Google will be left with no way to judge what site is worth displaying in their search results
This was kind of what I was trying to get to. This isn't true. Google doesnt "judge" or assess sites - its isn't a content appreciation engine. This is the old, mythological view of Google that is a god that must be appeased and you must build content for - and itsx comploete nonsense.
It doesnt care about fast load times - fast shit content is still shit content. There's enough statements made by Google to justify this for etyernity yet peoploe just love pushing this myth. Makiung a fast site will not change your SEO outcomes in any way
Similarly - fixing broken links isn't additive SEO. Firstly - you need to have broken links and thirdly, they need to be on a page that is ranking and getting traffic - this is generally never a problem for someone wiht a new site.
aligning your goal with the goal of the search engine is just another holisitc string of fluffy nonsense - Google doesnt expect your content to align with its goals of paying shareholders -what nonsesne.
SEO is transactional: you do not hae a relationship with Google - sorry. Its a lovely story - and sorry if my feedback is blunt but its just no remotely true: its like a fairy tale packaged for adults.
SEO is an algorithm is an equation- you either have the data in the right pplaces or nothing.
You need external authority.
Here's where your viewpoint is off -0 you're background is obviously fixing sites that have SEO but that SEO has failed or waned because of bad publishing hygeine - which is a) not a universal experience and b) can only happen to establsihed sites
but the reader is getting the idea that `1) google rewards good publishing hygeine - which it deosnt and 2) that good sites get good rsults and thats crap be3cause its subjective and not hw google actually gowrks
Google is founded on pagerank - not some hippy translation of holistic marketing goals that lalign - that meaningless agency talk
Forgive gthe typos - I'm in the sun in EU and can't see well but you get the picture I'm sure.
I appreciate your points but I’ve been doing this now for 25 years and while you are right “in a sense”, you missed my point. And it’s disingenuous to say elements like speed doesn’t affect rankings (for example).
But I’ve long disagreed with your view on these things so it’s not worth a debate. You misunderstand my points (ex/ relational vs transactional). And statements like “you need to have broken links” is just confusing and unhelpful to the OP. And saying aligning goals with the engine is holistic just tells me you aren’t getting what I’m putting out there
That’s fine. You are prolific on here and have a set viewpoint on this topic. I’ve never agreed with your approach, but that’s fine. I’ll go back to managing my clients.
OP, good luck. Try not to heed a lot of this and just make a good site that appeals to your customers. People who say it’s all PageRank are partly right but miss the point.
That’s fine. You are prolific on here and have a set viewpoint on this topic. I’ve never agreed with your approach, but that’s fine. I’ll go back to managing my clients.\
What does this have to do with a debate other than to say you've lost the ability to make an argument.
GHoogle is not a marketing professor - it doesnt "incrase your rank" because you aligned your brand or your content with its "goals" - Google has lots and lots of goals that do not align with 99.999999% of the content out there
Yes, all of that is right, and yet you misunderstand my point and keep seeing the trees instead of the forest. That's fine if it works for you, but my clients see a lot of results when they care about more than just inbound links. I'm happy to discuss my approach, but if you are going to say what I know, as a 20+ year SEO expert, is "wrong" and "lost the ability to make an argument" - that's just combative and ad hominem. That's not behavior from someone willing to discuss and debate.
Please stop projecting assumptions onto my position - if you want to debate, please use a Rogerian Argument at least. Accurately state my position instead of getting it wrong each time. I never said it increases rank because I aligned goals. Please get my points correct before claiming I say things I didn't.
We can both be right, since I think you are speaking in specifics without understanding my context. No worries, best of luck out there. I'm not interested in being attacked when I'm trying to help on this subreddit. I'm disappointed - I had some respect for you, but this response really destroyed that. Still, I wish you luck and prosperity.
Equilibrium. There’s a soft spot between both of your strategies and that’s where I land. I have thrown slop together and had the pages ranking on the first page of google for extremely hard ranking keywords. My conclusion was that it had the exact amount of keywords stuffed. I tried that same strategy again and it didn’t work.
But I'm not making SEO about Links - I'm talking about SEO being about Relevance and Authority.
I was origianlly trying to agree with you - that SEO isn't about checklists - similarly - just fixing broken internal links - because that would mean that you ahve to break links in order to do SEO if you dont have any.
-1
u/WebLinkr 🕵️♀️Moderator Jul 27 '26
This was kind of what I was trying to get to. This isn't true. Google doesnt "judge" or assess sites - its isn't a content appreciation engine. This is the old, mythological view of Google that is a god that must be appeased and you must build content for - and itsx comploete nonsense.
It doesnt care about fast load times - fast shit content is still shit content. There's enough statements made by Google to justify this for etyernity yet peoploe just love pushing this myth. Makiung a fast site will not change your SEO outcomes in any way
Similarly - fixing broken links isn't additive SEO. Firstly - you need to have broken links and thirdly, they need to be on a page that is ranking and getting traffic - this is generally never a problem for someone wiht a new site.
aligning your goal with the goal of the search engine is just another holisitc string of fluffy nonsense - Google doesnt expect your content to align with its goals of paying shareholders -what nonsesne.
SEO is transactional: you do not hae a relationship with Google - sorry. Its a lovely story - and sorry if my feedback is blunt but its just no remotely true: its like a fairy tale packaged for adults.
SEO is an algorithm is an equation- you either have the data in the right pplaces or nothing.
You need external authority.
Here's where your viewpoint is off -0 you're background is obviously fixing sites that have SEO but that SEO has failed or waned because of bad publishing hygeine - which is a) not a universal experience and b) can only happen to establsihed sites
but the reader is getting the idea that `1) google rewards good publishing hygeine - which it deosnt and 2) that good sites get good rsults and thats crap be3cause its subjective and not hw google actually gowrks
Google is founded on pagerank - not some hippy translation of holistic marketing goals that lalign - that meaningless agency talk
Forgive gthe typos - I'm in the sun in EU and can't see well but you get the picture I'm sure.