Should you really optimize your pages for the terms 'best' and 'top'?

What does Google mean when it refers to 'adjectives rather than keywords'?

When a user types 'best SEO tools', Google interprets 'best' as an intention modifier — the user is looking for a recommendation, a curated list, a ranking. The search engine does not consider 'best' as a term that the page needs to repeat 15 times to rank.

This marks a break from the naive logic of keyword stuffing. Google is saying here: we understand the meaning of the query beyond its lexical surface. A page can perfectly answer 'best CRM software' without ever mentioning the word 'best' — as long as it demonstrates that it provides a credible evaluation.

Why does Google emphasize 'external factors'?

Mueller shifts the focus from on-page to off-page. For a 'best' query, decisive signals are no longer (or not solely) keyword density, Hn structure, or textual content.

Google is looking for evidence that your page is legitimate to give its opinion. This is evidenced by backlinks (how many sites cite you as a reference?), brand mentions, direct traffic, bounce rate, session duration. A comparison published on an authority domain with 50 inbound links will always have an advantage over an anonymous listicle heavily optimized.

Does this logic apply to all intention modifiers?

Mueller mentions 'best' and 'top', but the principle applies to all subjective adjectives: 'better', 'cheap', 'reliable', 'recommended'. Google treats these terms as signals of user intent, not as mandatory elements of the text.

In contrast — and this is crucial — this treatment does not extend to factual descriptive terms. If someone searches for 'red shoe', lexical matching still matters: the page must indeed talk about shoes AND the color red. The nuance lies in the nature of the word: subjective vs. factual.

• Google understands the intent behind 'best', 'top', 'better' without requiring their literal presence on the page.
• External signals (backlinks, domain authority, engagement) carry more weight than on-page optimization for these queries.
• This logic applies to subjective adjectives, but not to factual descriptive terms that always require clear semantic matching.
• A mediocre over-optimized content for 'best' will lose out to an expert content that doesn't use the word but has legitimacy signals.
• Algorithms assess the perceived credibility of your recommendation, not the frequency of the word 'best' in your paragraphs.

Is this statement consistent with observed practices in the field?

Yes and no. Ranking tests indeed show that pages without the word 'best' rank for 'best X' queries — often Amazon product pages, Wikipedia guides, Trustpilot reviews. This validates Mueller's point: Google can rank a page that doesn't use the exact term.

But caution: in competitive sectors (SaaS, finance, e-commerce), the majority of pages in the top 3 still contain 'best' or 'top' in the title, H1, or first paragraphs. Why? Because these terms are part of the natural language expected by the user. Completely excluding them would be artificial — and Google favors naturalness.

What nuances should be added to this statement?

Mueller states that Google focuses on external factors. True. But he doesn’t say that on-page doesn't matter at all. A page without relevant on-page signals will struggle to be indexed for this intent, even with 100 backlinks. Google must first understand what the page is about.

Mueller's wording also leaves unclear how much weight these external factors actually have. We know that backlinks count, but is it 30% of the score? 60%? [To be verified]. Google never provides numbers. In practice, correlation tests (Ahrefs, SEMrush) show that backlinks remain the #1 signal for 'best' queries, but that user engagement (CTR, visit time) plays an increasingly important role.

Another point: Mueller talks about specific algorithms for these queries. This means that Google applies differentiated treatment — probably a boost for pages like 'listicles', 'reviews', 'comparisons'. But we lack details about these algorithms. Are they related to Helpful Content? To E-E-A-T? Impossible to say for sure.

In what cases does this rule not apply?

First exception: local queries. A search for 'best pizza Paris' invokes Google Maps, Google My Business reviews, and geographical proximity signals. Backlinks count, but less than an optimized GMB listing and reviews. Mueller's principle applies, but the external factors are different.

Second exception: low competition niches. If no one is competing for 'best COBOL compiler 2025', a properly optimized page with the exact term can rank without massive backlinks. The lack of competition changes the game.

Third exception: brand queries. A search for 'best Nike shoes' will naturally favor Nike.com, even if other sites have more backlinks on the topic. The brand signal weighs heavily. Google recognizes the authority of the original source.

What should you practically do to rank for 'best' or 'top' queries?

First priority: build perceived legitimacy. Publish expert content, signed, with evidence of competence (author bio, references, case studies). If you're writing a 'best SEO tools', show that you've tested, compared, and used them in production. Screenshots, comparison tables, and user feedback add credibility.

Second focus: obtain contextual backlinks. Not links bought from content farms — natural citations from sites in your industry. A link from Search Engine Journal or Moz on your SEO comparison is worth more than 50 links from anonymous blogs. Aim for quality, not raw quantity.

What mistakes should be avoided in optimizing these pages?

Mistake #1: stuffing 'best' everywhere. 'Best tools, best solutions, best practices, best strategies…' — that looks like spam. Google has stated: it understands the intent without needing to see the word 15 times. Write naturally. If 'best' appears 2-3 times (title, H1, intro), that's enough.

Mistake #2: neglecting user engagement. A 'best X' page that generates an 80% bounce rate and a 10-second visit time sends a catastrophic signal to Google. Improve readability, add internal navigation anchors, facilitate comparison (tables, filters). The user must stay and interact.

Mistake #3: publishing without updates. 'Best' queries are sensitive to freshness. A 2022 comparison that hasn’t been updated will lose ground to a competitor who publishes a 2024 version with new market players. Plan for regular updates — at least annually.

How can you check if your strategy is paying off?

Track ranking on long-tail variants. If you're targeting 'best project management software', also monitor 'top project management tools', 'better project management software', 'project management software comparison'. Google treats these variants as synonyms — if you rank on one, you should progress on the others.

Analyze engagement metrics in Google Analytics and Search Console. Compare the CTR of your 'best X' page with the average of your other pages. If the CTR is lower, your title/meta description does not match user intent — rephrase it. If the visit time is low, your content is not holding attention — enrich, illustrate, structure better.

Finally, audit your backlinks. Use Ahrefs, Majestic, or SEMrush to identify who cites you. If your links mainly come from low-authority sources, launch a targeted link building campaign: guest posts, partnerships, co-branded case studies. A quality backlink is worth 100 mediocre links.

• Publish signed, expert content, with tangible evidence of your legitimacy (tests, screenshots, data).
• Obtain contextual backlinks from authoritative sites in your industry — quality > quantity.
• Use 'best' or 'top' naturally (2-3 occurrences), without over-optimization — prioritize reading fluidity.
• Enhance engagement: comparison tables, navigation anchors, integrated FAQs, clear calls-to-action.
• Update your comparisons at least once a year to signal freshness to Google.
• Track long-tail variants and engagement metrics (CTR, visit time, bounce rate) for continuous adjustment.