Why Most Sites Never Make Much Money in SEO

Thanks SplishSplash for sharing.

splishsplash said:

You use aggressive anchors 80-90% of the time internally. External are a totally different story. Don't use generic anchors internally. exact, partial and lsi. Mostly exact and partial with a few lsi sprinkled in.

Click to expand...

but what about wikipedia? they 100% emq all time..

Abdullah Prem said:

but what about wikipedia? they 100% emq all time..

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm saying to use aggressive anchors internally 80-90% of the time, but you're saying wikipedia do this and they're successful?

Anyway, you would never compare to a site like that. Wikipedia is very likely on google's trust seed list, so no matter what they do, you don't take it as an example of how to rank.

There's a great one.
Besides, SEO is not a fast way to make changes from 0 to the moon. Thank you for sharing and reminding that

@splishsplash You don't have to worry about the negative comment, these guys would just stop you from posting good stuff. The first guy claimed to be saving members from falling for "buy links and get rich" promises. How the hell is this buy links and get rich promises. If you so care about members, please write your own posts, I sense so many envies.

What I really find annoying is when people say, this and that has been shared a thousand times, even if it has been shared a million times, and you felt you could do better, please do, someone somewhere would find that your particular piece useful.

@splishsplash

When you create supporting articles, do you go for 500 word length average? And do you buy cheap content like $2 per 500 words, then stick it on a page with no nav bar or sidebar (no internal links except for one pointing to money page) then index them but make sure no one can navigate to them so they cant be seen?

Also do you SEO optimize them?

splishsplash said:

Also, I didn't mention, but external links are important. No one uses them. Always add at least 3-4 external links to every page.

Click to expand...

This is very interesting. I can't recal where, but I read on one of the seo blogs that they did an experiment where they made 2 sites with the same content ranking for the same imaginary keyword and the only difference was that one of the sites had internal links to high authority sites and other didn't. The site that had the internal links outranked the other site on every keyword they ranked for.

On second thought, I think I read it on the Ahrefs blog and the study was conducted by somebody else. Anyways, I have a little question for you.

When you said you added those external links, did you D0follow or N0follow them? I always thought that you will lose a lot of link juice when linking to high authority sites with a D0follow link. What are you thoughts on this?

Thanks a lot for sharing.

Great post.

splishsplash said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm saying to use aggressive anchors internally 80-90% of the time, but you're saying wikipedia do this and they're successful?

Anyway, you would never compare to a site like that. Wikipedia is very likely on google's trust seed list, so no matter what they do, you don't take it as an example of how to rank.

Click to expand...

so google do favour for authority sites no matter what they do....

Good posts, thanks

Helpful for me, I will following this and save it

@splishsplash,
Thanks for your "Full Example of How to Do On-Page SEO", it's really helpful and I also do it for my next plan.
But seeing your Do on-page SEO, its really impressive work on the other hand please Give us also OFF-PAGE SEO GUIDE.
So we can match all the points and do it the proper way.

Thanks in advance.

splishsplash said:

All that changed from 2010 to today with on-page is that Google now has the rank brain, so it knows "best toaster" is the same as "toaster reviews", and it knows when an article has more words like "top", "best", "great", "good", "reviewed", "picks" it's it's all related to reviews.

Click to expand...

John Muller and co need to arrest you. *smiles.

splishsplash said:

They both need a certain amount of exposure to the main keyword group otherwise google will just not consider it relevant. People who are ranking with just the main title in the keyword and think that's all you need are not understanding the algorithm. If all you needed was the keyword in the title and high quality content, then on-page seo wouldn't even exist. Google would essentially be a near human level AI that could look at a title and say "Ok, this is about X", then read the article and conclude "This is a high quality article about X, with good information." It cannot do this.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, because if all you need(ed) was a good title, then all the Google updates won't matter.

I mean, back in those days all you needed was to edit your meta telling G this page is about X and they gonna believe you.

I feel, now you gotta spoonfeed (or should I say convince) Google for them to get it.

And it's logical that a well written article with the main kw sprinkled properly around can obviously mean "this article is for this."

Makes sense I think!

Toz said:

I love this post! I'm super excited about my current website project and I'm one of the ones who is focusing on both!

Quick question... For internal linking, I've been doing it manually. Do you recommend any plugins for handling this? I have seen some being advertised, but haven't used one. I feel it would be a huge time saver, though. But ideally, it would need to internally link within the silos and not across the entire website.

I'd love to know your thoughts on this.

Click to expand...

Link Whisper has been touted - I think Festinger has it here for free

ozzie5 said:

Link Whisper has been touted - I think Festinger has it here for free

Click to expand...

I've already purchased it.
Thanks, though.

OMG! So much information here. I noticed this article today. Thank you for this.

Questions for you.

splishsplash said:

but if you have a 4000 word article and you've got "best toasters" used twice, once in the title/h1 and once in the body, then you've failed at on-page seo

Click to expand...

How many times do I need to include my keywords in 1000 words article? as a good ratio what is your recommendation? (I'm going to use this ration form increasing word count 2x, 3x)

It should be main keyword only or using collection of main keyword, long tail , LSI?

splishsplash said:

Link more to important pages and use aggressive anchors. 80-90% should be targeted anchors. One with "best toaster", one with "best toasters", another with "toaster reviews", another with "the best toasters", another with "we reviewed the best toasters" and so on. Don't be afraid to re-use "best toasters" 2-3 times though.

Click to expand...

Let say I have 1500 word article, how many times I can link to the other inner articles of my site from using these keywords? how many times I can use one keyword and how many keywords can I use in (let's say 1500 words) article?

Is there any limit for using interlink on article? or I can use many as much as possible for internal links?

I need to learn as much as I can about SEO over the next few days. The comments indicate that this post and your on-page follow-up are golden advice, so I'm making them my official plunge. Thanks for taking the time.

RichKIDLK said:

OMG! So much information here. I noticed this article today. Thank you for this.

Questions for you.


How many times do I need to include my keywords in 1000 words article? as a good ratio what is your recommendation? (I'm going to use this ration form increasing word count 2x, 3x)

It should be main keyword only or using collection of main keyword, long tail , LSI?



Let say I have 1500 word article, how many times I can link to the other inner articles of my site from using these keywords? how many times I can use one keyword and how many keywords can I use in (let's say 1500 words) article?

Is there any limit for using interlink on article? or I can use many as much as possible for internal links?

Click to expand...

It's not about a ratio/keyword density. Google is NOT looking for "ratios". That wouldn't make sense. A ratio doesn't indicate relevance.

They are just looking for keywords and phrases. That's it. Around 3-8 for your main keyword. Regardless of the size of the article. A bunch of variations and plenty of the single words. That's it. So if it's "best toasters", then 3-8 "best toasters", some "top toasters", "toaster reviews" and what you know are variations, and on top of that make sure to use the words "toaster" and "toasters" a lot. Just look at how many times they're used on articles similar to yours on page 1. On top of that you can just make sure you're using extra words you KNOW are related. This could be toasting, toasted, best, top, great, good, reviewed, reviews, review, researched. Forget ratios. You're just want the algorithm to see that your article is relevant for the main keyword, and a main keyword is always a group of keywords.

Stop asking how many times. It's completely the wrong approach. I have absolutely no idea. There isn't some golden number where if you link 5 times you'll have special results. It's a complicated algorithm that contains a lot of different elements. The core of it is simple, but trying to "micro optimize" with certain ratios is just futile.

Just don't link 500 times from 1 article. Don't do ridiculous things.

Once, twice, three times, 9 times. 3 in 1 large article, 10 in another large article, 2 in a small article. There's no formula. Just link around here and there from pages that are related using exact/partial anchors.