IMHO that is the primary reason so many are confused about SEO - they infer
There is nothing that says that even any part of one set of data provided by one entity is related in any way at all to observable conditions of a different entity.
As analogy, I have kept meticulous records that show
85% of the time after I scratch my nose a television commercial comes on within 5 minutes.
It can be inferred that if I scratch my nose more often there will be more television commercials.
Silly? It is to me. Yet it is exactly these kind of “statistics” that some strongly believe in when it comes to SEO
And it is often worse. To continue my analogy
I contacted the television company and they emphatically denied that they use my nose scratching in any way to make decisions on when to air commercials.
I asked my neighbor and brother to also take records of when they scratched their noses and keep track of the observable effect it had on television commercials.
Their data varied somewhat, but it proves that the television company is not telling the truth.
They do use nose scratching events to make decions about commercials.
Even sillier?
Yet
substitute backlinks, keywords, info-graphics, whatever for “nose scratch”
substitute Google for “television company” and
page rank / search position for “commercial”
- and -
now you have SEO “facts”