4 ms·

What are you talking about? I've been in SEO for a while and there are a lot of myths but I've never heard anything quite this wrong before.

Ensorceled 4y ago
It's a pretty persistent "myth" ... do you have any support that it's a myth other than "I've been in SEO for a while"?
- mikestew 4y ago
  Do you have any support that it’s not a myth, other than…”a lot of people are saying…”? I mean, burden’s on the one making the claim, not the other way around.
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    There are literally "a lot of people saying" it isn't a myth, I've heard them, and one guy saying it is a myth and is an expert ... so, seems like that expert could straighten the issue out for us? I mean, the burden is on both sides here but one has "been in SEO for a while".
    - nicbou 4y ago
      What's asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Also the first claim is not falsifiable.
      - Ensorceled 4y ago
        Ummm, sure, I'm not disputing that. Just saying the expert could do us a favour ...
- weird-eye-issue 4y ago
  Google doesn't need GA data. They know how many times people see sites in search results, how many people click them, and if people go back to make the same search again. Besides, GA data is easily faked. I can give a site a low bounce rate or make it look like people spend a long time on a page. Google can't trust their own Analytics data because of this since it is client provided. Sounds like a myth non-SEO people believe because, again, I've never even heard this before. And SEOs believe a lot of myths but this one is just too stupid
fooey 4y ago
Yeah, it's obviously an urban legend People will do an update on their site, which includes removing GA, then blame GA exclusively for tanking their rankings. All of which is probably coincidental to an algorithm change that was going to de-rank them anyways
- hericium 4y ago
  > Yeah, it's obviously an urban legend Urban legend clearly benefiting Google.

Ensorceled 4y ago

It's a pretty persistent "myth" ... do you have any support that it's a myth other than "I've been in SEO for a while"?

mikestew 4y ago
Do you have any support that it’s not a myth, other than…”a lot of people are saying…”? I mean, burden’s on the one making the claim, not the other way around.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  There are literally "a lot of people saying" it isn't a myth, I've heard them, and one guy saying it is a myth and is an expert ... so, seems like that expert could straighten the issue out for us? I mean, the burden is on both sides here but one has "been in SEO for a while".
  - nicbou 4y ago
    What's asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Also the first claim is not falsifiable.
    - Ensorceled 4y ago
      Ummm, sure, I'm not disputing that. Just saying the expert could do us a favour ...
weird-eye-issue 4y ago
Google doesn't need GA data. They know how many times people see sites in search results, how many people click them, and if people go back to make the same search again. Besides, GA data is easily faked. I can give a site a low bounce rate or make it look like people spend a long time on a page. Google can't trust their own Analytics data because of this since it is client provided. Sounds like a myth non-SEO people believe because, again, I've never even heard this before. And SEOs believe a lot of myths but this one is just too stupid

fooey 4y ago

Yeah, it's obviously an urban legend People will do an update on their site, which includes removing GA, then blame GA exclusively for tanking their rankings. All of which is probably coincidental to an algorithm change that was going to de-rank them anyways

hericium 4y ago
> Yeah, it's obviously an urban legend Urban legend clearly benefiting Google.