Common SEO myths and what is actually documented

SEO has a large folklore. Some of it was true years ago, some was never true, and some is sold as a service. This lesson checks common claims against what Google has documented. The evidence labels used across this site, documented, common practice, evolving and myth, come from this kind of checking.

Claims Google has addressed directly

Google's SEO Starter Guide has a section on things it believes you should not focus on. Most of these myths come from that section.

MythThe meta keywords tag helps rankings

What is documented

Google Search does not use the keywords meta tag. Filling it in does no harm, but it does nothing for Google.

MythRepeating the keyword more often helps

What is documented

Keyword stuffing is against Google's spam policies. Use the words your readers use, naturally, where they belong.

MythYou need a keyword in your domain name

What is documented

Google says keywords in the domain name or URL path have hardly any effect beyond appearing in breadcrumbs. A memorable brand name is a better choice.

MythPages need at least 1,000 (or 2,000) words

What is documented

There is no minimum or maximum word count. Google's people-first guidance lists writing to a word count, because you believe Google prefers it, as a warning sign.

MythDuplicate content gets you penalised

What is documented

Duplicate content on your own site is not a spam policy violation and does not cause a manual action. It can still waste crawling and make Google show a URL you did not choose, so it is worth fixing with canonicals or redirects.

MythHeadings must be in strict order, with exactly one H1

What is documented

Google says heading order does not matter for Search, and there is no ideal number of headings. Logical headings still help readers and screen reader users, so use them for structure.

MythE-E-A-T is a score you can optimise

What is documented

Google says E-E-A-T is not itself a ranking factor. It is a framework from the rater guidelines, covered in the previous lesson.

Claims about technical details

MythTitles must be under 60 characters

What is documented

Google has no title length limit. Titles are truncated to fit the screen, so keep the important words first. The 60-character figure is a rule of thumb about truncation.

MythSubmitting a sitemap gets pages indexed

What is documented

A sitemap helps discovery. Google calls it a hint, and indexing is never guaranteed.

MythUpdating the date makes content fresh

What is documented

Changing dates without substantially changing the content is listed by Google as a sign of search engine-first content. Update the content, then the date.

MythA perfect PageSpeed score means top rankings

What is documented

Google says Core Web Vitals are used by its ranking systems, but it shows the most relevant content even when page experience is weaker. Speed is worth improving, mainly for users. It will not rescue a less relevant page.

Claims about AI search

MythYou need special files or markup for Google's AI Overviews

What is documented

Google says there are no extra requirements and no special optimisation for AI Overviews or AI Mode. No new machine-readable files, AI text files or special schema are needed. A page must be indexed and eligible to show a snippet.

MythAI-written content is banned by Google

What is documented

Google does not ban content because AI was used. Its scaled content abuse policy targets mass-produced, low-value content made mainly to manipulate rankings, however it was produced.

Many AEO and GEO tactics are new and untested. The AI search module labels them "evolving" until there is real evidence.

How to judge a new claim

When you meet a new tip, ask five questions:

1. Who says it? Search engine documentation, independent research, a tool vendor selling a solution, or someone's single experience?
2. What is the evidence? One site's before-and-after change can be coincidence, because rankings change all the time. Look for many sites, a control group and a clear time frame.
3. Is there a plausible mechanism? Would it help users, or only "trick" an algorithm?
4. Is it current? Check the date, and Google's documentation changelog. Many tactics stopped working years ago.
5. What does it cost if it is wrong? Cheap, harmless tests are fine. Risky tactics are not worth an unproven gain.

Correlation is not causation

Many SEO studies find that top-ranking pages have some property, such as more words, more backlinks or faster loading. That does not prove the property causes the ranking. Pages that rank well are often from established sites that do many things well at once. Treat correlation studies as hints for what to test, not as rules.