SEO myths that keep circulating: what Google says and what to do instead

Seven common SEO beliefs contradict Google's official documentation: the keywords tag, keywords in the domain, a penalty for duplicate content, an ideal length, E-E-A-T as a factor, the number of H1s and "fresh" dates. Each one states what the page says, what it does not say and what to do. Three topics with nuances are covered separately.

This guide is written for the people who decide what to invest in for SEO, not only for those who implement it. Technical terms are explained in plain words and the detail appears under the label "For the technical team". CookingMetrics offers audits and support to development teams, and does not sell visibility tools. A warning about the sources: the official pages consulted on November 12, 2026 show no update date, except for two blog posts from 2009 and 2014; it is worth rereading them before deciding. What Google says is not a guarantee of results, and this list does not exhaust the myths.

In summary

• A belief is called a "myth" here only if an official Google page contradicts it. If the page has nuances, they are reproduced.
• The seven myths: the keywords tag is not used; keywords in the domain or the address have almost no influence; duplicate content is not a penalty in itself; length alone does not matter; E-E-A-T is not a ranking factor; the order and number of headings do not matter to Google Search; changing the date does not make a page fresh.
• Core Web Vitals, structured data and HTTPS are neither myths nor simple truths: Google describes them with nuances, and they are explained separately.
• That something does not help rankings does not mean it is useless: a clear description improves the snippet, and an orderly heading structure improves reading.
• Domain age and the so-called "Sandbox": we did not find an official page, so we do not declare them myths.

How to read this list

For each belief there are three parts: what is said, what the Google page says and what to do instead. The quotes are paraphrases of the pages, which are linked. "Ranking factor" means an individual signal used to order results; Google generally speaks of "ranking systems" that combine many signals.

Exclusive content

For signed-in readers

Worksheet for checking an SEO claim

Separate claim, primary source, date and limit before deciding.

Sign in to access this section →

We work to offer the best possible content, which is why some of these explanations are not public.

Myth 1: "the keywords tag improves rankings"

• What Google says: the SEO Starter Guide states that Google Search does not use the keywords tag. A 2009 post says the same and adds that it does not use the meta description to order results either, although the description can feed the snippet that is displayed. The post carries a notice that some of the information may be outdated, but it confirms that Google still does not use the tag.
• What to do instead: write a clear description for each page, thinking of the person who reads it in the results, and not spend time on the keywords list. Other search engines may have other rules; this guide only covers Google.

Myth 2: "keywords in the domain or in the address improve rankings"

• What Google says: the Starter Guide states that keywords in the domain name or in the path of the address have almost no effect, beyond appearing in the breadcrumbs of the results. The ranking systems guide describes a system that adjusts exact-match domains stuffed with keywords, so as not to give them too much credit. The Starter Guide adds that the domain extension, such as .com or .org, only matters if a specific country is being targeted.
• What to do instead: choose a name and addresses that are clear to people and keep them stable. Changing a domain for SEO reasons without a business need has costs.

Myth 3: "duplicate content is penalized"

• What Google says: the Starter Guide says that duplicate content does not violate spam policies and does not trigger a manual action. Copying other people's content is, according to the same page, a different matter. The ranking systems guide explains that there are systems that avoid showing several nearly identical results and choose the most relevant one.
• What it does not say: that having nearly identical pages is harmless. A CookingMetrics criterion, not a Google statement: they can make it harder for the address you prefer to be shown; that is why the documentation on canonical addresses exists.
• What to do instead: indicate the preferred address with a canonical address or a redirect, and do not multiply nearly identical pages. See the sitemap guide for the myths about sitemaps, which are not repeated here.

Exclusive content

For signed-in readers

Triage for similar URLs

Compare two fictional URLs and record what to investigate before acting.

Sign in to access this section →

We work to offer the best possible content, which is why some of these explanations are not public.

Myth 4: "there is an ideal word count"

• What Google says: the Starter Guide states that the length of the content, by itself, does not matter for ranking. The helpful content page asks whether you are writing to a word count because you believe Google has a preferred one, and answers that it does not.
• What to do instead: let the page have the length its question needs. For the case of AI answers there is a separate treatment, with its own sources, in GEO myths.

Myth 5: "E-E-A-T is a ranking factor"

• What Google says: the Starter Guide answers that it is not. The helpful content page says that E-E-A-T itself is not a specific factor, that trust is the most important element and that the systems use a mix of factors. The same page recommends adding accurate authorship information, such as bylines, and presents it as part of the "who" question that helps evaluate content, not as a factor.
• Why it matters: E-E-A-T (experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness) describes what Google wants its systems to reflect, not a score that can be optimized.
• What to do instead: show who writes and with what experience, and cite sources, because it helps the reader. Do not present it as a ranking lever.

Myth 6: "there is a correct number of H1s or a mandatory heading order"

• What Google says: the Starter Guide states that, from the perspective of Google Search, it does not matter if headings are used out of order and that there is no ideal number of headings per page. We did not find an official page that sets a rule on the number of H1s; that is why it is stated this way and no further.
• What to do instead: use headings so that the reader and screen readers understand the structure. It is a good accessibility practice, even if it is not a ranking lever.

Myth 7: "changing a page's date makes it look fresh and helps"

• What Google says: the helpful content page lists changing the dates of pages to make them look fresh as a warning sign, and says that adding content only to look fresh does not work.
• What to do instead: update the date when the page has really changed, and show what changed.

With nuances: three topics that Google does not sum up as "yes" or "no"

• Core Web Vitals. The official page says it aligns with what the ranking systems seek to reward and recommends achieving good values. It does not use the expression "ranking factor". How much weight it has compared with other elements is not detailed.
• Structured data. Google's policies state that a manual action for structured data does not affect how the page ranks, and that structured data enable a feature but do not guarantee that it will appear. They do not say that it does not help.
• HTTPS. A 2014 post described it as a "very lightweight" signal, which affected fewer than 1% of queries and carried less weight than quality content. It is the only official source we read on the topic; we did not find a more recent statement.

For the technical team. None of these three topics is a myth in the sense of the list: the documentation does not deny them. Whoever implements changes should measure their own effects, not rely only on "it is a factor".

What we could not check

We did not find an official Google page that speaks about domain age or about a "Sandbox" for new sites. We also did not consult documentation on the number of inbound links. That is why we do not call them myths: they are hypotheses, and it is worth treating them that way until there is a source.

What not to conclude

• That something "not being a factor" does not mean it is useless: it can serve the reader or other functions.
• That what Google says applies to other search engines or to AI assistants.
• That these pages remain the same: with no date, they may have changed.
• That this list is complete.

Exclusive content

For signed-in readers

Decision and review log

Turn recommendations into reviewable decisions with evidence and owners.

Sign in to access this section →

We work to offer the best possible content, which is why some of these explanations are not public.

What to do next

Before implementing an SEO recommendation, look in the official documentation for whether Google addresses the topic and note the page and the date you read it. If you would like us to review which recommendations on your site have backing, learn about our technical SEO service: we review and support your team, and we do not sell visibility tools. For the broader framework, see what GEO is.

Frequently asked questions

Does Google penalize duplicate content?

According to its Starter Guide, duplicate content does not violate spam policies and does not trigger a manual action. Copying other people's content is a different matter. It is worth indicating the preferred address to avoid nearly identical pages.

How many words should an article have to rank?

Google states that length alone does not matter for ranking and that it has no preferred number. The length should be what the question the page answers needs.

Is E-E-A-T a ranking factor?

No, according to Google's Starter Guide and helpful content page. It describes what the systems seek to reflect; the page highlights trust and recommends showing authorship.

Does it matter to have a single H1 on the page?

We did not find an official Google page with a rule on the number of H1s, and its Starter Guide states that the order of headings does not matter to Google Search. A good order helps the reader and accessibility.

Do Core Web Vitals and structured data improve rankings?

Google says, with nuances, that Core Web Vitals aligns with what its systems seek to reward, and that structured data enable features without guaranteeing that they will appear. Neither page simply calls them a ranking factor.