Google says tons of SEOs and sites produce terrible content not worth indexing

Google’s John Mueller said on Twitter that “a lot of SEOs and sites produce terrible content that is not worth indexing”, when someone complained that their content was not indexed. “Just because it exists doesn’t mean it’s useful to users,” he added.

It’s really hard for SEOs and/or site owners to believe that their content isn’t great. Heck, some or maybe a lot of the content I produce is borderline terrible. But maybe, just maybe, a benchmark for whether your content isn’t terrible is if Google spends time indexing that content.

Obviously, it should work the other way around. You have to produce content that you know is quality, it’s not terrible. Then Google will discover it and index it. But at the same time, if your content isn’t indexed, or some part of it isn’t indexed, and it’s not a technical issue, then Google thinks the content isn’t not worth indexing.

If your content is not indexed, does that make your content “terrible”? I’m not sure I’ll go that far. But it does not meet the quality thresholds allowing Google to index the content.

Here’s John’s tweet in context here:

Oh the picture isn’t super relevant to this story but I searched for a terrible picture and this came up and I thought it was too cool not to use so where from this scary image of a clown…

Discussion forum on Twitter.