[mgas]

You only need to see who the author of this post is to know that the methodology is crap, the numbers are likely made up (19.42% is WAY too specific), and the post is just a grab for media attention on the coattails of some other internet meme garbage.

This guy (Rand Fishkin) has been selling SEO as a religion for the better part of this century, and is in no small part responsible for all the search-result-garbage style websites everyone is complaining about elsewhere on HN today and every other day.

He's a third-rate market-bro hack that's been taking advantage of web professionals who get thrown into SEO/Marketing jobs and have no idea what they're doing by relentlessly shoving half-assed corporate strategies through moz.com and now his new sparktoro.com, and calling himself the great SEO redeemer.

Wanna question his methodology? There is none. Wanna question his science? Totally devoid.

[mike_hearn]

Unfortunately, this sort of thing is absolutely standard when third parties discuss Twitter spam. There is an astounding amount of academic research doing the same thing with methodologies just as silly.

https://blog.plan99.net/fake-science-part-ii-bots-that-are-n...

[nonethewiser]

19.42 is a number rounded to 2dp. They rounded to "nearly 20" for the headline. I'm not sure how they could express things differently in this regard.

[seydor]

well if his science is SEO he seems to be good at it