Pinned Tweet
I've been working on versions of this article for what feels like years now (anyone who follows me on here or FB knows I'm quick to call DM a "worthless vanity metric"). I even pitched it as a presentation at a few conferences only to be told, "I think everyone gets it."
1/4
The case against Moz’s Domain Authority via @countxero searchengineland.com/moz-dom…
#PPC #GoogleAds folks dealing in #leadgen - are you seeing a higher than usual amount of spam/fake leads in the last week or so? 🤨
Noah Lyles:
Won the 100m🥉with Covid.
Parents:
“Sore throat? Lyles got the🥉in Paris with Covid! Get out of bed!”
So, I guess it’s actually “Go woke, go profitable” then… adweek.com/convergent-tv/dis…
Pre-pandemic, Anyone who claims this wasn’t a surprise is full of it, but after years of delays, yeah… that tracks. apple.news/A2IR2IBbuSoekV4Hy…
Jeff Ferguson retweeted
Replying to @CountXero
This research might be of interest: xamsor.com/blog/domain-autho…
Jeff Ferguson retweeted
WE ARE GIVING AWAY A CYBERTRUCK
ACTUALLY A CYBERBEAST
REPOST TO ENTER
FOLLOW SO WE CAN DM YOU
NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. TERMS: stickermule.com/rules/cybert…
Several years after my piece on the dangers of poorly done correlation studies, the same folks are back again, publishing the same lazy studies, claiming they are “statistically significant” even though they’re nowhere close, using sloppy data, etc.
Don’t fall for it.
🔥 Things someone who publishes "research" should be able to to tell you.
+ Show me your literature review?
+ Is this qualitative or quantitative?
+ How did you identify your Independent/Dependent Variable(s)?
+ What are your IV(s)/DV(s)?
-- define your variables
-- & what are their variable types?
+ What is your null hypothesis?
+ What is your statistical method?
+ Are you using the correct method for the defined variables?
+ Why did you choose it?
+ How are you controlling for outliers?
These are just a few -- if they cannot answer these it is not research. Does not mean it does not have value, just means it is not based on math and scientific methodology.
Jeff Ferguson retweeted
SEO feels more and more like a frustrating push-pull game.
Some folks will slowly push it up with knowledge and cutting-edge work, while SEOfluencers pull it down by spinning everything into sensationalistic takes and oversimplified advice for likes and social visibility.
So, now there’s another source for the Google leak? Both managed to get the docs to Rand and King about the same time? Dejan had it for a month before handing it over?
Meanwhile, multiple people involved are using the “We owe Rand an apology” language, despite the fact that nothing in the document proves Rand’s point about clicks influencing the algo (Google uses the data, we don’t know how; don’t let anyone tell you different).
What I hear every time someone shares a list of “actionable strategies” from the “Google leak” (it wasn’t a leak).
If you think those are groundbreaking action items, you’ve either not been paying attention or have been in #SEO for less than a week.
My best friend, @DaddyRolleda1 has a new gaming book on Kickstarter! You should buy it!!!
kickstarter.com/projects/dad…
Tell me you’ve never been on jury duty without telling me…









