I'm not sure it is so cut and dried. Who is more likely to give you accurate information on how to game Google's ranking: Google themselves, or an SEO firm. I suspect that Google has far less incentive to provide good information on this than an SEO firm would.

Google will give you advice on how to not be penalized by Google. They won’t give you advice on how to game the system in your favor.

The more Google helps you get ahead, the more you end up dominating the search results. The more you dominate the results, the more people will start thinking to come straight to you. The more people come straight to you, the more people never use Google. The less people use Google, the less revenue Google generates.

> The more you dominate the results, the more people will start thinking to come straight to you.

This is a possible outcome but there are people that type in google.com and then the name of their preferred news site, their bank, etc, every day.

The site with the name they search dominates that search but they keep searching it.

I would like to know what dollar amount Google makes on people typing things like “Amazon” into google search and then clicking the first paid result to Amazon.

Search heremetically provides a very small amount of profits. Google makes most of its money on the websites it surfaces via ads.

It’s the same on YouTube - the majority of the people who work there seem to have no idea how “the algorithm” actually works - yet they still produce all sorts of “advice” on how to make better videos.

I got this feeling the YT algorithm is sticky and like "chooses" who to promote in some self reinforcing loop.

There’s an easy proof that those SEO consultants have a point: find a site that according to Google’s criteria will never rank, which has rocketed to the top of the search rankings in its niche within a couple months. That’s a regular thing and proves that there are ways to rank on Google that Google won’t advise.

Of course SEO consultants are trusted more than Google. They often ignore what Google says and bring good results for their clients.

Google has a vested interest in creating a good web experience. Consultants have an interest in making their clients money.

Link building is a classic example where good consultants deliver value. (There are bad consultants than good ones though)

It could be premature to place fault with the SEO industry. Think about the incentives: Google puts articles out, but an SEO specialist might have empirical knowledge from working for a various number of web properties. It's not that I wouldn't trust Google's articles, but specialists might have discovered undocumented methods for giving a boost.

They certainly want you to believe that.

The good ones will share the data/trends/case studies that would support the effectiveness of their methods.

But the vast majority are morons, grifters, and cargo culters.

The Google guidance is generally good and mildly informative but there’s a lot of depth that typically isn’t covered that the SEO industry basically has to black box test to find out.

> Websites trust these SEO consultants and growth hackers more than they trust information from Google itself.

That's because websites' goals and Google's goals are not aligned.

Websites want people to engage with their website, view ads, buy products, or do something else (e.g. buy a product, vote for a party). If old content does not or detracts from those goals, they and SEO experts say, it should go because it's dragging the rest down.

Google wants all the information and for people to watch their ads. Google likes the long tail; Google doesn't care if articles from the 90's are outdated because people looking at it (assuming the page runs Google ads) or searching for it (assuming they use Google) means impressions and therefore money for them.

Google favors quantity over quality, websites the other way around. To oversimplify and probably be incorrect.