Google doubts the accuracy of specific SEO audit recommendations provided by automated tools.

Google’s Martin Splitt expressed skepticism about the usefulness of specific recommendations from SEO auditing tools. While he acknowledged that some advice might be valid, he pointed out that much of it has little to no impact on SEO. Splitt noted that, although these audits can serve other purposes, their direct influence on SEO is often limited.

Automated SEO Audits: Are They Worth Following?

This month’s Google SEO Office Hours featured hosts John Mueller and Martin Splitt. Judging by the technical depth of the response, Martin Splitt likely addressed a key question about the reliability of automated SEO tools. A user inquired about how to handle suggestions from these tools, especially when the recommended changes don’t align with anything in Google’s official documentation.

The user asked:

“I run several free website audits, and some of them suggest things that were never mentioned in the Search Central documentation. Do these things matter for SEO?”

Martin Splitt on Automated SEO Audits

Martin Splitt addressed the relevance of suggestions made by SEO audit tools, noting that many aren’t relevant to SEO.

He explained:

“A lot of these audits don’t specifically focus on SEO and those that still mention outdated or irrelevant things, unfortunately.

For example, Google Search does not care about the text-to-code ratio.”

The text-to-code ratio measures the amount of code compared to the amount of text on a page. This concept may have originated from a Microsoft research paper in the early 2000s, which noted that spam sites often had more text than code. However, even back in the day, when I used to create lightweight PHP templates, it never affected my page rankings, proving that the text-to-code ratio wasn’t a significant factor.

Splitt also discussed the minification of CSS and JavaScript, reducing file size by removing unnecessary spaces and line breaks. He continued:

“Unminified CSS and JavaScript might be suboptimal for your users because you’re shipping more data, but it doesn’t directly affect your SEO. Still, it’s a good practice.”

SEO Is Subjective

Many assume that SEO practices are objective, black-and-white rules that dictate how to “properly” optimize a site. However, beyond what Google has officially published, SEO is essentially a matter of opinion. The term “canonical” refers to a recognized standard that is accepted as authoritative, and Google’s Search Central documentation serves as a useful baseline for what can be considered canonical SEO. This official documentation provides the foundation for what is verified to be true in SEO.

On the other hand, the word “orthodox” describes traditional beliefs and practices. Much of what is considered SEO best practice falls into this category—methods based on longstanding beliefs and traditions that everyone assumes are the “right” way to do things.

The issue with orthodox SEO is that it doesn’t evolve. People follow certain practices simply because that’s how it’s always been done. A prime example is keyword research, an SEO practice older than Google but still performing similarly. Other examples of SEO orthodoxy that have persisted for decades include:

• Meta descriptions should be under 164 characters.
• Keywords must be included in titles, headings, meta descriptions, and alt tags.
• Titles should be “compelling” and “click-worthy.”
• The H1 tag is a strong SEO signal.

These practices were once considered crucial but have little to no impact on how Google ranks websites today—if they ever did. Google has long since moved beyond these signals, yet they remain part of the orthodox SEO belief system.

Limitations of Google’s Documentation

Martin Splitt advised cross-referencing Google’s official documentation with the advice provided by SEO auditing tools to ensure that recommendations align with Google’s best practices—a suggestion I fully support. However, it’s essential to recognize that Google’s official documentation is intentionally limited in scope. Google doesn’t disclose how to influence its ranking algorithms directly; instead, it provides guidelines on optimizing a site so that it is easily understood by search engines, efficiently indexed, and valuable to visitors.

Google has never revealed how to manipulate its algorithms, which is why inexperienced SEOs who tried to interpret Google’s Search Quality Raters guidelines often missed the mark. They often retract their misguided recommendations for creating “authorship signals,” “expertise signals,” and similar strategies.

If you still need help finding it, consider our monthly SEO packages and let the experts assist you.