That commotion you heard? Today, it’s SEOs criticising Google.
One of Google’s search evangelists, Danny Sullivan, is distancing himself from the cringe-worthy SEO advice included in the new Digital Marketing & E-commerce certification course that Google unveiled on May 2.
what took place. International SEO expert Gianluca Fiorelli’s tweet served as the catalyst for the entire situation. He provided the following screenshot of a slide outlining how to avoid keyword stuffing in it:
Google Digital Marketing course recommendation is as follows:
More than 300 words should be on your website.
Keep your keyword density under the 2% industry average.
This means that the target keywords should make up no more than 2% of the total words on the webpage.
Be careful where you set your keywords.
On each page of your website, your keywords should only appear in the page title, subheading, opening paragraph, and body conclusion.
“Seriously… “Write more than 300 words,” you say? how about “keyword density”? Tweets from Fiorelli. “I mean… Sure, cramming keywords in is awful. but by disseminating SEO fallacies that SEOs work to dispel?
“I am aware that this course is fairly introductory, but precisely because of this, falsehoods like this shouldn’t be taught. Did Google’s SEOs check the curriculum?
This can be disregarded. In his response to Fiorelli, Danny Sullivan, Google’s Search Liaison, essentially rejected the plan.
They weren’t a member of the Search team, and neither am I, according to Sullivan. “As a member of the Search team, we don’t advocate any restrictions, ‘density,’ or similar terms. You can disregard this; I’ll forward it.
He then provided a link to Google’s SEO Starter Guide, which offers search-related tips. The minimum word count or keyword density are not mentioned in that text.
keyword abundance. A keyword’s or phrase’s frequency on a page is indicated by its keyword density, which is expressed as a percentage. You divide the overall frequency of a keyword or phrase by the overall frequency of words. The result is your percentage, which you then multiply by 100. (Alternatively, you can just paste a URL or your content into a free keyword density calculator online.)
The fun part of keyword density is as follows. Numerous SEOs I’ve spoken with in the past claim to have effectively figured out the ideal keyword density in the past, which has aided in page ranking. Depending on who you spoke to (and what year and industry they were using it in), I heard that the ideal keyword density ranged from 2 percent to 10 percent.
So there is some validity to the term density myth. because it previously worked
But let’s be clear: there is no “industry standard” for keyword density.
As early as 2006, when ex-Googler Matt Cutts offered guidance on crafting helpful articles that visitors would adore, Google began to discount the importance of keyword density. He wrote, in part:
.”… in the on-page area, I’d advocate thinking less about keyword density or repeating phrases and more about terms and their variations (the “long-tail”).”
What is the appropriate keyword density for a page?
Key quotations
- “So the first one or two times you use a word, that will definitely enhance your ranking. However, just because you can say something seven or eight times doesn’t necessarily guarantee that it will improve your ranks.
- I wish people would put their obsession with keyword density aside. Everything will change. Depending on where you are and how other websites rank it, it will change. It’s not an absolute rule.
But since 2011, Google search has significantly improved. Today, it’s not unusual to see pages that rank for particular keywords without ever employing those keywords themselves.
Keywords are crucial. However, there isn’t a secret ratio of keywords to content that may ensure visibility and traffic.
Pilot Holding President Eric Enge questioned why Google even addressed keyword density. “Enge” said
“True subject matter experts should develop your content, according to much better suggestions. If you follow that advice, the material will be moderately keyword-rich and naturally related to the subject matter.
Jessica Bowman, an enterprise-level SEO expert, expressed her disbelief at Google’s definition of any keyword density, which Google and SEO authorities had argued about for years. And she added:
- “I do advise authors on how many times to repeat keywords in material (avoid discussing or researching density, though). According to my experience, writers won’t naturally use keywords enough to build relevance for the keyword you want to rank for. This is why we define the number of repetitions for each keyword.
- “When providing writing advice, I employ seven different keyword kinds, such as primary keywords, secondary keywords, terms from authoritative discussions on the subject, words for links, etc. Each must contain a certain amount of repeats. This, in my opinion, points the writer in the direction of creating authoritative, strong material that will rank well in search engines.
The proprietor of Marie Haynes Consulting, Marie Haynes, expressed her surprise at Google’s course’s explicit recommendations regarding keyword density. She questioned whether the author of this course’s material might not have had sufficient SEO expertise.
- This is an excellent illustration of why it’s important to always have a reliable source to cite when offering SEO advice, as is the case with all material on SEO that can be found online. Even if it comes from Google themselves, not everything that is stated online is factual.
SEO word counts. Where did you get that advise in 300 words? I’m pretty sure this is a Yoast page. Try comparing it to:
“For ordinary posts or pages, we advise writing more than 300 words, while product descriptions should be longer than 200 words. How come? A longer word count aids Google in comprehending the subject matter of your text. Additionally, Google often gives longer articles a higher ranking.
Regarding what Google states in its course:
- More than 300 words should be on your website.
- If you publish more high-quality content, your website will probably be listed higher on search engine result pages.
See how they are alike? It might be an accident. Or not.
John Mueller from Google stated the following in:
- Tweeted in 2018: “Quality is not based on word count. Many of the words on some pages are silent. Some pages contain just a few words, but those words are crucial and pertinent to searches. You are the best judge of your content’s need for the intricacies because you (ideally) know it the best.
- Word count is not a ranking element on Reddit in 2019.
- Google Search Central SEO Office Hours video from 2021: “From our perspective, the quantity of words on a page is neither a ranking nor a quality factor. Thus, improving a page by simply adding more text doesn’t work.
According to Milestone’s president and founder, Benu Aggarwal, any discussion about producing high-quality content should not include Google bringing up word counts. Added Aggarwal:
- “Creating high-quality content requires knowing four things about your audience: who they are, what they are interested in, what they want to achieve, and what questions they have. Prior to developing pertinent and timely material, it is essential to understand this. I believe Google should have revised its policies to reflect changes.
Nevertheless, SEO research has long focused on the relationship between word count and ranking. The issue is that correlation studies are typically conducted for amusement purposes solely, as is always the case.
I started in SEO in 2007. At the time, 250 words was regarded as the ideal length for blog postings. After that, it essentially began to rise periodically. 250 increased to 500, 1,000, and finally 1,500. When I last checked, HubSpot claimed that blog entries should be between 2,100 and 2,400 words long.
Additionally, we had several ideas that were momentarily popular, such as 10x content and skyscraper content (until people realised “results may vary” and not everyone wanted to read a novella before learning how to install a lightbulb).
Simple is best when it comes to content writing: write what it’s worth. It should be lengthy enough to be thorough and superior to anything your rivals have already released.
In terms of word count, there are many scenarios where the answer is “it depends”: the type of material, the format, your purpose, your audience, your industry, the search intent, and many other factors. A blog post is not a product page or any other form of page, either. According to Enge,
Just to draw attention to one obvious problem, one would anticipate that many e-commerce pages would have fewer than 300 words on the page, and probably very little to nothing that appears in some sort of a paragraph (i.e., largely bullet lists of features).
Simply said, write what it’s worth when creating content, is my advise. It ought to be thorough and superior to what your rivals have published, and it ought to be lengthy enough.
Word count is one of those situations where the answer is actually “it depends” — it depends on the kind of content you’re writing, the format, your purpose, your audience, your industry, your search intent, and many other factors. Additionally, blog postings aren’t product pages or any other kind of page. As Enge informed me:
“Just to draw attention to one clear problem, on many e-commerce pages you’d expect that there would be less than 300 words on the page, and probably little to nothing that appears in some sort of a paragraph (i.e., largely bullet lists of features)”
Over time, a lot of false SEO myths have circulated. However, the majority of those falsehoods can always be linked back to the findings reached by influencers and practitioners who published articles or “research studies,” gave presentations at conferences, or posted updates on social media.
Nothing as detailed and flat-out incoIt is preferable to learn about SEO from thought leaders in the field who have been there for some time. This way, you can see what strategies appear to be effective and legitimate across the board and can tell what advice is terrible or dubious. From there, decide which “person” you want to train you and your team, as this Google certification demonstrates, even well-known and reputable corporations have employees that offer poor advise.
In actuality, the majority of Google search representatives have attempted to dispel these false SEO beliefs in the past. Repeatedly.
rrect as this has ever been suggested by Google in its extensive high-level guidelines on SEO best practises, let alone in digital marketing training that leads to a Google certification.
Despite the fact that it was recently published, Bowman stated that this is another another lesson to be cautious about the kind of stuff you read. Bowman further added:
why we care Google promoted this certification as a means of retraining or upskilling workers. The issue is that this course gives poor SEO guidance. Anyone who enrols in this course will pick up damaging habits that someone will eventually need to assist them in unlearning.
Yes, the course is currently “free.” However, individuals spend their time (which is one resource they can never get back) on this certification in order to learn subpar SEO techniques that wouldn’t have even helped you rank ten years ago.
While Sullivan dismissed it and said it could be ignored, it’s unlikely that the students taking the course will read his tweet rebuking it. Or the other tweets and updates on social media pointing out its errors.
Jori Ford, chief marketing officer of FoodBoss, praised Sullivan for his answer but expressed desire for a more considered one that describes what Google is doing to remedy or rectify rather than merely advising users not to heed the advice. Ford stated:
We all make mistakes, but even Google advises utilising SEOs since, let’s face it, search is always evolving and not even internal teams can keep up. This is a good illustration of that.
Google came to the conclusion that SEO certification was a “poor idea” in 2016. So they were correct. Here we are in 2022, and Google now offers a certification in digital marketing that includes SEO.
A reputable source is Google. It is the world’s largest search engine. The majority of students in this course (again, instructed by Google workers who are subject-matter experts) will believe what they are learning about SEO. I’m hoping Google will update this training and have real SEO subject-matter experts examine it.
If Google continues to propagate SEO falsehoods, they will just spread like a virus. But this time, Google itself is the source of the myth.
Update (May 11): Google has taken down the course’s keyword research and keyword stuffing sections. Using the screenshot below, Fiorelli tweeted an updated look at the Week 3 segment of the course.
