This post is the culmination of two of my lifelong dreams: (1) To spend an entire day on YouTube and call it "work", and (2) To Photoshop Matt Cutts' face on cartoon food. Early in 2009, Matt Cutts, Google's most visible anti-spam engineer, began releasing a series of short Webmaster Help videos. You've probably seen some of these videos, but what you may not know is that there are currently over 200 of them, with more than 70 posted in 2010 alone.
From time to time, I've been amazed at the details that slip out during these videos, many of which don't get much play in the blogosphere. So, I decided to watch all of the 2010 videos and report back on what I learned. This post contains my Top 10 picks along with a few interesting tidbits and one SHOCKING CONSPIRACY.
Obligatory Disclaimers
Let's get this out of the way, as Matt seems to be a lightning rod for controversy. I'm a nice guy, but if you don't read this section, don't expect me to reply to your comments.
I don't speak for Matt
Other than having played a couple of hands of Search Spam with Matt over the years (I think we're 1-and-1), I don't know him and I'm not trying to put words in his mouth. I've used the original video titles, for reference, but the rest is paraphrased. I strongly encourage you to watch the originals.
Don't believe everything you hear
Matt, like everyone, has vested interests, and Google doesn't have any motivation to tell us every detail about how the algorithm works.
Don't disbelieve everything, either
I don't think Matt stays up nights scheming about how to deceive SEOs. I think he's a smart, decent guy who cares about search quality.
My Top 10 Picks
One quick note, before I reveal my picks (counting down from 10 to 1). If you want to get Matt to answer your questions, it apparently helps to have a cool-sounding name, like "Magico" or "Youser". From now on, I will have my Muppet Intern Yoozer submit all of my help questions.
10. Should I spend time on meta keywords tags? (Apr 19)
Matt says: "I wouldn't spend even 0 minutes on it, personally".
I know most of you know this, but it's good to hear it from the source. Google does not use the keywords meta tag for ranking. Meta description still has value for other reasons (Watch the video - 1:21).
9. How does URL structure affect PageRank (Apr 6)
Matt says: "Google doesn't worry so much about how deep a set of directories is."
This post raises an important distinction – URL structure is not link structure. We get this confusion frequently in Q&A. Let's say you have a URL like this:
https://www.example.com/year/month/day/topic/blog-post-title
That page isn't 5 levels deep, just because it's 5 /s behind the root domain in the URL. The depth of the page is determined by your internal architecture and link structure. URL length may affect the power of keywords in the URL and the click-through of the URL, but the crawlers don't really care when it comes to finding your pages. What matters is if this page is one hop from the home-page or 10 hops away (Watch the video - 2:04).
Note: SEOmoz correlation data has shown that deeper folder structure may correlate with worse rankings. Deep folder structures can be an indication of other issues, including information architecture problems.
8. Can I make sure Google always uses my meta description tags? (Mar 24)
Matt says: "The short answer is 'no'."
I hear this complaint a lot. Google will sometimes rewrite its own snippets for relevance. You can block the ODP and you can write relevant, unique meta descriptions, but you can't completely control what Google does (Watch the video - 1:52).
7. Can having dofollow comments on my blog affect its reputation? (Feb 22)
This is an interesting two-parter. First off, outbound links to spammy sites can have a negative impact on your reputation. Manage your outbound links and nofollow if you have to. Individual, inbound spammy links will typically not harm you, on the other hand, because they're beyond your control (although, in my experience, a pattern of inbound spammy links can be a different story). Matt has some great comments at the end about the value of commenting on dofollow blogs (Watch the video - 2:35).
6. Is cross-linking websites bad? (Jan 25)
Matt says: "I would ask yourself: are these websites really related in any kind of sense?"
When Matt wants to read cartoons, links to auto insurance and coffee tables make him sad. Cross-linking 3 sites probably isn't a big deal, but 30 or 300 could likely get you into trouble. Relevance is the key, and footer cross-links are often low-value (Watch the video - 2:00).
5. How can I get Google to index more of my Sitemap URLS? (Mar 23)
Matt says: "I wouldn't get hung up on just how many pages have been indexed..."
We hear this one from frustrated webmasters every day. Google does not guarantee that pages in your XML sitemap will be indexed. Indexation has a lot to do with your authority and trust – an authoritative site will get more love from the crawlers, plain and simple (Watch the video - 1:31). Check out Rand's recent post diving deeper into Matt's comments on the indexation cap.
4. Will changing hosts cause any SEO concerns? (Feb 9)
Matt says: "Most people can switch their IP address and never have any issue whatsoever."
This is a common fear that is usually unfounded. As long as your domain name and hosting country stay the same, switching from one reliable host to another should have no SEO impact. Matt gives a nice briefing on how to change DNS servers and set your TTL that's worth watching (Watch the video - 1:53).
Note: Although I implied this in the recap, it deserves repeating. If you're changing your domain name and/or hosting country, that can definitely affect your ranking and is a much more complex issue. Consider the risks and plan accordingly, in those cases.
3. Is Google Analytics data a factor in a page's ranking? (Feb 2)
Matt says: "I promise you, my team will never ask the analytics team to use their data."
I don't think you'll hear a more direct answer from Matt than that. Conspiracy theories abound, but there are 3 separate videos in 2010 where Matt states that the quality team does not use Google Analytics data. Of course, that doesn't mean that user metrics (click-through rate, etc.) aren't a factor, but these are more likely coming from other sources, such as SERP tracking (Watch the video - 1:17).
2. Can you give us an update on rankings for long-tail searches? (May 30)
This is a discussion of the so-called "Mayday" update. Matt clearly states that Mayday is a deliberate, algorithmic change to improve the quality of long-tail searches, and it is not temporary. It is not related to Caffeine, although the roll-out timeline overlaps somewhat (Watch the video - 2:39).
1. Should I be obsessing about load times? (May 5)
Matt says: "We have considered in 2010 using page speed..."
There are a couple of important points here. First, Google hadn't even finalized the decision to use page speed as a ranking factor until this spring*. Second, page speed is just one of over 200 ranking factors. All else being equal, a fast site is good for users and good for search, but an occasional server glitch isn't going to kill your rankings. If you can speed up your site with a few simple changes, though, why not do it (Watch the video - 2:28)?
*Edit: As Lindsay points out below, Matt's April 9th blog post does suggest that page speed was incorporated as a ranking factor. One of the issues with the dates on the videos is that they're often recorded a bit before they're released. On the May 5th video, Matt suggests that Google hadn't made a final decision on using page speed, but the reality is that that decision was probably made in March or April.
Honorable Mentions
3. How many bots does Google have? (Feb 30)
This is a nice review of what bots/spiders actually are. They aren't real robots that come knocking on your door. It's a good, short primer for new SEOs (Watch the video - 1:30).
2. State of the Index 2009 (Jan 20)
This is a long one, and it's slightly out of date, but it's a good review of some of what happened in 2009. It has a solid explanation of rel=canonical, as well as the parameter blocking and fetch as Googlebot features in Webmaster Tools. It ends with a brief explanation of what Caffeine is all about (Watch the video - 25:59).
1. How many search algorithm changes were made in 2009? (Apr 22)
Google makes a change to the algorithm on the order of ONCE PER DAY. These changes may be batched and rolled out in chunks, but another video confirmed a number of roughly 400 algorithm changes in 2009. If you think May-Day and Caffeine are the only things that have happened in 2010, think again. Google is constantly evolving. This video also includes a statement you don't hear from Matt every day – Good content is necessary, but not sufficient (Watch the video - 1:53).
The Shocking Conspiracy
Of course, it wouldn't be a post about Matt Cutts without a conspiracy. If you watch the 2010 videos, you'll see a shocking transformation, where Matt goes from having hair to no hair back to hair again almost instantaneously. I've graphed this phenomenon below:
Matt claims this has something to do with the timing of the videos and filming them in batches, blah blah blah, but those of us who are savvy are forced to reach one of two conclusions:
- Google has discovered the secret of re-growing hair and refuses to share it.
- Matt is, as I've often suspected, a cybernetic extension of the Google algorithm.
So, there you have it. My Top 10 picks of 2010 (so far), a few highlight reels, and one shocking conspiracy, as promised. By the way, if you're a beginner or are interested in general SEO tips like these, make sure to check out our completely revised, free Beginner's Guide to SEO.
Great post. But if that's that really what you had in mind when wanting to watch YouTube all day you may need some help.
Regarding Google's use of user metrics from other sources, Matt said clearly at SMX Advanced (after being really pressed by Danny) that to the best of his knowledge, Google didn't use any Bounce Rate calculations, from any source. He said he knows his team doesn't use it, and he doesn't think the quality team uses it either. Don't know whether or not that's true for all user metrics. Of course, as Todd Friessen pointed out later, high bounce rates will kill you in other ways.
Regarding Matt's hair length, we've noticed it correlates negatively with our Google traffic. We're trying to get girls to tell him how great he looks with no hair. mozGirls help us out, OK? Thanks.
"he doesn't think the quality team uses it either"
He works for the same company, and cant find out the actual answer?
Kick ass post man. Love it.
Lyndsay I totally read that as "kiss ass" haha
hahahaha! I totally did too! I was thinking Lyndsay was getting a little lippy :P
I missed out on this as I read it like it is. Could it be you were already thinking this and her post made you naturally read it like that? ha ha
I think that jennita and KBolsinger just know me too well :)
Ironically, I did expect 50% of the readers to think it kicked ass and the other 50% to think I was kissing ass (or maybe 40/60), so this is about right :)
Excellent post Pete! Do you think the "Mayday" update not only effected long tail but also hair growth?
I think Matt's hair is probably too short to be affected by "Mayday". If you have a long pony tail, that's a different story. On the other hand, maybe Matt had too much "Caffeine".
This is a perfect post Dr Pete, really cool to outline all this stuff for us!
Could you next make a Matt Cutts pull string doll that says phrases like "build for users and search engines" and "great content is the key to good rankings"?
If you were going to have a "video-a-thon" (work or play related) what would it be?
I'll start - an "Arnie day" for those great one liners.
After dropping a baddie off a bridge...
Commando 1: "What did you do with Sully?"
Arnie: "I let him go."
For more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDxn0Xfqkgw
Great. Similar classic exchange:
Q: Where is Nitti?
A: He's in the car
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PawwEk9E8i8
The Untouchables
Pete, I think you're kinda crazy for watching all of those videos, but I'm thankful you did! I've watched a few of them, but catching the tidbits that you did, is excellent.
Plus, this post has the best.graphics.ever!
Good work with the watchin - I suggest putting this "Google has discovered the secret of re-growing hair" into the title-tag, meta-description and also the first sentences in BOLD and then watch SEOMOZs server go down ;-)
Ive seen a few where he looks really uncomfortable answering a question, as in he knows hes lying, or at least not telling the whole truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgBw9tbAQhU He dances around a lot. Theres one or two others where he talks about the data that Google uses and looks like he doesnt believe what hes saying
I honestly think that, in one, he's just not clear on what other departments might be using or not using. One thing we tend to forget is that Matt is not the Czar of Search. His team deals specifically with quality issues and spam, and, like any manager, there are even issues around quality and spam that he's probably not aware of on a day-to-day basis.
I got the strong sense, though, that he's asked around about this one and is pretty emphatic. Again, don't believe everything you hear, but I believe that particular statement, at least as the present state of affairs.
Love it, Pete! Nice work thinking outside of the box to create an interesting and informative post. I wish more people with interesting information to share did so like this.
I have something I'd like to point out. As of April 9, Google is in fact including site speed as a minor ranking factor. Since we're on the theme of Matt, I'll reference his post on the topic.
https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/site-speed/
Again, great post. A lot of fun.
LW
Thanks for the clarification. One difficulty on the videos is that the dates they're released aren't the dates they're necessarily recorded, so it's hard to be sure on the timing (that "May" video may have been done in March). What I thought was interesting is that the actual change was still under discussion as recently as this spring. I think site speed is important, but people are freaking out a bit more than the change merits.
I've edited the post to reflect that information and linked to Matt's April 9th blog post.
Funny that Matt's team isn't more careful about releasing videos while they're still accurate. Perhaps I'm missing an element of the timeline. On the bright side, this site speed inaccuracy evidence seems to support your hair growth conspiracy theory.
Agreed that people are over-reacting to site speed algo inclusion. If it makes for a faster web, though, that suits me just fine. :)
LW
Maybe they do need someone at GOOGLE Tv to establish a real video production plan ;)
Apparently Page Speed is a signal that only affects US rankings for now, apparently this hasn't been rolled out yet to other country-specific SERPs. This information was gleaned from Maile Ohye's keynote at SES Toronto 2010. Which also doesn't mean you should wait for the roll out either, that's my advice.
Hey Pete,
Thanks for all of your work condensing this information. I was particularly interested by "Matt says: "I wouldn't get hung up on just how many pages have been indexed..."".
If the page isn't indexed, how is it supposed to rank and drive traffic?
I think it is very interesting/important to hear the search engineer perspectives on SEO as it typically (as seen in this post) reveals a lot.
Thanks!
I don't want to put words in Matt's mouth, but I think what he's saying (and what I would agree with) is that you shouldn't get hung up on the total number. In other words, don't worry about whether you have 9K pages indexed or 10K, necessarily. Your site isn't "better" just because it has more pages.
Too many people are flooding the index with long-tail pages, hoping to magically rank just because they built out some keyword variations. This worked in 2003, but it doesn't work very well now, especially post-Mayday. In fact, I think it can work against you in 2010. If you start creating so many low-value pages that you hit the virtual indexation cap and the spiders get bored, you may find your core pages don't get attention.
That said, your point is certainly true. Worrying about any one page not being indexed is a different matter - you can't win if you don't play. It's the obsession with total indexed pages that's causing some people more harm than good.
Just a thought: having a strong indexation cap might have the effect of people creating better content on the pages when they hit their limit
i.e. if PR4 = 10k pages in index, then you would start improving your content when you hit 10k, instead of adding another 10k of low value content
I actually hope it causes people to do exactly that, but I'm not sure if that was Google's intention, or if it's just an artifact of other changes. It also seems that the "cap" isn't a hard/fast number. Much of it also depends on your own internal architecture and PR distribution, and getting PR flow to deep pages (including building deep inbound links).
What I do see is more people reporting loss of indexed pages or difficulty getting pages indexed. The majority of the time, on investigation, those pages end up being low value or being poorly linked (internally and externally).
Great post. I liked the video that suggests that content is NOT sufficient. Google usually seems to pretend marketing doesn't exist. Take the recent arguing about how Google views guest blogs, for example (see Rhys). Some interpreted Google as saying not to guest blog, and that they prefer you keep your content on your own site. Yet, guest blogging is one of the most ethical ways (IMO) to promote a site and make the web better - it's human edited on both ends.
I wonder what will happen when Google starts really incorporating twitter and facebook. Seems like that would be a big challenge for the spam team...
Awesome, 2 of the top 10 videos are questions I asked!
You know, you can't just say that and then not tell us which ones. It's a moral imperative.
haha. the 2 Ryan from Dearborn ones. Meta keywords, and obsessing about load times. Although, you didn't include my favorite: "I haven't been to any conferences yet this year, I'm not an attractive female, and I don't live in the valley. How does that affect my rankings?"
LOL - I did enjoy that one, although I thought the SEO value might be limited :) My notes, for your amusement:
"If you're not a hot chick, there's always Twitter. Matt believes in something called the "merit" system, whatever that is."
clap clap clap . Thanks for all the info about Matt , and of course his hilarious hair cuts =D
I bet the hair is a revelation from the WIRED article on Sergey, who is trying to use Google's data to prevent Parkinson's.
Perhaps he was called up for the Reserves??
Perhaps his hair is fake?
I want more Muppet Intern Yozzer! ( rhymes with Mozzer)
Just for the record, it's "Yoozer" and rhymes with "User", since my day job is more on the usability side. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't get a Moz Muppet some day.
Way to go Dr. Pete!! That must have taken a bajillion years. I mean, if you need more work to do hit me up ;)
Seriously though - awesome!!
Thanks for putting this together! As much as I'd love to spend the time watching all of these... I actually have to work! :)
I am going to try to try to wade through them all.
Great post Dr Pete.
I'm totally amazed (and a little jealous) that you able to sit down and watch all those videso back to front! Thanks for sharing this with us.
I'm just a little curious about point 3 with the Google Analytics. If they don't use it then how would they know if there's a high bounce rate on a website or not? After all, we've all been told that high bounce rates affect your ranking and all...
But as all things with Google, I'm not going to worry myself too much about it. I'll continue to focus on trying to create sites for humans and not search engines (note the use of try).
At SMX Advanced, Danny Sullivan straight up asked Matt Cutts if bounce rate affected rankings. To which he responded "To the best of my knowledge, we do not use bounce rate in our web rankings." In fact Danny asked him the same question more than once, trying to get Matt to change his tune and he didn't.
Obviously you can take that with a grain of salt, but at least if they do, Matt can't talk about it. hah :)
That's strange cause isn't the bounce rate directly related to the quality of the content. NOT considering this in the rankings or NOT making this a signal would be just strange.
Maybe the answer to this rittle is that Google uses the "bounce rate", but just names it differently ;-)
Bounce rate is a quality signal in theory, but like any metric, it often goes haywire. Consider the blog example - many people go to a blog via social media, etc., read one post, and leave. That blog could be incredibly successful, but by it's nature, the bounce rate would be high.
The other problem with many user metrics is that they can be manipulated. What if bounce rate were a major ranking signal? I could get on Amazon Mechanical Turk, send 10,000 people to my competitor's sites and have them instantly leave. There are a lot of pitfalls in tying in these analytics to ranking.
This is exactly what I see all the time, just when I think I have my bounce rate under control, someone causes a stampede to one page by tweeting or blogging about it in a forum. Hoards come to the site genuinely interested in that page, but then leave, after viewing just that one page. I have no problem with that, it's another link afterall, just the bounce rate can jump a few percentage points in just one day. Last example was Harry Potter fans looking for a butter beer recipe. They are not my normal target audience, so why should they look around more? Totally understandable.
Much better is when I tweet about it or mention it on facebook, then guys who follow my work go and check out other pages when on the site, on a regular basis, bringing the bounce rate back down in time.
So I agree with Dr. Pete, bounce rate is not a great indicator of content on a site - for example, there is no one in my particular field (niche) who has any where near the relevent and original content that I deliver weekly. The site is not old, and I do all the work on it, top to bottom myself (hence I do all the SEO research I can - great site by the way!) so bounce rate for me is a bit of a headache, but over time with more domain authority and trust, I am sure this will become much less of a problem.
When will the box set be available on Netflix?
;-)
Awesome post Pete. I think Matt should start filming in 3D from now on, would sure make those hours of watching more interesting. :)
Anyway, I still say nothing is more valuable in SEO than what comes straight out of God's (Google's) mouth. They create the search rankings, they make the rules. If god told you how to get into heaven, would you not listen? :P
Thanks for the updates. Your post has saved me valuable time. I know I should watch the videos, but I am doing that moving forward and your summary has been very helpful.
Also, I would like to add that my vote goes to #2
(Matt is, as I've often suspected, a cybernetic extension of the Google algorithm.)
Great post pete. Enjoyed the re-caps and bald issues.
I'm going to try to watch all 200+ Matt Cutts videos. Seems like it would be really beneficial if you are in SEO. White Board Friday videos have been invaluable to building my knowledge base.
Wow... Thanks for sharing the highlight reel. And I am so glad you confirmed my suspesions with that fantastic info graph proving beyond a shadow of a doubt the Matt conspiracy! AMAZING!!!... and all from a few DNA samples of his hair.
Sir what about adding some sound like "bla bla bla" in our questions for getting answer or attention from Matt Cutts ?
I read your article, then watched most of the videos by Matt, your summaries really helped process the information. Thank you for taking the time to highlight the important points to remember.
URL structure/link structure differentiation is an important one that bears repeating. Another excellent SEOmoz blog post.
It would be nice if Google offered a facility to manage, or at least influence snippets in Webmaster tools.
El Doctor,
Thanks for investing the time in all the videos and distilling messages down to a Top 10 list (people like those I hear) and some honorable mentions.
Now, can i get you to create a 'Cutts Says' daily calendar based on all that you heard? Could be a great gift idea.
Thanks for watching all those videos and suggesting which ones are most useful! Even though the videos aren't too long, it potentially saves a couple hours.
Pete,
Really great work here and some great tips! I have no idea where you found time to watch all those videos with all the craziness in your life!
Re: This post Dr. Pete, I am in awe of the time you invested in both watching the full set of videos, and then creating this post with the screen shots, graphics, links, etc.
This is definitely a "go back and re-read and watch all referenced videos this weekend" type of post for me.
Re: Matt's hair growth Matt claims this has something to do with the timing of the videos and filming them in batches, blah blah blah, but those of us who are savvy are forced to reach one of two conclusions:
1) Google has discovered the secret of re-growing hair and refuses to share it.
2) Matt is, as I've often suspected, a cybernetic extension of the Google algorithm. This is among your finest Dr. Pete. Hilarious.
I hate to diminish anyone's awe of me (I am pretty great, granted), but I find it funny that everyone is shocked at the amount of time I spent. If you add up all of the 2010 videos, it's really only about 3 hours. It was time much better spent than when my wife made me watch the first two Twilight movies.
The videos may have only run 3 hours, but I'll warrant the entire time spent by you on this post was closer to 2-3 times that. At least. So that's why I'm so in awe of the post (not to mention you of course).
In all seriousness, one thing I've learned about blogging is that there's absolutely a direct correlation between time spent and not only quality but impact. I'm not saying I don't cut corners from time to time or write posts off the cuff, but my absolute best posts have taken anywhere from 5-20 hours.
I think that werewolves are the only thing holding Matt back from mainstream recognition.
... Funny enough, my favorite question to ask the SEO phone solictors is, "Do you know who Matt Cutts is?" Works everytime.
To my suprise... Not one Google employee that I've talked to can answer that question.
Still fun to ask. =)
That's a great idea watching YouTube all day for work! What's more it helped all of us.
I think I'm going to spend some time working on page load speed now!
Thanks for explaining the possibilities with Matt Cutts hair... I always wondering about that...
Where is he when his hair is short? I believe that he's using a wig right now....
Great post,
Thanks for going an extra few miles to deliver good value post :-)
That's a great little round up and I think you're right that sometimes some gems pass by quietly in those videos. Finding the time to watch all of them is pretty difficult, it was months after the event until I realised my own question had been answered one time in one of the vids.
Nice post Dr. Pete.
LOL - Definitely "Matt is, as I've often suspected, a cybernetic extension of the Google algorithm."
Nice (time-intensive) job Dr. Pete! How did you come up with the idea to watch *all* of the 2010 videos? Nothing on TV yesterday?
No seriously, thanks a lot! It's great to have such a summary at hand..
Nice overview Dr. Pete, Thanks!
9 Also, having - in the URL instead of _ between words could result in better rankings slightly I believe. Matt said something like - is preferred, but not sure if it really affects rankings or not.
1. Get a fast web host, problem solved!
That's the summary I was most concerned about, because URLs are very important and can have quite a bit of SEO impact. The core point is just that URL structure is NOT site structure. Some people "fix" their URLs and then think they've solved all of their information architecture problems.
Great post Peter... and great recaps. As always (and always remembering all the things you said in the disclaimers) it is good to look at the direct sources: and Matt is an hiper direct source.
[a suggestion for Matt, that I suppose will read the post, why don't you use the great Google technology to subtitle your videos for not so fond in english people?]
Ah, Peter... did you notice if Matt is usually wearing olive green t-shirts? Or is it a wrong assumption (I swear I mostly see him wearing that way)?. Not a critique from a "fashionable" italian (I'm not fashionable at all), but somehow could be seen as sign of 'genious', as great people like Einstein were wearing always the same kind of shoes so to not loose time thinking which one to choose.
So that's why Rand wears the Yellow Sneakers!
Really Helpful information. On the "new series" of videos Matt seems to give more complete answers instead of the usual "I woudn't worry about it".
I beleive he is a cybernetic extension of the Google algorithm.
Thanks for sharing
We do have excelent jobs, don't we? :D
I try to watch all of them, and I believe that SEO people should watch at leat those videos and your whiteboard fridays.
My compliments on using YouTube and getting paid by it! Great post!
Thanks for the post it was great.
Let's go out to the lobby,
Let's go out to the lobby,
Let's go out to the lobbbbyyyyyy,
And be-lieve in some FUD!!!
FUD for the whole family!!!!
I kid, Matt, I think you're great. But you also think you push FUD like a 15-year-old pushes butter on popcorn.
He's got to speak to every level and type of webmaster in these videos, so they do tend to be generic and sometimes they will be opposite to what you specifically need to do.
But thats up to you and me to take out the important and relevant bits. On balance, its better to have these videos than not have them
Yes, it's better to have these videos than to not have them. But you know what would be even better? Bacon. Oh, and for Matt to accompany his videos with official transcripts. Not auto-generated text within the video interface, but regular articles that Google stands behind. This would help with accessibility, make it much easier to reference specific points Matt has made, and support his mantra of doing what's best for your visitors.