I spend a lot of time here documenting what Google spokespeople are saying in terms of SEO and webmaster advice. Often, I don't spend the time going into all of the alternatives around the statement.
For example, yesterday, I documented how one Googlers said technically and theoretically, you can get away without using the disavow tool and just get better links to recover from Penguin. Many took that to mean, you don't need to disavow to recover. Truth is, you need to do both. You need to get rid of the junky links bringing you down and get better links the "natural way."
I said all of that, but I focused in on the on-the-record statement from Google that theoretically it is possible to recover without disavowing. Which is pretty cool to have on record.
But some SEOs are upset with how Google answers these questions. They use "should" or "shouldn't," the words "generally" or "theoretically," and then people like me quote them and SEOs like you read it and some of you take it at face value, when there is often a lot more to it than just that.
Alan Bleiweiss posted on Twitter a rant about how Googlers answer questions:
The problem with Google reps saying "should" and "shouldn't" is algorithms and sites are NOT in ideal shape. Ever.
— Alan Bleiweiss (@AlanBleiweiss) January 12, 2015Yea, many of the Googlers do not know the full algorithm. They understand how it should work but it doesn't always work that way.
Do Googlers answering these questions need to stop answering questions in theoretical terms? Do they need to be more confident in their answers? Do they need better training or access?
Don't get me wrong, Google often does give specific advice to specific problems to specific webmasters. But often, they answer in generalities that lead to some issues.
Truth is, Google can't win. The more they share, the more we learn, the more we want more and more. It is really never ending.
Forum discussion at Twitter.
