SEO enthusiasts! Looks like we’ve got some juicy news from the Google camp. Martin Splitt from Google has been stirring the pot, questioning some of the advice dished out by SEO audit tools. Now, don’t panic! He’s not saying it’s all hogwash, but he’s suggesting that a lot of it might not be the SEO game-changer you thought it was.
What About Automated SEO Audits?
This month’s Google SEO Office Hours was co-hosted by John Mueller and Martin Splitt. The discussion took an interesting turn when a participant asked whether they should follow suggestions from automated SEO tools, especially when those suggestions don’t seem to align with anything in Google’s official guidelines.
The question posed was:
“I run several free website audits; some of them suggested things that were never mentioned in the search central documentation. Do these things matter for SEO?”
Martin Splitt’s take on automated SEO audits
Splitt’s response was clear: not all the suggestions from these audit tools are necessary for SEO.
He said:
“A lot of these audits don’t specifically focus on SEO, and those that don’t still mention a bunch of outdated or downright irrelevant things, unfortunately. I’ll give you some examples. The text to code ratio, for instance, is not a thing. Google search doesn’t care about it.”
To break it down, the text-to-code ratio is a way of comparing the amount of text to the amount of code on a webpage. Some people used to think this ratio mattered for SEO, but Splitt’s comment makes it clear that Google doesn’t factor this into its rankings.
Splitt also talked about minification, which is the process of making your code smaller by removing spaces and line breaks. This makes the files smaller, which is good for users because it speeds up loading times. But when it comes to SEO, this doesn’t have a direct impact.
Splitt explained:
“CSS, JavaScript, not minified that you got apparently as well is suboptimal for your users because you’re shipping more data over the wire, but it doesn’t have direct implications on your SEO. It is a good practice though.”
SEO: Objective or Subjective?
Some folks think that SEO is a set of strict rules, almost like a science. But Splitt pointed out that SEO, outside of what Google officially states, is largely up for interpretation. The term “canonical” refers to something recognized as the official standard, and in the world of SEO, Google’s Search Central documentation is that standard. It’s what everyone can agree on as being true.
Orthodox SEO includes long-standing practices that are accepted simply because they’ve been around for years. The issue is that these methods often don’t adapt to changes in the digital landscape. For example, keyword research, which predates Google, is still done much the same way today, despite the evolution of search engine algorithms.
Other examples of outdated SEO practices include:
- Thinking meta descriptions must be under 164 words.
- Believing that keywords are required in titles, headings, meta descriptions, and alt tags.
- Assuming that titles need to be “compelling” or “click-worthy.”
- Holding on to the idea that H1 tags are a strong SEO signal.
These practices were significant two decades ago, but they don’t really play a role in how Google ranks websites today—if they ever did. Google has moved beyond these signals, so it’s essential to recognize that not all old SEO practices are still relevant.
The Limits of Google’s Documentation
Splitt recommended cross-checking Google’s official documentation with what SEO auditing tools suggest. This ensures that the advice aligns with Google’s best practices, which is always a smart move.
However, it’s also worth noting that Google’s documentation doesn’t cover everything. It’s designed to show the best ways to make your site easy to understand, index, and use for visitors—not to teach you how to game the system. Google doesn’t reveal how to manipulate its algorithms, which is why some newer SEOs who tried to interpret Google’s Search Quality Raters guidelines ended up having to take back their suggestions, like the ones about creating “authorship signals” or “expertise signals.”
If you want to hear the conversation yourself, you can listen in at the 11:56-minute mark.
