Does 60,000 Webpages = 60,000 Visitors/Month?

I'm just going to shoot down a few of your comments to prove you have no idea what you are talking about as far as some of the propaganda / gross misinformation, you are spewing.

Actually that is not true at all...For terms like sex, yes perhaps it is, but for 95% of the websites online there is no where near that amount of daily search volume.

Actually high quality links using anchor text are what determines the rankings for most competitive keywords.

Where has Google posted their algorithmic computation to give you the facts that you "CLAIM" to know???

Actually they can. Here is why. Google crawls servers and indexes the pages it finds there. At the same time they happen to crawl the links they find. Don't need a sitemap or any inbound links whatsoever for Google to index pages.

You need links to have those indexed pages rank in the SERP.

Actually Google never reveals all the links they see, or count as far as quality is concerned. Your just writing whatever you think without any merit ...basically a lot of misinformation which is never good for others reading your very long winded and error ridden posts.

Actually thats not quite true either, I have a few sites I never update, they sit at # 1 for competitive keywords as well and have for a couple of years and I've many clients who rarely update their sites, yet Google crals these sites daily... What we do have is a healthy set of high PR links from authority sites which drives the robots to the sites.

Anyone can test this for themselves. Take a site that has not been updated in sometime and then build a couple of quality links everyday. Googlebot will slam your server everyday as well.

Anyway you should relax take a chill pill or 20, and come back after you have an iota of what you are writing about, or better yet hire someone who does....

Be well and try not to post so much gibberish......it makes you look silly.

 

If you wish to make money online then it takes a considerable amount of effort and time. You need to be truly dedicated before you can earn the reward.

I highly doubt there is a short-cut around all of this. If there was then the "maker" would keep it private and certainly not try to sell it on. This idea is not good for the web and Google will nail it in no time.

 

I have to wear boots when I am in this bullshit of a thread.

 

Hey Sem,

Well... interesting. That's a lot of work you did to line those quotes up and comment on each... gotta have nimble fingers and a ton of patience to - try to shoot me down? That was actually your intention?

Tell you what... I'll take my chill pills if you take yours.

Next, let me note that this thread is turning less functional... more like a chess-match, and that's not so useful because we could spend hours debating fine hairs. And folks are going to look at everyone's (your's, mine, and everyone else's) trying to figure out who's right and who's wrong.

And that just leads back to general study, such as Google Webmaster training, directly.
So I'm not sure there's much value in adding more. I'm not posting to convince or train; I'm posting to let the folks for whom what I say resonates with them follow along. I want to develop a core crew of guys who like to think about this stuff, because that's what we're doing... building up a wholly flexible set of directions from a combination of about 15 pieces of software and 50,000 ways to go with it.

I suppose it's my turn to 'shoot back at you', but I'll instead ask why you aim for nitty-gritty details instead of functional questions? That is, why debate instead of consider what's possible to develop ideas further...?

Case in point... here was your first comment to the first quote you listed from me:

"Actually that is not true at all...For terms like sex, yes perhaps it is, but for 95% of the websites online there is no where near that amount of daily search volume."

Ok... let's go with that, and agree that what you say is factual (obviously it's a reasonable and educated guess about the proportion of sex-related searches to other searches). Anyway, let's assume you're right on the money.

Well, where does that leave us...?

Currently, there are about 30,000,000,000 searches per month on Google (obviously not an exact number, but having an exact number doesn't add functional value unless you sell this exact number somehow. But this is a number that Google put out not long ago, to contrast with earlier numbers to show the accelerating growth curve in Google searches over the years).

That works out to about 11,570 searches per second (obviously also a rounded number, and one that will fluctuate throughout the weeks and months... but it's growing at a breakneck speed).

Ok... so if we assume your point is solidly on the money: 95% of that traffic (hopefully) has nothing to do with what you sell. Fine.

That leaves 5% of that 11,570 (or about 580 searches per second) that would apply to folks who generally sell or offer or train over stuff. Well, ok... let's assume for ease that there are around 580 different types of things being searched for, generally... bankruptcy services, adoption services, clothing, hobby stuff, etc.

You sell some of that. And you know to sell enough variance - don't rely on just one 'yellow hat' to make your living, right? Sell a bunch of hats. And perhaps some t-shirts. Same applies to services.

Anyway, let's say that you're completely right about this:

Only 1 person nearly every second is looking for what you sell (clothing/jackets/bankruptcy/adoption/hobby stuff)... only 1 person nearly every second. Not 100.

Here's where your direction is losing me... you are busy bothering to point out that 'my numbers are off', and take time to clarify, sensibly, why that seems so.

But the flip-side is that you are almost dismissing the value of the point... it's like you're saying that 1 person nearly every second is small enough to brush aside. Why focus on whether my 'math' is complete? Whether 100 people per second or only 360,000 per day... this is not a number to brush off lightly as though it was simply 'incorrect.'

What's more interesting is to note the absolute truth that out of 360,000 people per day, only about 1,000 are using the 'mainstream keywords' to click onto sites. The rest of the [non-sex] searches (indeed, HALF of searches on Google) are so unique that they are never repeated within a year. And when you watch your own visitor tracking keyword analysis, you'll see that for yourself. That's another quote put out by Google as well).

Other comments just become 'fencing'... and that is useless, because users aren't sure who to believe.

For instance: you say that Google browses pages off servers and indexes them; therefore no navigation is necessary. This is completely incorrect, but no one can blame you for thinking this:

If you host on Google's packages, then yes - they'll see all your pages.
If you have a Google toolbar and visit such a disconnected page, it'll be noted (when you're logged onto your Google toolbar) - and Google may possibly index it.
Same applies to other toolbars, because various search engines catch data from one another.
If you have Google analytics on that disconnected page, Google will see it - and possibly index it.

However, again you lost the functional 'how do we use this?' angle.
You just felt this need to attack me, or what happened...?

Instead, why didn't you ask me something like this: 'Ok, WMS... say that Google indexes pages directly from the servers. So it will note all your webpages. How do you deal with that?'
Maybe there's an answer. And maybe that leads to more. And maybe that helps something useful happen. Why not do that, instead?

You said: "Actually high quality links using anchor text are what determines the rankings for most competitive keywords."

Actually, domain name directly ranks highest if the content follows the theme.
Then URL keyword phrasing. Then 'title' tags, then meta description, then headers (H1), keyword density (especially applicable high on the page), then related page links, then anchor text on the page, alt tags, and title (link) text. And all of that is one part of the equation, but a hefty, hefty one. Another part is general traffic as perceived by Google. Still another part is external backlinks. Another is what your website is generally all about.

These are four of the biggest factors, and you don't need to have them all going for you (though it's a good idea eventually anyway).

What you suggested: "Actually high quality links using anchor text are what determines the rankings for most competitive keywords." ... is actually just one tiny part that does its job as well as it can. It's not the most important thing you can do, but sure: it definitely helps!

Your next comment... (again, why attack?)
This was definitely a 'loaded' question (and cocked, and rattling off machine fire in all directions?):
You said, "Where has Google posted their algorithmic computation to give you the facts that you "CLAIM" to know??? "

No, Google won't post their algorithms. But they give a ton of training and a number of Google semi-insiders can give you the general scoop as well. This isn't 'news' if you read about this stuff enough, such as on the Google Webmaster topics. Google does tell you a lot more about what I've been saying above.

Another one... instead of locating the value of this point to do something functional with it in the conversation, you blew the concept off (and miss the chance to develop on the theme):

You said, "Actually Google never reveals all the links they see, or count as far as quality is concerned."

Of course. Google will not include all the links they see out there. But the original question was whether you had to have a ton of quality backlinks to get noticed in the engines. The answer is "that's one to do some good, but not the only way, and no - it's actually not necessary at all. Go look: many sites have no known external links according to Google."

You pointed out something not functional. Namely, you said that Google doesn't show all the links it indexes (measuring my words carefully - with a 'ruler', for instance). But then you stopped cold... when you could have said something more, like: 'but interesting to think about it again. It's true that there are a lot of sites ranking high for many searches, which Google does not find any quality links for. Surely the argument can't be that Google demands you have at least bad links that Google won't show anyway before it ranks you.' It's true that you do NOT need external links to rank for a lot of searches - especially the longer-tail combinations, which is the highest purchasing demographic among search demographics, anyway.


Finally, you said: "What we do have is a healthy set of high PR links from authority sites which drives the robots to the sites." Notice that this is a whole different strategy to that point?

1) If you update content on pages, Google will learn to check it more frequently, even if you don't have backlinks to it. Fundamentally, this IS correct. If you update content on your site frequently, Google does tend to check it over more often directly, whether you have backlinks or not. But, this does assume you're generally 'in the game.' If we try to create a website with no traffic, no keyword density, etc - then sure. Google isn't seeing value. I'm expecting your site has at least some traffic; some optimized pages, etc.

2) You said that if you have IB links on other high PR sites, then the robots see your links. You're correct, of course. This is a very good way to go.


Ok... notice how long that took? First, for you to attack... and then for me to follow through on your points comprehensively enough that we don't keep doing this with small, disjointed comments:

[[[[[[[[

 

Whoops, time for the waders. The shit is getting really deep now.

 

What a waste of time.

Let me summarize:
Guy starts thread to promote his website located in his signature
The guy clearly knows very little about Google or search engines in general
People waste too much time arguing with him
The guy argues back
He still knows very little about Google or search engines in general

 

I sure hope all my competitors are reading this thread and taking this guy's advice.

 

My favorite paragraph on MOWG website is:

The title of this thread should really start with: Does 60,000 hits of Crack-Pipe = (Fill in your favorite paragraph from http://www.mowg-crew.com)


Hey wmsolutions, can we please see ANY website which you claim brings 60,000 visitors/month?

Because neither your brother's http://simplified-marketing-solutions.com

nor your http://website-marketing-solutions.com can seem to even make into Alexa's top 100,000... rank

http://www.mowg-crew.com/ is also practically invisible compared to what you're claiming to do for $749 on it.

Besides, you're offering Graphic Design services while yours and your brother's page both look like they were built with FrontPage in 1991!

Seriously man! Lay off the rock!

 

Thank for all the information!

 

ugh, could somebody shove this moron, jonathanfigaro's head in a toilet and give it a good flush?

hee hee hee hee That made me giggle.

 

wmsolutions:
What is really needed is a case study. Give me a review copy of the software package. I will use it to sale a click bank product and publish the results. I will split the money made with you, thus paying you for the product. Deal? If I can make 10k for the next three months from this selling a click bank product then that is 15k in your pocket. I am serious. I know it sounds as a come on, but I would be happy to do a case study review of the product and publish the results. I really believe it will work.

 

I have just started so I only have a few, but I had the same idea you did expansion of a website will more than likely be good as long as each page is optimized for as a landing page.

 

I guess passing my affiliate link for Hip Waders at Bass Pro Shops would be a bit much????

You're trying to rescue me thanks!!!!!

But you have to admit he could at least write content for a website, his posts are like diarrhea,,,,, goes on and on with no relief in site.

 

I *heartily* recommend you all read sem-advanced's great post up above for a grounder in search engine basics. He really knows his stuff, and seems to have that rare ability to explain it well, too!