methodology

This page documents how content here is researched, structured, written, and maintained.

authorship

All content on this site is by Liam Hayward, an SEO specialist with 7+ years of in-house, agency, and consulting experience. Each article carries a byline linked to a verifiable professional profile at liamhayward.co.uk.

research

Each article begins from direct working knowledge of the topic. Research is then layered on top to verify specifics, add data, and identify aspects that warrant deeper coverage. Sources used:

• Primary sources. Official Google Search Central documentation, Schema.org specifications, IETF and W3C standards, official statements from search engine and AI platform vendors.
• Original data. Search Console data from sites I've worked on (anonymised), Ahrefs and Semrush queries, and direct testing where claims are testable.
• Recognised industry research. Studies from Backlinko, Ahrefs, Semrush, Moz, Sistrix, and similar credible sources, cited where used.
• Named expert commentary. Commentary from Google's John Mueller, Gary Illyes, and other identified Search Liaison personnel; views from established SEO consultants and journalists where relevant.

editorial stance

Where official documentation or established industry consensus exists, that is what this site follows. Practitioner opinion, trend pieces, and unverified claims are not treated as equivalent to documented platform behaviour or standards-body specifications. Where sources conflict, the article says so.

SEO is not a stable field. Algorithm updates, new platform features, and the rapid growth of AI-assisted search mean that some things written here will be overtaken by events. That is not a reason to avoid firm positions: it is a reason to label them correctly. Established practice is presented as such. Emerging or contested territory is flagged, not smoothed over.

The distinction this site tries to hold is between evolving with the field and speculating about it. If a development is documented and its implications are reasonably clear, the site covers it. If something is early, contested, or based on one platform's stated position rather than observable behaviour, that context is included.

scope

Most content on this site is written with Google in mind. That is not because other search engines do not matter: Google accounts for roughly 90% of global search traffic as of early 2026.^[1] Bing holds around 5% globally, closer to 10% on desktop,^[2] and Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, and others divide the rest. Writing primarily for Google reflects where the overwhelming majority of search activity takes place.

The fundamentals covered here (crawlability, structured content, clear page intent, credible authorship) transfer across platforms. Where Bing's behaviour or guidance differs meaningfully from Google's, the relevant article notes it.

AI-assisted search sits in a different category. Tools like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google's own AI Overviews are not traditional search engines, but a growing number of people use them as their first stop for queries. The AI Search section covers this directly: how content gets cited in synthesised answers, not ranked in a results page.

The practical reason this site concentrates on Google is that Google produces more public guidance, more documented behaviour, and more transparency about its systems than any other platform. Where other platforms have issued their own documentation, that is sourced separately and not inferred from Google's position.

1. ↩ Search Engine Market Share Statistics 2026 — Searchlab (StatCounter data, April 2026).
2. ↩ Global Search Engine Market Share 2026 — Resourcera (StatCounter data, April 2026).

writing

Each article is structured around a topic, with sections explaining key aspects and adding supporting detail. The structure is mine: I know the topic, I know what order the information should come in, and I know what a practitioner actually needs to understand it.

The content is written with AI assistance. The full detail of how that works, and what remains mine, is in the AI use disclosure section below.

editing

Every article goes through structural editing (does it answer the question, in the right order, at the right depth?), line editing (clarity, concision, voice), and a final correctness pass (fact-checking, link verification, schema validation). Articles are not published until each pass is complete.

Editing is done in the open: significant changes to a published article are reflected in the article's updatedDate field and visible on the page.

updating

SEO is a moving field. Algorithm changes, new platform features, and shifts in best practice can make articles inaccurate over time. The update policy:

• Quarterly review of the highest-traffic articles for continued accuracy.
• Immediate update when a confirmed change to Google, an AI platform, or a documented standard makes existing content wrong.
• Annual review of all evergreen content to verify nothing has drifted.
• Visible updatedDate on articles whose content has materially changed since publication.

Articles that no longer reflect current practice are either updated or, in rare cases, deprecated with a clear notice and a redirect to the current canonical resource.

disclosure

This site is independently operated. There are no advertising relationships, no affiliate links, no sponsored content, and no paid placements. Software products mentioned (Ahrefs, Semrush, Screaming Frog, etc.) are referenced because they are the tools genuinely in use across the SEO industry, not because of any commercial relationship.

Where I have professional history with a brand mentioned in an article, that history is disclosed in the article. The list of brands I have worked with is on the About page.

corrections

If you spot an error, please get in touch via liamhayward.co.uk. Corrections are made promptly and noted in the article's revision history.

AI use disclosure

The scale of this project is only possible because AI assists in the content creation process. I am an SEO specialist, not a writer, and AI helps produce cleaner and more readable copy than I would on my own.

My role in the process:

• Expertise and structure. The topics, the claims, the ordering of information, and the things that are wrong in other guides come from me. AI works from my outlines and notes.
• Fact-checking. Every claim is verified against primary sources before publication. AI training data has a cutoff and a tendency to smooth over nuance; I catch what it gets wrong.
• Editing and correction. Output is reviewed, adjusted, and rewritten where it misses the point, overstates certainty, or drifts into generic advice.
• Ongoing maintenance. When the underlying information changes, I update the content. AI does not monitor the field; I do.

The knowledge is mine. AI is a tool I use to help communicate it.