Reader-supported SEO resourceSuggest a topic →

For what it is worth, the flip side: the misstep the people who write in notice is loud, and the one that actually costs them is slow-burning. As a rule, a pattern we see in SEO, from what we see: optimising the part you enjoy and ignoring the second purchase nobody warned you about.

Common SEO mistakes

False starts we keep seeing in SEO

If a SEO shortcut sounds too clean, it is on the evidence we have skipping the part that matters later. Put simply, nobody plans to make the earliest mistakes in SEO; they happen while you are busy being sure of yourself. In short, the costly bad calls in SEO are rarely dramatic — copying a first-timer whose situation differs from yours does more damage than any single bad purchase.

95%
would recommend
10+ yrs
in the field
8+ yrs
hands-on

Going deeper into SEO: guides we rate

Broadly, reference sites that have been around a while in our experience beat whatever ranks first this month, and SEO is no exception to that way of working. In practice, talking to a subscriber a year ahead of you in SEO is worth more than half a day of extra reading. Communities are useful for SEO when readers post sources that show their working rather than opinions.

Common questions

Put simply, we answer in the comments and add the good ones to the explainers so the next newcomer finds them.

Why should I trust your take on SEO?

Read a couple of articles and judge for yourself — the reasoning is always shown, not just conclusions.

How often is new content published?

Regularly — the newest pieces always sit on the homepage and in the blog feed.

Sources we rate on SEO — and the method behind the list: What to avoid in SEO

Honestly, the most honest SEO questions are the specific ones; “it depends” is what vague ones earn, as far as we can tell.

Get in touch →