I've been encountering a lot of dubious claims about SEO from my peers lately. Some of them include: the necessity for a single H1 header located as close to the beginning of the code as possible, the advice against having more than 2-3 H2 headings per page, and the idea that H[n+1] headers should always be "nested" in H[n].



The list goes on to include recommendations about the use of the strong tag, the inclusion of the A tag inside headers, and the impact of self-linking.

I've long felt that SEO is built on a scarcity of objective information and is rife with myths and speculation. It seems to be more based on anecdotal evidence rather than solid data or official dоcumentation.
My question is: where can I find concrete evidence or refutations of these claims? Are there reputable sources or independent research that can provide reliable information on the subject? Feel free to share any helpful links or resources. And let's not shy away from starting a healthy debate on the matter!

Many of the claims you've mentioned have been circulating in the industry for quite some time. It's true that the field of SEO is often filled with anecdotal evidence and lacks concrete, data-backed information. However, there are reliable sources and independent research that can shed light on these matters.

To address the specific claims, let's start with the H1 header recommendation. While it's commonly advised to have a single H1 heading per page, its location in the code doesn't necessarily impact SEO. Search engines have become sophisticated enough to understand the structure of a page regardless of the exact placement of the H1 tag.

Regarding the advice against having more than 2-3 H2 headings per page, this is another area of contention. While there is no hard and fast rule on the number of H2 tags, it's essential to ensure they are used for meaningful section headings and not merely for keyword stuffing.

The idea that H[n+1] headers should always be "nested" in H[n] is a common misconception. While nested headers can provide clarity in the structure of the content, search engines can comprehend the hierarchy of headings even if they are not explicitly nested.

Moving on to the use of the strong tag and the inclusion of the A tag inside headers, these are elements that can contribute to the semantic structure of the content but should be used judiciously and with user experience in mind.

Self-linking has been a topic of debate in the SEO community as well. While internal linking is important for website navigation and distributing link equity, over-optimization or excessive self-linking can have diminishing returns.

To find concrete evidence and refutations of these claims, I recommend turning to reputable sources such as Google's official dоcumentation, industry publications like Search Engine Land, Moz, and independent SEO research studies. These sources often conduct experiments and data analyses to provide insights into best practices.

It's important to approach SEO with a critical mindset, evaluating recommendations based on their alignment with search engine guidelines and user experience principles. Healthy debates within the SEO community can also help in refining our understanding of best practices and debunking myths.

Here are some helpful resources for further exploration:
- Google Webmaster Central: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/
- Search Engine Land: https://searchengineland.com/
- Moz: https://moz.com/blog/

The challenge lies in the lack of reliable information regarding Google's search algorithm. The official dоcumentation from Google often contradicts real-life outcomes, leaving even Google's own team unsure of how their system truly operates. Conducting experiments over several months may still yield subjective results due to the incomplete understanding of the process.

It's understandable why some people have inferred a rule of limiting the use of keywords and their intensity based on their own experiences. This tactic aims to fine-tune the selection of keywords, as they carry more weight and can significantly impact a page's ranking if not used appropriately.

The data is not up to date. If you are using HTML4, then all the points are still applicable. When used properly, clauses 1-5 of HTML5 become irrelevant. Clause 7 is mostly accurate, but there's a catch - multiple links can be used, and for all except one, you can add a "nofollow" attribute. Clause 6 is basically nonsensical.

The issue here is that 9 out of 10 SEO specialists are basically like modern-day shamans with a very limited worldview. These individuals propagate such myths through word of mouth, and it's very challenging to refute them since the science is not precise. The impact of the changes doesn't happen quickly, and given that, let's say, in one month, several alterations are made in different aspects (and not just one point), and after 2-3 months, the results appear, it's almost impossible to comprehend what exactly caused this outcome. Was it due to one of these changes or a combination of them, and which specific combination led to what kind of changes.

Overall, Google is pursuing the right strategy by gradually tightening controls on artificial SEO and emphasizing the importance of CONTENT. This is why organic traffic is referred to as organic - it's a natural outcome directly linked to the quality and relevance of the content.

To rank well in search results, you need a lot of backlinks. Truth: Quality beats quantity in the backlink game. A handful of top-notch backlinks from trustworthy sites outweighs a horde from less credible sources.

The SEO community is plagued by a lack of concrete evidence and a plethora of unsubstantiated claims. It's astonishing that many so-called "experts" continue to peddle myths and speculation as fact. The notion that a single H1 header is necessary, or that H2 headings should be limited to 2-3 per page, is nothing short of absurd.

The use of the strong tag is another example of SEO folklore. Its impact on rankings is negligible, and its primary function is to emphasize important content for accessibility purposes. And as for self-linking, it's a topic that's been beaten to death, with most experts agreeing that it has little to no impact on SEO.

The problem lies in the fact that many SEO "experts" are more concerned with perpetuating myths and selling snake oil than with providing accurate, data-driven information.