Over the past few days, we reported on John Mueller debunking third-party metrics, like toxic links.
That spurred the decision of Tom Capper to write his own opinion over on the Moz blog.
He explained:
If this is true now, it definitely wasn’t always true. Even today, though, many SEOs will say this description is not consistent with their own recent experience. This could be confirmation bias on their part. Alternatively, it could be a case where the Google algorithm has an emergent characteristic, or indirect effect, meaning it can be true that something is (or isn’t) a ranking factor, and that it also affects rankings in one direction or another. (My former colleague Will Critchlow has talked about this pattern in SEO a bunch, and I have written about the distinction between something affecting rankings and it being a ranking factor.)
Either way, whether links like these are negative or merely not beneficial, it’s surely useful to have some clues as to which links they are. That way you can at least prioritize or contextualize your efforts, or indeed your competitor’s efforts, or your potential acquisition’s efforts, accordingly.
This is the purpose of Moz’s Spam Score metric, and other metrics like it that now exist in the industry. True, it isn’t perfect — nothing can be in this space — as Google’s algorithm is a black box. It’s also, like almost all SEO metrics, very frequently misunderstood or misapplied. Spam Score works by quantifying common characteristics between sites that have been penalized by Google. As such, it’s not magic, and it’s perfectly possible for a site to have some of these characteristics and not get penalized, or even remotely deserve to be penalized.
We would, therefore, encourage you not to monitor or attempt to optimize your own site’s Spam Score, as this is likely to result in you investing in things which, although correlated, have no causal link with search performance or penalties. Similarly, this is not a useful metric for questions that don’t relate to correlations with Google penalties — for example, a site’s user experience, its reputation, its editorial rigor, or its overall ability to rank.”
John explained in the thread on Twitter that, while he doesn’t have anything against 3rd party metrics, the part he struggles with (with Google’s tools as well) is the desire to treat them as a checklist on their own.
These tools are, ideally, something where you would know how they work, what they show, and how that’s relevant to your real goals. If you simplify them to a checklist, you end up potentially misdirecting the work, and selling them as such is unfair towards everyone involved.
I have nothing against 3rd party metrics like these – and I'm sure they're made by smart, honest, & well-meaning folks. The part I struggle with (with our tools too) is the desire to treat them as a goal of their own, or as a checklist. They're tools which ideally – …
— 🐝 johnmu.xml (personal) 🐝 (@JohnMu) June 7, 2022
Everytime I see a "how to improve $METRIC" thread, I cringe a bit: so much wasted energy. Do I post to tell them that the metric is irrelevant to Google? (I don't)
Creating metrics is hard, money matters, and it's not your fault they're used like this, but it's lost time…— 🐝 johnmu.xml (personal) 🐝 (@JohnMu) June 7, 2022