Most SEO myths survive because nobody checks the primary source. Google’s own SEO Starter Guide has a section titled “Things we believe you shouldn’t focus on”, and it settles several arguments that still fill forums, audit reports and client calls. This post goes through each one, quotes Google verbatim, and says what to do instead. It also says where Google’s word stops being the whole story, because that matters too.
Common SEO myths about keywords
Keyword placement is where the oldest advice lives, and where Google is bluntest. Three beliefs come up again and again: that the meta keywords tag helps, that repetition signals relevance, and that an exact-match domain gives you a head start.
The meta keywords tag. Google’s answer is one sentence: “Google Search doesn’t use the keywords meta tag.” Plugins still offer the field and some audits still flag it as missing. It is not missing anything. Filling it in costs time and, if anything, hands competitors a neat list of your targets.
Keyword stuffing. Google goes further than calling it useless: “Excessively repeating the same words over and over (even in variations) is tiring for users, and keyword stuffing is against Google’s spam policies.” Note the bracket. Swapping in close variants to hit a density target is still stuffing. There is no density number to aim for, and chasing one produces copy that reads badly to the people you want to convert.
Keywords in the domain or URL. “The keywords in the name of the domain (or URL path) alone have hardly any effect beyond appearing in breadcrumbs.” The word doing the work is “alone”. A descriptive URL is still tidy and readable. It is not a ranking lever, and paying a premium for an exact-match domain on that basis is paying for something Google says barely registers.
The content length and structure myths
Word counts are the myth with the most commercial momentum behind it, because content briefs and writing tools are often built around a target length. Google’s position is unambiguous, and slightly dry: “The length of the content alone doesn’t matter for ranking purposes (there’s no magical word count target, minimum or maximum, though you probably want to have at least one word).”
Again, “alone” is the qualifier. Long pages often rank because they answer more of the question, not because they are long. Padding a 600-word answer to 2,000 words to match the competition adds nothing Google says it measures, and it buries the answer the reader came for. Our SEO writing tips cover how to judge length by the query instead.
Heading order. Audits regularly flag an H3 that follows an H1, or a page with two H1s. Google’s view: “From Google Search perspective, it doesn’t matter if you’re using them out of order.” Clean heading structure still helps readers and screen readers, which is reason enough to keep it sensible. It is not a ranking fix.
Subdomains versus subdirectories. This argument has run for over a decade. Google’s answer declines to pick a side: “From a business point of view, do whatever makes sense for your business.” Our post on subdomain vs subfolder covers the practical trade-offs, which are about maintenance and internal linking rather than a ranking preference.
SEO myths vs facts: the full list
Here is the whole section side by side. The middle column is Google’s wording, quoted exactly. The right column is what we would do with it.
| Myth | What Google says | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Meta keywords help | “Google Search doesn’t use the keywords meta tag.” | Ignore the field |
| Repeat the keyword more | “keyword stuffing is against Google’s spam policies” | Write for the reader; drop density targets |
| Keyword domains rank | “hardly any effect beyond appearing in breadcrumbs” | Pick a brandable name |
| Longer ranks better | “there’s no magical word count target, minimum or maximum” | Match length to the query |
| Subdomains lose authority | “do whatever makes sense for your business” | Decide on operations, not myth |
| Links are everything | “there’s much more to Google Search than just links” | Earn links; do not stop at links |
| Duplicate content penalty | “it’s fine; don’t fret about it” | Canonicalise where useful; stop worrying |
| Headings must be in order | “it doesn’t matter if you’re using them out of order” | Structure for readers |
| E-E-A-T is a ranking factor | “No, it’s not.” | Show real expertise anyway |
Links, duplicates and E-E-A-T
PageRank. “While PageRank uses links and is one of the fundamental algorithms at Google, there’s much more to Google Search than just links.” Read both halves. Links are fundamental; they are not the whole system. That cuts against two camps at once: those who think links are dead and those who think a link count is a ranking plan.
The duplicate content “penalty”. “If you have some content that’s accessible under multiple URLs, it’s fine; don’t fret about it.” Google picks a version to show. That can mean the wrong URL ranks, which is worth fixing with canonicals or redirects, but it is a housekeeping problem rather than a punishment. Our guide to duplicate content and SEO separates the two. Scraped or spun copy published to manipulate rankings is a different matter and falls under spam policy, not this line.
E-E-A-T as a ranking factor. Asked directly whether it is one, Google answers: “No, it’s not.” This is the most misunderstood item on the list. Experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust describe what Google wants its systems to reward, as used by its quality raters. They are not a score attached to your page. Adding an author box does not move a dial. Being the kind of site a knowledgeable person would trust still matters, because that is what the actual systems are trying to find.
Where Google’s list stops
The limitation is built into the source. Google’s list says what it does not use or care about. It does not rank what does matter, and it does not tell you how much weight any remaining signal carries. Knowing that meta keywords are ignored saves you time; it does not tell you where to spend it.
It is also worth holding public statements loosely. The Google algorithm leak showed that Google’s public explanations and its internal documentation do not always line up neatly. Where the Starter Guide says something is ignored and practitioners have seen the opposite, test it on your own pages before accepting either side.
That said, the items on this list are the low-risk ones to drop. None of them asks you to stop doing anything that helps readers. They ask you to stop doing things for a ranking benefit Google says does not exist: filling in a dead meta tag, padding word counts, buying a domain for its keywords, rewriting headings to satisfy an audit tool. That frees time for the work that is harder to fake, which is answering the query better than the pages already ranking for it. If your audit checklist still scores any of the nine items above, rewrite the checklist first. It is cheaper than rewriting pages to satisfy rules Google says it does not apply, and it stops the same myths reaching your next client report.
Frequently asked questions
Does Google use the meta keywords tag?
No. Google’s SEO Starter Guide states that Google Search doesn’t use the keywords meta tag.
Is there a minimum word count for ranking?
No. Google says there is no magical word count target, minimum or maximum. Length alone does not matter for ranking.
Is E-E-A-T a ranking factor?
Google’s answer is “No, it’s not.” It describes qualities its systems aim to reward, not a score applied to pages.
Does duplicate content get a penalty?
Not for content accessible under multiple URLs. Google says that is fine. Deliberately copied content made to manipulate rankings is a spam issue.
The takeaway Drop the nine habits Google says it ignores, keep what helps readers, and treat Google’s list as a floor, not a ranking map.
