Haha that would be awesome thanks!

One red flag I'd add to your list is the phrase "Google likes or doesn't like XYZ," stated as a matter of fact without further explanation. It comes across like they have some sort of insider knowledge, when really they're just spouting hearsay and don't really understand the underlying systems.

YES. YES. YES. Completely agree, except in my experience a lot of this obfuscation is less due to strategy and more incompetence - agencies just repeating things they read in shallow blog posts that they don't truly understand, but they know clients will pay for it because it sounds technical.

Oh man, I wish that was true. One of my clients was working with an SEO agency until recently that was creating reams of this keyword-stuffed, mostly duplicative content on product category listing pages, not to mention adding completely unnecessary H2s that duplicated the keywords from the H1s.

Like, sure, cool photos, but why in the world is this half my feed?!?

Content that's unreadable is one thing, but what annoys me the most is content that no one's even INTENDED to read, e.g. paragraphs of keyword-dense text at bottom of an ecommerce product listing page. The average user probably never even notices it, but some SEO said it was critical to rank better.

People have been saying "the cobbler's kids have no shoes" since ... there were cobblers 🤷‍♂️😁

A wise Founding Father once said, "When Britain taxed our tea we got frisky. Imagine what gon happen when you try to tax our whiskey."

Have a couple profiles Google wouldn’t verify, so I started updating them with my unconnected personal account (changing website URL, adding photos, etc.), and it’s crazy how those updates take effect so much faster and easier. Clearly a backward system.

Wow, we’re really just gonna seriously cover every nonsense thing that gets said for another four years, huh? No change in editorial strategy from the first go-round?