

For me, this is the most valuable post on this whole forum so far. I'm part of the new breed as you call it and have been experiencing everything you mentioned. And I also know that that's why my site isn't really taking off. Sure, it's still small and has lots of young content, but I've surely been going after the wrong metrics.

So far I just tried to publish a lot and cover each topic quickly. I'm improving, but I still know that my articles have more potential quality-wise. Especially on the images side of things. I've been especially lazy on that aspect.

So, thanks for that post, it gave me the most value on my website-building journey so far.

 

[Trump]

I totally agree what you said regarding content and links.

I probably haven't been around as long as you, but I have been in the business long enough to see people and trends come and go.

Just like you said, in every "case study" I read it's all about how much content they cranked out. Nothing else. Some of them are just updates saying "2000 words today".

The SEO business has always been filled with strange characters, myself included.

But in the past 1-2 years I've seen a huge change in people who write in, for example, /juststart. They are all experts, nobody talks about links, and the content production doesn't correlate with their earnings.

I remember reading a case study that was 2 years long. He produced a semi-ok amount of content (if I remember correctly) and now he was making $20-50 a month. People in the comments were encouraging him to "continue, you will succeed one day" and "SEO is slow, just keep on grinding content".

Jaw dropped...

Tell them anything different, or try giving tips, and these "I've-done-this-for-6-months-I'm-an-expert"-guys will snap. I feel like the SEO community was much more complex and open to new ideas before, than today.

I rarely see people discussing SEO theories or A/B-tests now days.

My feeling is that a lot of this started when Income School became popular.

 

[freshpeppermint]

I totally agree what you said regarding content and links.

I probably haven't been around as long as you, but I have been in the business long enough to see people and trends come and go.

Just like you said, in every "case study" I read it's all about how much content they cranked out. Nothing else. Some of them are just updates saying "2000 words today".

The SEO business has always been filled with strange characters, myself included.

But in the past 1-2 years I've seen a huge change in people who write in, for example, /juststart. They are all experts, nobody talks about links, and the content production doesn't correlate with their earnings.

I remember reading a case study that was 2 years long. He produced a semi-ok amount of content (if I remember correctly) and now he was making $20-50 a month. People in the comments were encouraging him to "continue, you will succeed one day" and "SEO is slow, just keep on grinding content".

Jaw dropped...

Tell them anything different, or try giving tips, and these "I've-done-this-for-6-months-I'm-an-expert"-guys will snap. I feel like the SEO community was much more complex and open to new ideas before, than today.

I rarely see people discussing SEO theories or A/B-tests now days.

My feeling is that a lot of this started when Income School became popular.

But why do I see a lot of people succeeding without building backlinks? I have followed income school and ignored their advice, but way back they never focused on monetization. This was one of their big issues.

Also, a lot of the old things like "KGR" keywords just don't really work that well. Also can't you get penalized by Google if you build links? On here many people have said to create quality content for the long term. Meaning don't do shady things which come and go, doesn't link building fit under the shady/black/grey hat area? Is there a case study or something on ROI on backlinks? Like the time spent building backlinks vs just creating more QUALITY articles and making money that way? Why take the extra risk of getting penalized?

On a sidenote: so on one of my sites with a ton of articles, I realized how GARBAGE the articles were so I drafted a lot of them. It would probably cost a lot to get them rewritten and stuff. So I was wondering could I get the articles to rank if I build backlinks assuming they are shit? Would it be cheaper/easier to do that? (Assume I am manually building links vs manually rewriting hundreds of articles? I realize quality is important by looking at the pages which rank which were written by me and made 99% of the money but just wondering links alone can rank shit content?)

One more thing, I know many people talk about: "oh you should test it out x idea, on what makes more money". But, isn't it better to just listen to other successful people and save time rather than trying out small things? Like how if you leave it to the engineers to design and perfect the car it would never come off the assembly line, they would keep testing and optimizing it more and more and you lose time.

 

[CCarter]

But why do I see a lot of people succeeding without building backlinks?

You don't.

Off page is one of the most important aspects of SEO.

PageRank is still the core of Google's algorithm. That's it. Period. Full Stop.

 

[Trump]

Text...

I'm certain that you are a troll, but I'll play-along as a one-timer.

"But why do I see a lot of people succeeding without building backlinks?"
Because some are. But it doesn't mean that it's the most effective method.

"Also, a lot of the old things like "KGR" keywords just don't really work that well."
How do you know, have you tested? Judging by your tsunami of questions in the past weeks, I'd assume you are new?

"Also can't you get penalized by Google if you build links? On here many people have said to create quality content for the long term. Meaning don't do shady things which come and go, doesn't link building fit under the shady/black/grey hat area?"
Yes, you can get penalized if you build links.

No, "create quality content for the long term" doesn't automatically mean that people say "don't build links". Two separate things, they don't exclude each other.

Also, creating links isn't something that "come and go", it's always been there. But now there is a trend that you only need good content.

"Why take the extra risk of getting penalized?"
White hat sites gets punished and/or pushed off the SERP as well. It's all about calculated risks and (potential) returns. All big companies and websites build links in some way or another.

If you don't want to take the risk, sure, more food on the table for the rest.

"One more thing, I know many people talk about: "oh you should test it out x idea, on what makes more money". But, isn't it better to just listen to other successful people and save time rather than trying out small things? Like how if you leave it to the engineers to design and perfect the car it would never come off the assembly line, they would keep testing and optimizing it more and more and you lose time."
Not everything successful people say is correct, and not everything that is correct can be applied to your specific business or website.

Of course, you should always listen and learn from people with more knowledge and experience, but that shouldn't stop you from testing yourself. Sure, you can put up a generic website and let it be. But at some point you'd want to test things to develop and increase your profit.

Imagine how much you could have tested, written and done if you didn't spend so much time on forums writing pages of irrelevant questions.

 

[AmicableSkipper]

On a sidenote: so on one of my sites with a ton of articles, I realized how GARBAGE the articles were so I drafted a lot of them. It would probably cost a lot to get them rewritten and stuff. So I was wondering could I get the articles to rank if I build backlinks assuming they are shit? Would it be cheaper/easier to do that? (Assume I am manually building links vs manually rewriting hundreds of articles? I realize quality is important by looking at the pages which rank which were written by me and made 99% of the money but just wondering links alone can rank shit content?)

Are you serious about this question? Even if you were to get people to link to your site AND google would rank it AND people click on your article, do you really think they would stay around for over 3 seconds, if the content is garbage.

This is exactly what the entire post of @Ryuzaki was about. You‘re trying to cut corners without putting in the effort. If your content is garbage, nobody will read it. People will leave before your ads even loaded and won‘t even be able to SEE a single affiliate link or whatever you‘re trying to make money with.

If you want to be successful at this you need a good link portfolio AND great content. If you‘re missing out on one of them entirely, you‘ll get nowhere, especially when it comes to content.

The time you spend on this forum should be spent on building your website, I think you‘ve gathered all the information you need, but you‘re neither accepting the facts, nor are you acting on them.

Sorry for the rant. You do you.

 

[Ryuzaki]

Tell them anything different, or try giving tips, and these "I've-done-this-for-6-months-I'm-an-expert"-guys will snap. I feel like the SEO community was much more complex and open to new ideas before, than today.

The SEO Community is finally maturing as a "real" industry and not just a bunch of losers behind a computer, too. The pro's from the old days largely keep quiet and get work done. The middle ground all failed out during Penguin and went to crypto. And the newbies are all flocking to places like Reddit and Facebook. I think it's all about finding the mature slice of SEO's at the right places where people still talk in "public" and not among their tiny Skype or Discord group.

I remember reading a case study that was 2 years long. He produced a semi-ok amount of content (if I remember correctly) and now he was making $20-50 a month. People in the comments were encouraging him to "continue, you will succeed one day" and "SEO is slow, just keep on grinding content".

I think another issue is that some people get "lucky". Not in the sense that they didn't put in the work, but that they simply can't replicate their first success (the exact same 2 main culprits I alluded to in the opening post come to mind again).

I saw a case study report the other day where one of these people/groups bragged that one of their newer projects broke a few thousand in revenue per month (which is great). My beef with it is similar to what you're saying. It took this guy 800 posts to hit $3k a month. And then all the newcomers read that and think that's normal, and then they investigate the rest of the lucky guru's ideas and start shitting out tons of worthless content with 1 image, no internal or external linking, zero backlink building, etc.

It's fine for us. It's less competition. But I also want to throw a bone to any noobs wise enough to sign up and talk with us on BuSo, or at least lurk and read. It doesn't have to be that way.

I'd tell a newcomer, for a straight content-based SEO play, that if their ROI isn't astronomical, like 80% to 90% (in the real world, not the world where you pretend content isn't an expense) then you may be listening to the wrong people.

But why do I see a lot of people succeeding without building backlinks?

I see a lot of people claiming they do. I never see evidence of it. And when there's no evidence, the word "success" becomes very relative. Because a lot of morons, even here, will celebrate their first penny of revenue. A penny that costed them $100's to make.

Also, a lot of the old things like "KGR" keywords just don't really work that well.

It does work pretty good but if you follow the dude's method, you'll have to spray and pray. KGR works pretty good if you also take the time to analyze the SERPs and see what else is ranking and make sure it's sites you can beat. One of my big earners now has a post in the top 10 of traffic earning posts that was a KGR term, albeit one of higher volume. Because I was curious about KGR (Keyword Golden Ratio for the reader) so I tested it with a bunch of articles and kept chewing through it all till I found higher volume ones.

Why take the extra risk of getting penalized?

What you're really asking is "why take risk" at all. If you simmer everything you've posted on this forum down, it can boil down to two questions: "Which shortcut is the best?" and "How can I be guaranteed money without risk?". We might need to confine you to the Orientation section so you stop shitting up good threads.

I realized how GARBAGE the articles were so I drafted a lot of them. It would probably cost a lot to get them rewritten and stuff. So I was wondering could I get the articles to rank if I build backlinks assuming they are shit?

You can polish a turd, but at the end of the day it'll just be a shiny turd.

If you want to be successful at this you need a good link portfolio AND great content. If you‘re missing out on one of them entirely, you‘ll get nowhere, especially when it comes to content.

This is the epitome of the game, but I'd add one more variable. You need good technical SEO, too. You can get away without it, but it gets a lot easier with it. And if you wanted to simplify that as much as possibel, it's basically "good speed, good indexation."

 

[DanSkippy]

One more thing, I know many people talk about: "oh you should test it out x idea, on what makes more money". But, isn't it better to just listen to other successful people and save time rather than trying out small things? Like how if you leave it to the engineers to design and perfect the car it would never come off the assembly line, they would keep testing and optimizing it more and more and you lose time.

The problem which we face in information theory is that we are dealing with situations where the information being represented is not independently existing. For this reason, there must be a complementary set of diagrams used to represent the information, and not the information itself.

The situation is analogous to that for intensive research which is necessary in a war. A lot of scientists who are not involved in the war effort are suspicious that the actual situation is not being properly published. There is a lot of movement towards publicising the actual results of the war.

 

[larcha]

I saw a case study report the other day where one of these people/groups bragged that one of their newer projects broke a few thousand in revenue per month (which is great). My beef with it is similar to what you're saying. It took this guy 800 posts to hit $3k a month. And then all the newcomers read that and think that's normal, and then they investigate the rest of the lucky guru's ideas and start shitting out tons of worthless content with 1 image, no internal or external linking, zero backlink building, etc.

It's fine for us. It's less competition. But I also want to throw a bone to any noobs wise enough to sign up and talk with us on BuSo, or at least lurk and read. It doesn't have to be that way.

I'd tell a newcomer, for a straight content-based SEO play, that if their ROI isn't astronomical, like 80% to 90% (in the real world, not the world where you pretend content isn't an expense) then you may be listening to the wrong people.

My case study here on the forum highlights how I am publishing 1000+ informational articles and I'm only making $3-5k/month in 14 months. While I'm still fairly new compared to others that have had plenty of exits with this strategy, I thought I was on a decent path to success.

Should I be concerned with my level of growth? I don't want to fall victim to the "give SEO time" excuse.

I have built links and will continue to build links. But, I will also continue to massively publish content. My content is good, with 1-15 images depending on the post, and I internally link when possible.

 

[Ryuzaki]

My case study here on the forum highlights how I am publishing 1000+ informational articles and I'm only making $3-5k/month in 14 months. While I'm still fairly new compared to others that have had plenty of exits with this strategy, I thought I was on a decent path to success.

Should I be concerned with my level of growth? I don't want to fall victim to the "give SEO time" excuse.

I have built links and will continue to build links. But, I will also continue to massively publish content. My content is good, with 1-15 images depending on the post, and I internally link when possible.

You're at the beginning of the growth curve. All the work you did will continue to mature and bring in more traffic as time continues (if I recall you've just now passed the one year mark or close to it?). I'm not alarmed at what you're doing or your traffic growth rate.

That's a far cry from this other dude where I know the site he's talking about is at least 3 years old, I think, because I've been watching him on my RSS feed for forever.

And truthfully, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, it's their prerogative. What I'm seeing is that some teachers and their students don't want to build backlinks. Life becomes easier that way, but they're having to compensate by publishing way more content. Like WAY more content.

It's time and money spent somewhere, and they made their choice. But anytime the word "compensate" comes up, it also implies "out of balance", "inefficient", "making up the slack", etc.

I'd go as far as to say they've decided to leave money on the table and are okay with it because they'll just publish more half-way-there content to pick up the slack.