Creator Profile Avatar for David G Quaid
David G Quaid
Creator Profile Avatar for David G Quaid

David G Quaid

@davidgquaid8.35K total followers

Latest posts

👀 POV: you run an SEO aggregator that barely ranks, so you need PR. You survey "130+ search experts," slap it in a report, and go shopping for headlines. 📰 Sounds like a solid SEO plan. 🧠 One problem: half your respondents clearly can't tell SEO from a Meta ad. 🤦 So the report drops, and it does three things at once: 🪦 Resurrects myths that should have stayed dead ("just add an llms.txt," "schema is a ranking factor") 🫠 Drags the other half's names through the mud by association 😮‍💨 Lands on an audience that's already exhausted by SEO checklists The fix was one email. 📧 Send participants Google's own AI Search guidance before they answer. That's it. What's disappointing isn't the report. It's the industry response: produce it 🏭, celebrate it 🎉, and not one participant asked to have their name pulled. 🤐 If the "good ol' boys club" 🥃 wants to be our thought leaders, the least we can ask for is some thinking. 💭 (Names changed to protect the guilty as charged. ⚖️)

X (Twitter) · 1 day

So here's a question @patrickstox -=- parking the embarrassment of the Zipie "Survey" - how is that indexed and ranking? I've read surveys with much better information I've read Google docs with more ranking factors mentioned I've read Google docs that basically call the outcome of the Zipie Survey BS For example - the Google SEO Starter Guide and the Google Dev Guie, SE Roundtable. Google itself, technically knows more about SEO that anyone else - although using Gemini one could easily see that they dont share that. How is this survey with at least 10 points in completely ddebunked (author profiles, "depth", PageSpeed, schema, I can go on and on) - indexable? I can understand information gian in AIOs and synthesis - because this an almost automatic and expected outcome. But I've posted enough content - the King of AEO a fine example - to cough and say it doesn apply to Google's search index. Further - the Google document talking about 'commodity content" and information gain -

X (Twitter) · 1 day

Information Gain - lets walk throught logic 1) Its highly plausible 2) It sounds good - it makes sense 3) It points to Google "saving" the index, if that is a stated goal -- yet there's 0 signs of Google running out of space or that this would make any significant saving -and very few people are in a place to decide that. More conjecture here doesnt help 4) there's a patent we can point to So what does 1-4 give us? Evidence? No. But it gives us reasonable grounds to form a hypothesis. And that means we have at least 2 tests to confirm it. 1) We publish content with 10 points and content with 15%, 20%, 30% and 65% and 120% 2) we publish <100% points for a series of topics that already have ranking content cc @Hobo_Web @top5seo @edwardeachday @aijamesdooley @patrickstox @HundleyJake

X (Twitter) · 1 day

And reading that both @RyanJones and @patrickstox are proponents of EEAT and "information gain" - this needs serious debate I think @edwardeachday It creates so many problems - the most fundamental is putting Google in the seat of a fact verification system, from which I haven't moved a single inch. For a start - the myth is based, I posit - on a need for safety that Google "can" because it has access to so much knowledge. Sorry but that isn't even a good argument for religion, let alone Google. But Experience and Expertise aren't guarantors for "factual accuracy" as is the fact that most content isn't subject to "factual verification" by iuts very nature. Dreaming this because it fits a grand framework or view us just wrong. I wont call it lazy but it doesnt take a lot of extra steps of logic to watch it fall to pieces. People with experience are wrong all the time vs testing. And thats

X (Twitter) · 1 day
Google apps
Main menu