Google’s Martin Splitt recently raised concerns about the effectiveness of specific recommendations made by SEO auditing tools. While he acknowledged that some advice may be valid, he emphasized that much of it has little to no impact on SEO. He pointed out that these audits could be useful for other purposes but their direct influence on SEO remains limited.
Automated SEO Audits
During this month’s Google SEO Office Hours with hosts John Mueller and Martin Splitt, a participant inquired about how to handle suggestions from automated SEO tools that don’t align with Google’s documented best practices.
The Question:
“Several free website audits suggested changes that are not mentioned in the search central documentation. Do these things matter for SEO?”
Martin Splitt’s Take on Automated SEO Audits
Martin acknowledged that many suggestions from SEO auditing tools aren’t relevant to SEO:
“A lot of these audits don’t specifically focus on SEO and include outdated or irrelevant advice. For instance, Google search doesn’t care about text to code ratio.”
He continued by addressing minification of CSS and JavaScript:
“Not minifying CSS and JavaScript is suboptimal for users because it increases data transfer, but it doesn’t have direct implications on your SEO. Still, it’s a good practice.”
SEO Is Subjective
Some practitioners view SEO practices as a set of clearly defined rules, but in reality, apart from Google’s official documentation, SEO largely involves personal interpretation. Google’s Search Central documentation provides a baseline for what is considered canonical SEO. The term “orthodox” describes traditional beliefs and practices in SEO, which often do not evolve with changing algorithms.
Examples of Orthodox SEO Beliefs:
- Meta descriptions should be under 164 words
- Keywords must be in titles, headings, meta descriptions, and alt tags
- Titles should be “compelling” and “click-worthy”
- H1 tags are strong SEO signals
These practices have become part of the orthodox belief system but may not impact how Google currently ranks websites.
Limitations of Google’s Documentation
Martin Splitt advised cross-referencing official Google documentation with recommendations from SEO tools to align with best practices, a suggestion worth following. However, Google’s documentation is limited in that it doesn’t reveal how to manipulate ranking algorithms. It simply outlines best practices for site optimization.
Historically, attempts to decipher Google’s ranking algorithms from their guidelines have fallen short. The guidelines only offer a generalized framework, leaving SEOs the task of distinguishing between canonical practices, outdated beliefs, and baseless assumptions.
Informed SEO Advice
Experienced SEO practitioners, like those at Search Engine Journal, strive to provide well-informed advice, even if it contradicts common assumptions. Their insights are based on informed opinions rather than conjecture.
Featured Image by Shutterstock/Ljupco Smokovski
