The term “obsolete” in this context means ineffective, unnecessary, or redundant. Below are three examples of such outdated SEO practices:
- Expired Domains Some SEO experts believe that buying expired domains is a relatively new trend. In reality, this misconception has been around for more than twenty years. Old-school SEO professionals abandoned this practice in 2003 when Google developed mechanisms to reset the PageRank of expired domains. Everyone who relied on this strategy experienced a sharp decline in effectiveness when it stopped working. Purchasing expired domains as a ranking strategy is a prime example of an obsolete SEO practice.
- Search Engines and Paid Links Paid links represent another outdated practice. While they might temporarily boost a site’s ranking, these improvements are usually short-lived. The likely reason lies in how Google and other search engines neutralize PageRank benefits from paid links, ensuring a website ranks where it naturally should, without disrupting businesses. It wasn’t always like this, though. Take, for example, the infamous “Google Penguin” algorithm update in 2012, which wreaked havoc. Thousands of websites, from big brands to affiliate sites, lost their rankings without exception. Paid links offer a false sense of security—it’s time to move on. For professionals unwilling to risk creating a new domain, avoiding paid links is essential.
- “index, follow” Meta Tag Using the <meta name=”robots” content=”index, follow” /> tag is another redundant practice. Search engines index pages by default, so instructing them to do so is unnecessary—like reminding yourself to breathe.
Keyword stuffing is another outdated tactic. While many SEO strategies begin with keyword research, stuffing content with keywords overlooks modern search engines’ reliance on natural language processing.
If your content revolves around a keyword, include it naturally. Use headings to reflect the page’s content, but avoid turning them into mere keyword containers. Excessive emphasis on keywords is a classic example of SEO that undermines itself.
A common SEO approach involves analyzing high-ranking competitors’ content and creating similar, slightly improved versions. On the surface, this might seem logical, but it’s flawed. Mimicking competitors’ content while aiming to “do it better” is an inherently absurd strategy. It’s no surprise when Google refuses to index such copied material.
When publishers operate under the belief that “more content is what search engines want,” they’re often heading in the wrong direction. One common misconception stems from the idea that websites with more content on related topics will rank better. Instead, content creation should anticipate what the next question in a user’s query series might be. For example, after asking, “How to build a birdhouse,” the logical next question might be, “What type of wood should I use?” This approach emphasizes delivering relevant, user-focused content, aligning with AI-driven search systems. Publish content based on your expertise, experience, and understanding of what users need.
One long-standing bad SEO habit involves analyzing millions of search results and drawing conclusions. Such conclusions about links, word counts, structured data, and domain rating metrics fail to account for the complexity of modern ranking systems.
Here’s why “research-based” SEO conclusions should be avoided:
- Rankings result from numerous signals and systems working in tandem.
- Focusing on millions of results ignores the impact of natural language processing systems like BERT, which interpret queries and documents.
- These studies often present findings as though Google still ranks based on traditional “ten blue links,” overlooking features like images, video, shopping results, and snippets—making them more outdated than ever.
Reminder: SEO is subjective. Each project requires meticulous analysis to develop a tailored, effective promotion strategy.
SEM MasterPlus: Complex website promotion
Source: searchenginejournal
