I just can't put the rhythmic tunes of Julie Andrews into an SEO myths post, try as I might. But, the content's here... so let's have at it - these aren't the top 10 SEO myths, they're the...

Top 10 "obscure" SEO myths:

#10 - Submitting to hundreds of  "minor search engines" is the only way to boost "link popularity"

The only numbskulls in the world who believe this (fingers crossed) work in Redmond at everyone's (second) favorite Internet Advancement company (right behind TP). Luckily, I haven't been spam called by them in a while, though we are getting some new phone lines at the office soon...

#9 - The Google Search Appliance will give content it Spiders a Boost in the Public Google Results

Oh boy... This one's a doozy and, sadly, more popular at the executive level than some might like to believe. I'd like to see a public statement from Google on this just to be sure. Maybe we can do that at the SEW Live event next week. It would be sweet if you could just buy an enterprise search solution and get ranked, though... That would be some high ROI pay-for-placement.

#8 - Matt Cutts is/was a Government Spook

I used to work for a men's fashion store, but this does not make me part of Mugatu's evil plan to assasinate the Malaysian Prime Minister. Likewise, Matt Cutts' DoD internship does not make him part of some great plan to enslave mankind under the banner of Google-flavored national security. I'm not saying you shouldn't use other engines for fear of being watched, I'm just saying...

#7 - SEO is one of the Dark Arts

There's no voodoo, no pagan rituals, no blood sacrifices and no Stonecutters guild. Honestly, it's just marketing with a background in technical knowledge. Every news article on the subject and every industry-outsider who mentions it doesn't need to repeat the same line about the "mysterious shroud of undergound puppeteers" who "pull the strings" and we all dance to a given website. We wish it worked that way, but it doesn't - back to work, link building team...

#6 - Search Engines were Invented by a Furry Amphibian Named "Smarmy Pete"

I can't tell you how many phone calls I get on this subject. Just yesterday, I had three emails asking me if I had Pete's email address. It's unreasonable, in my opinion, that people could be this gullible. As soon as you hear "furry" and "amphibian" your BS meter should be up pretty high. Seems Google is filtering out the results though...

#5 - Yahoo! has a Dampening Filter for Sites & Pages Serving AdSense

If they were smart and business minded, they would have one, but they're fair and equitable, so they don't. Acutally, I've heard this myth batted around by some fairly serious players. If Yahoo! wants to weigh in, we'd surely appreciate it.

#4 - The Best SEOs Rank at the Top of a Google Search for SEO

While it's very hard to convince some people otherwise, with the exception of Aaron, Matt and Barry (sometimes ranking #7, other times, #70), the results for "SEO" at Google are pretty shoddy. Even SEOToday (which, ironically, was last updated in October of 2005) and SEOChat are really not pulling together high quality content for that search (in my humble opinion, of course).

#3 - The .org TLD is more Trusted by the Search Engines

SEOmoz is on a .org. Nothing more to say on the issue.

#2 - Low Quality Search Results are Better for the Search Engines' Bottom Lines

If this were the case, MSN and Ask would be rich and Google's investors would be crying in their chicken and stars. While it may seem that low quality results drive more clicks to the ads, the reality is that over time, low quality SERPs drive users to other search engines, who get the ad clicks. Relevance and quality are the biggest threats to Google's dominance - if they let someone overtake them here (in a very obvious way), they're in for dark times.

#1 - DMOZ is the Key to Google Rankings

I don't care that Google uses DMOZ as their directory result or that they publicly mention them whenver high quality links are discussed. DMOZ, like PageRank, is part of the Google algo team's public relations campaign - it's easy to remember, hard to get in and a waste of time. Links from DMOZ are no more or less valuable than links from any other high quality page. There is no magical weight given to the Open Directory, nor will there ever be, because results there are easily manipulated, easily corrupted and not particularly representative (just search through a few categories at random and see if the top 10 Google results are all listed).

#0 - (Note to readers - this is even more important than #1) You can Hire Ex-Search Engineers as SEOs for your Site

I'm not sure where this myth started, but I've been on the phone with a few people who've asked me if I used to work at a search engine and several more who've asked if I could reference them to a "credible" SEO - "you know... someone who used to work at a search engine." For a variety of legal, ethical and financial reasons, it is not possible to find retired search engineers who will do SEO for your site. This isn't the police business where hotshot cops go into the private detective field.

Actually, I might be wrong on that last one - Dr. Edel Garcia and Jon Glick both have search-related backgrounds if I'm not mistaken... Maybe there are other myths I've falsely labeled - any takers? Is "Smarmy Pete" for real?