So is this the decimation of SEO?

BLIXX said:

It certainly sounds like you're doing all of the things that people who are selling you stuff say you should do, which are probably serving as spam signals as opposed to the link diversity you wanted. But that's another thread.

In the end, it is about content, the quality of that content, the quantity of that content, and whether or not that content can better answer a query than another site that is technically more authoritative than yours. It is also about your site's backlink profile vs. the backlink profile of the sites that now appear on page one for your keys. Regrading the former, and if I'm reading your post correctly, you have a site with 6 articles: 'Quality' is often determined in the aggregate, then compared and contrasted with other metrics. Short version: you need more articles -- algorithms are math; ergo, even 'quality' is determined by quantity in most instances. As regards the latter, if you are committed to the domain, you must analyze the backlink profiles of the top 10 winners, throw out any anomalies (they will be there, probably around 20% of the top 10, actually) and replicate their approach, if it is, if fact, replicable.

Click to expand...

Acceptable but it doesn't explain some sites with only 500 words I still see ranking on #1
Also, emds are about something very specific, so adding more information would mean going off topic, which gives you more quantity but not more quality because it's simply not what a visitor is looking for.
Maybe it's better to stick with authority sites. I got 3 big ones but when I compare the effort I have to put into them to the effort mns ask, it is clear that mns are more profitable in a shorter time with less attention.

bestmate said:

This is what you do to set up your site initially. Also make sure the quality is HIGH and not some cheap $5 article or copied content or created using one of those re-writter software. Then every week you need to add a new post at least once a week and keep building links slowing so the site is growing at a steady pace with high quality content and backlinks. This is what i do and my rankings rose overall during the last update. Just putting together a 5x500 + 1 x 1000 MNS and then do nothing for months may be considered a low quality website.

Click to expand...

My content must be appreciated because I noticed that I often get natural facebook likes and google plus after a while. The cost of my articles depends on the topic. More difficult topics like cancer and such often cost me between $8 and $10 because they require a lot of research..

wezzy said:

Acceptable

Click to expand...

"Acceptable"...? A "thank you, I'll actually look into it" would have sufficed.

but it doesn't explain some sites with only 500 words I still see ranking on #1

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Re-read my post.

Also, emds are about something very specific, so adding more information would mean going off topic, which gives you more quantity but not more quality because it's simply not what a visitor is looking for.

Click to expand...

You are conflating micro-sites with micro-niche sites. The latter can be 10 pages, but can also be 3,000 pages.

[...] it is clear that mns are more profitable in a shorter time with less attention.

Click to expand...

Not if your "high quality" 6 page micro-sites are wiped out every third month.


Look, I know what I'm talking about and I'm genuinely trying to help you. To be frank, you're reply is quite the exemplar of why genuine help around here from those truly knowledgeable in SEO are as rare as the coelacanth -- it's almost never worth the effort.

But I'll try again: 'Quality' is often determined in the aggregate, then compared and contrasted with other metrics. Short version: you need more articles -- algorithms are math; ergo, even 'quality' is determined by quantity in most instances. As regards the latter, if you are committed to the domain, you must analyze the backlink profiles of the top 10 winners, throw out any anomalies (they will be there, probably around 20% of the top 10, actually) and replicate their approach, if it is, if fact, replicable.

^It should take you no less than two, eight-hour days to complete this profile analysis in an accurate fashion. But you post 2 1/2 hours after I spend my time on you, with "acceptable." Clown.

swi7ch said:

I wouldn't worry too much about it. After all, the world is ending in 12/12/12

Click to expand...

no its 12/21/12

I'm just starting to get into the IM game and I think some of the first sites I build will be micro-niche sites. They seem like a solid foundation for getting started and playing around with tools as a beginner without throwing too much money at them. Of course that reflects on the gains I guess, but I'd like to figure out what I'm doing wrong and how to do them correctly before I place a misunderstood investment.

BLIXX said:

Clown.

Click to expand...

Oh I didn't know you're the kinda guy that tries to help people by insulting them Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time for writing the post but it's still only "acceptable" for me as I haven't been able to confirm your explanation myself.

TK421 said:

Guess we better all start using Ultimate Demon then....

Click to expand...

Ouchiee.

Lol - use whatever you want. The secret for most is the pi$$ poor, weak a$$ed content.
If your site is a 2 page wonder full of plagirised content, the no matter how much you spend on a linking service or tool, ultimately you'll fail.

Links aren't called "links" for nothing. They "link" to content - not thin air.
If the content they link to if crap, then the link is crap

Guys on here with blogs they updated last 4 months ago, with only about 5 posts in total, all under 300 words.
Then spending $100's or $1000's on linking services or subs
These are blogs I'm on about - blogs need to be fed, good content, and LOT's of it.



Good links to crap content is like communicating by having a fibre optic cable between two tin cans and expecting broadband.

Scritty