A post by Google's Danny Sullivan on the r/SEO subreddit intended to dispel misinformation was removed by moderators without explanation, but appears to have since been reposted. This is not an isolated incident, and posts by John Mueller were also removed without explanation, giving the impression that r/SEO moderation is biased against Google to the point of actual hostility.
This isn't the first time a Google employee's post has been deleted. The same thing happened to John Mueller.
It was bad enough that the original post misrepresented what SearchLiaison had said, but it was even worse that moderators removed a post by a Google representative who corrected the misinformation.
One has to wonder, what value does the r/SEO subreddit have if Google representatives are unable to respond to misinformation or provide assistance? yeah.
Redditor misunderstands Google
The original post was about one statement taken out of context in a larger tweet by SearchLiaison.
The context that comes to the Redditor's mind is that SearchLiaison is encouraging publishers to do something for their readers, not because they read somewhere that it's good for rankings. was.
The context is:
We want to do something meaningful for our visitors. In order to “show Google” that you have a great site, your site needs to be great for your visitors. Don't add anything you think is just for Google.
Doing things that you think are just for Google will put you behind, rather than ahead of, what our ranking system is trying to reward. ”
SearchLiaison has listed the things that SEO does that it thinks will improve your Google rankings.
partial list of what happened tweeted:
– Someone says that an 'expert' has reviewed the content because they mistakenly believe that's who is ranking them.
– The weird table of contents is being pushed to the top because somewhere along the way it somehow made people think you were ranked better
– If the page has been updated within a few days or even on the same day, the content doesn’t need anything particularly new, and someone probably thought it was “showing Google” with a very light rewrite and new date. may have been added. Fresh content will help you rank better. ”
A Redditor commented:
“For me, it was a ridiculous thing for a search liaison to say, because it’s really ridiculous to believe that using or not using TOC makes a difference in SERP rankings.
If he takes his claim of not showing up on Google even further, he might remove breadcrumbs, internal links, and related posts. In other words, anything that has value for SEO.
So that was really pointless advice from Google.
But I'm sure many bloggers will take this as gospel and remove the table of contents from their sites in desperation. ”
Of course, as any objective person can tell, SearchLiaison wasn't advising anyone to remove the table of contents from their articles. He's just advocating what's best for the user, and rightly so. If your users don't like the table of contents, we recommend that you delete it, as it won't affect Google.
And that advice was actually a gift because it helped me avoid wasting my time doing things that would annoy my readers, which is never a good thing.
r/SEO subreddit upvotes misinformation
The strange thing about this thread is that misinformation is upvoted and people who understand what's actually going on are ignored.
This is an example of a post that completely misunderstood what SearchLiaison posted, repeated incorrect information, and received 16 upvotes, but only a few people with the correct understanding upvoted it. Five times.
This useless post has 16 upvotes.
“I couldn't understand why he thought tables of contents were useless. Even before we had the Internet, we used tables of contents in books and magazines to find what we were looking for…and the same goes for long posts. I’m here…”
And it received just 5 up votes.
“He never said that tables of contents are useless. Sometimes they are.”
Danny Sullivan's post is restored
Danny's post on the r/SEO subreddit has since been restored. It was a thoughtful response spanning 1,120 words. Why would the moderators of the r/SEO subreddit delete it? There's no good reason to delete it, but there are easily at least 100 good reasons to keep Danny's post.
Partial screenshot of Danny's 1,200 word answer
John Mueller's post was also deleted.
Myself and others who write about SEO have noticed that John Mueller's posts have also disappeared. At Search Engine Journal, we have made it a practice to take a snapshot of Mueller's posts when writing about them. Because articles tend to disappear from time to time.
John Mueller's Deleted Post 4 Composite Images
Is the R/SEO subreddit broken?
The inexcusable deletion of posts by Danny Sullivan and John Mueller creates a perception that the r/SEO subreddit's administrative team is biased against Google and does not welcome their contributions.
Did the moderators remove these posts because they were biased against Google? Did they remove the posts due to incorrect anti-spam link rules?
Whatever the reason for their actions against Google employees, this is a very negative impression on the r/SEO subreddit.
Featured image by Shutterstock/Roman Samborskyi