James Dooley and David Quaid reject SEO best practices as misleading, emphasizing instead that they do what works through in-house testing—like publishing minimal, even flawed content on high-authority sites that ranks instantly.
David shares two real-world cases: 'get your tips out' ranked #2 for 'best horse racing betting sites in the UK' despite an unnatural links penalty, 4,500+ 404s, and thin daily-tip content; and a page titled 'bet 365 free spins' with only 'Mark, reword this page' ranked #1 within hours.
They dismantle EAT as a foundational ranking factor—clarifying it applies narrowly to YMYL topics (e.g., medical claims, gambling) only when reviewed by human raters, not algorithmically—and stress that Google cannot verify author expertise or claims.
Schema is dismissed as irrelevant for most sites: it’s mandatory only for structured data use cases like job listings or Google Flights, but stacking FAQ or review schema has no proven ranking impact and often reflects cargo-cult SEO.
They define SEO fundamentally as relevance × authority—and argue that branded search, CTR, dwell time, and semantic document structure (e.g., one query = one dedicated page) drive results far more reliably than checklists, author bios, or technical hygiene.
Brief overview
SEO success comes from testing what works for your specific site and audience—not following generic 'best practices' or chasing algorithmic myths like EAT or schema as ranking factors.
Ignore 'best practices'—test what works for your siteJames says he 'doesn’t look at best practices, [he] just does what works' through in-house testing on real sites.
Authority trumps content qualityDavid’s 'get your tips out' ranked #2 for a £20k/mo keyword despite zero topical authority, broken tech, and no backlinks—just branded search and Google News visibility.
EAT and schema are situational—not universalEAT only triggers manual actions for YMYL sites after human rater review; schema is required only for specific features like Jobs or Knowledge Panels—not rankings.
Questions this recording answers
5 questions, each answered where it is said
What SEO best practices do James Dooley and David Quaid ignore?
James Dooley says he doesn't look at best practices at all—he just does what works through in-house testing, ignores public noise, and doesn't follow general SEO advice. David Quaid agrees, stating he doesn't listen to the 'general public' on SEO and instead relies on internal testing, noting that for certain sites they might use schema or other elements, but only when proven effective—not as dogma.
What real-world example shows a severely penalized, technically broken site ranking highly?
The site 'getyourtipsout.com' had an unnatural links penalty, ~4,500 404s, no topical authority, poor internal linking, and thin content (e.g., 'Monday's tips'), yet an article on it ranked #2 for 'best horse racing betting sites in the UK'—a £20,000/month keyword—because it appeared in Google News and attracted strong branded and social traffic.
Do James and David believe E-A-T is a direct ranking factor?
No—they both reject that idea. David states E-A-T is not a ranking algorithm and calls it 'rubbish' as a universal factor; James adds that Google’s official SEO Starter Guide debunks E-A-T as a ranking signal. They agree it only applies narrowly to YMYL topics and is assessed by human raters—not algorithms—and that claiming expertise (e.g., via author bios) cannot be algorithmically verified.
What is their view on schema markup as an SEO ranking factor?
They agree schema is not a general ranking factor: David says it's either 'absolutely required' (e.g., for job listings or Google Flights) or 'mostly niche', and James confirms 99% of his sites don’t use it. Both stress that stacking schema or treating it as a universal ranking booster is misguided—its value is functional (e.g., enabling rich results or disambiguation), not algorithmic.
How do they define the core mechanics of SEO ranking?
They define SEO as 'relevance multiplied by authority'. Relevance comes from precise document naming (e.g., URL/title matching the query), while authority stems from backlinks, branded search volume, and click-through behavior—not abstract signals like E-A-T or schema. They emphasize that low-authority sites need hyper-specific pages (e.g., 'what is a ribeye' as its own page), whereas high-authority sites can host broader topics.
Key Quote
“I don't really listen to the general public of what we only deal with in-house testing.”
— James Dooley
Key Quote
“It jumped in in position number two for best horse racing betting sites in the uk.”
— David Quaid
Key Quote
“The EAT framework doesn't mention backlinks. It doesn't mention anything about return visits.”