Is it true that “no one really understands SEO—you can only keep experimenting”?

That statement is only half right: SEO requires ongoing experimentation and adjustment, but that does not mean “no one understands it,” nor does it explain a decline in traffic. The supplied discussions support a more precise distinction: understanding the principles does not mean being able to predict every ranking; needing to test your judgments does not mean you can only experiment blindly. The available material is insufficient to determine whether this manager is competent or why the website’s performance declined.

Not knowing the full algorithm does not mean there is nothing to learn

In the PTT discussion, some participants argued that understanding SEO is not an all-or-nothing matter: there are broad principles to grasp, and search engine guidelines should generally be followed. Others noted that even people who understand SEO continue to experiment. These views are not contradictory: understanding principles and testing them in practice can go hand in hand.

A Domainclub participant emphasized that no one truly knows the algorithms behind search engines, so experience is necessary, and advocated learning from books to supplement the limitations of personal experience. This is a participant’s view on how to learn, not sufficient evidence that “no one understands SEO.” Someone on PTT also recommended Google’s official SEO Starter Guide, but the supplied material does not include the guide’s text, so it cannot support further claims about specific current rules.

Principles can clarify misconceptions, but they do not guarantee rankings

A December 2023 write-up of a yesharris talk offers concrete examples of why SEO is not entirely guesswork. According to that account at the time:

• There is no maximum or minimum word count for articles, and word count itself is not a ranking factor.
• Google may initially need more time to understand a new website’s content; this should not simply be interpreted as a fixed “observation period for new websites.”

These examples distinguish the basis for judgments from common misconceptions; they do not promise that taking a particular action will secure a high ranking. They also come from notes on a 2023 talk, not current official documentation verified for this article, and should not be treated directly as present-day operational guidance.

There are reasons to keep experimenting, but experimentation cannot replace diagnosis

The reasoning offered in the PTT replies was that guidelines change and competitors change, so ongoing adjustments are necessary. This supports the need to keep adapting, but it does not prove that any particular adjustment works, nor that a subsequent ranking change can be directly attributed to it.

Returning to the traffic decline, the original post contains only the author’s description of the downturn, without website data, a record of changes, or performance comparisons. The material therefore cannot establish whether the manager’s proposed methods were ineffective or identify the cause of the decline. Similarly, “someone always ranks at the top” was the post author’s counterargument, but ranking results alone do not prove that those competitors understand the full algorithm.

A more reasonable interpretation is: understanding SEO does not eliminate the need to experiment; needing to experiment does not mean there are no principles. When assessing the manager’s statement, it is important to distinguish between acknowledging that judgments need testing and using “no one understands it” to avoid giving reasons. This statement alone is not enough to judge the manager’s competence.