Why is "it depends" considered the most honest answer in SEO according to Google?

Why does Google refuse to provide binary answers?

Martin Splitt's statement aims to deconstruct the illusion of universal recipes in SEO. Many practitioners seek definitive answers: do I absolutely need an XML sitemap? What's the minimum word count to rank? What is the ideal keyword density?

Google insists that these questions lack context. An e-commerce site with 50,000 references will have different needs than a niche blog with 200 articles. The relevance of a technique depends on dozens of factors: technical architecture, industry competition, the quality of existing content, available resources, link profile, domain history.

What are the variables that truly sway the answer?

Splitt doesn't detail an exhaustive list, but we can identify three categories of variables that systematically condition recommendations. First, the technical constraints: a site on proprietary CMS won’t have the same levers as a site on WordPress with full code access.

Next, the business objectives and timing. A complete overhaul won't have the same impact as incremental optimization over six months. Finally, the SEO maturity of the site — an authoritative domain tolerates experiments that a new site cannot afford.

Does this position mean that all best practices are relative?

No. There is a foundation of non-negotiable fundamentals: crawlable content, acceptable loading times, semantic HTML structure, absence of massive duplicate content. What Google says is that the tactical application of these principles varies greatly.

For example, optimizing Core Web Vitals is universally positive — but the hierarchy of actions to take will depend on the current performance profile, CMS, mobile vs desktop traffic, and dozens of other parameters. "It depends" does not refer to total relativism, but to the impossibility of answering without prior diagnostics.

• Every SEO recommendation must be preceded by a contextual audit — industry, architecture, history, competition
• Generic best practices are a starting point, never a turnkey solution
• The true skill of an SEO lies in their ability to prioritize actions according to project-specific variables
• Google will never provide a universal checklist because it would either be inaccurate or unnecessarily restrictive
• Beware of training that promises 'THE method that works every time'

Is this statement consistent with Google's usual discourse?

Absolutely. For years, Google has repeated that its algorithm relies on hundreds of signals weighted differently depending on context. Splitt isn't saying anything new — he's simply verbalizing what every experienced SEO already knows: ready-made answers are dangerous.

The problem is that this statement comes in an ecosystem saturated with simplistic SEO content and clickbait promising '10 techniques to rank on the first page'. By openly stating that 'it depends', Google attempts to curb this drift — yet without providing a clear framework for analyzing critical variables. [To be verified]: what are the exact criteria that Google uses to adjust its recommendations? Splitt remains vague.

What nuances should be added to this discourse?

Saying 'it depends' is honest, but it's also a convenient escape route to avoid commitment. Some questions have very clear answers: should you block Googlebot in robots.txt? No, never, except in ultra-specific cases. Should you use cloaking? No, end of story.

The real issue is that Google sometimes uses 'it depends' to sidestep embarrassing questions. A typical example: 'Does the number of backlinks still matter?' Official answer: 'It depends on quality.' Yet, in practice, we observe that sites with more backlinks rank better, quality being equal. The nuance here also serves to blur the real levers.

In what situations does this contextual logic pose a problem?

For small businesses or clients without advanced analytical resources, 'it depends' is paralyzing. They need clear priorities, not a list of 200 variables to analyze. This is where the expert's role becomes critical: to translate this complexity into a sequenced action plan.

Another limitation: this logic assumes that Google itself always knows why a site ranks better. However, with current machine learning systems, even Google engineers sometimes can't explain precisely why a signal was weighted a certain way. 'It depends' then becomes a default answer in the face of the algorithm's increasing opacity.

What should you do concretely in response to this reality?

First, abandon the illusion of cookie-cutter solutions. Every SEO audit must begin with a thorough diagnostic phase: crawl analysis, industry competition study, business objectives mapping, technical audit, link profile analysis. Only after this phase can actions be prioritized.

Next, systematically document hypotheses and results. If you apply a recommendation found in a generic guide, track the real impact on your site. Create your own contextual knowledge base — what works for your clients, in your industry, with your technical constraints.

What mistakes should you absolutely avoid?

Do not fall into the sightless optimization syndrome: applying all best practices found without questioning their relevance to your case. For instance, rewriting 500 meta descriptions because an article states that 'it's important' when your real issue is a crawl budget saturated by dynamic facets.

Another trap: believing that 'it depends' means nothing can be done without a massive analytical budget. In reality, even with limited resources, one can identify 3-4 critical variables (industry, type of site, level of competition, domain maturity) and adjust priorities accordingly. The key is not to apply a generic recipe without reflection.

How can you verify that your strategy is tailored to your context?

Ask yourself these questions for each recommendation: Why would this action be relevant for MY site? What specific signals will I improve? What is the expected impact on my business KPIs (traffic, conversions, ranking on priority queries)?

If you cannot answer precisely, it’s likely that the recommendation is generic. Always test systematically on a sample of pages before rolling out broadly. Measure, adjust, iterate. It’s this feedback loop that turns 'it depends' into a concrete action plan.

• Conduct a complete audit BEFORE defining SEO priorities
• Identify 3-5 critical contextual variables specific to your project (industry, architecture, maturity, competition)
• Systematically document the real impact of each optimization applied
• Avoid large-scale deployments of best practices without prior testing
• Create an internal knowledge base: what works/doesn't work in your specific context
• Never apply a recommendation without understanding why it would be relevant for your case