SEO myths that refuse to die

A useful SEO recommendation should explain the problem, the proposed change and how you will assess the result. A promise built around a magic number deserves a closer look.

These seven claims can lead business owners towards unnecessary work. The corrections below are deliberately narrower than the myths: replacing one absolute with another would not help.

1. "Submitting a site guarantees inclusion"

A sitemap helps communicate URLs; it does not guarantee indexing. Check access and indexing information for important pages after submission. Our sitemap guide covers that process and links to Google's documentation.

For participating search engines, IndexNow can notify them when URLs change. Notification is not a guarantee of crawling, indexing or ranking. Its usefulness depends on your publishing workflow, not simply whether the site is large.

2. "Fill in the meta keywords field"

Google says the keywords meta tag has no effect on its indexing or ranking. Its supported metadata documentation explains that distinction.

That does not mean all page metadata is unimportant. Check the title, description and indexing controls for their actual purposes. A meta description may influence the displayed snippet, but Google can select other page text.

3. "Every page needs a particular word count"

Google's SEO Starter Guide rejects a magical minimum or maximum word count. Match the depth to the question.

A booking page and an equipment comparison have different jobs. Our recommended test is whether the reader has enough accurate information to act, without wading through repetition. Read why keyword density is not a target for the related percentage myth.

4. "Domain Rating is Google's score"

Domain Rating is an Ahrefs metric. Ahrefs explicitly says it is not used by search engines as a ranking factor.

A third-party score may help compare a tool's observations, but raising it is not the same as gaining suitable enquiries. Ask an agency to report business-relevant outcomes alongside any diagnostic metrics.

5. "Disavow every suspicious backlink"

Google describes disavow as an advanced tool that most sites do not need. Its stated conditions concern substantial artificial or low-quality links that caused, or are likely to cause, a manual action. Incorrect use can harm performance. Read the disavow documentation before considering it.

A tool marking a link “toxic” is not, by itself, that diagnosis. Investigate the situation and any relevant history of link-building before taking action.

6. "AI assistance automatically makes a page unacceptable"

Google's generative AI content guidance focuses on providing value and warns about generating many pages without it. Neither using a model nor adding a human byline proves the result is useful.

Our recommendation is to check important claims, label examples honestly and include information the reader actually needs. An unchecked human draft can also be poor content.

7. "Every duplicate URL causes a penalty"

Ordinary duplicate content is not automatically a spam-policy violation. It can still confuse visitors and complicate which URL represents the content. Google's canonicalisation guide explains how it selects representative URLs.

Handle redirects, canonical signals and internal links consistently. Do not turn that advice into permission to copy other publishers' work; that is a separate issue.

A buying check worth keeping

Before paying for an SEO package, ask:

• Which problem on our site does this address?
• What directly supports the recommendation?
• What deliverable will we receive and own?
• What result can be measured, and what remains uncertain?

If the answer is only “the score will go up”, ask what that change would mean for your customers.

Continue with the SEO basics reading path. Our editorial approach explains how this publication uses sources and handles uncertainty.