I love looking at the competition and seeing what they do to increase traffic. I noticed enviable sites have at least 300 indexed pages. When I started clicking on the pages by running site:webpage.com I found that many of the pages are made of crap content. They are stuff with keywords and have tons of grammatical mistakes. Which lead me to believe either 1) it was written by someone in India for 10 cents per 100 words or 2) by a bot. Is this really effective?
No, of course not. A page can be indexed, but it doesn't mean it can be found in a search. Period. And, even if it is, the first-time visitors will leave within, oh, hmmmmmm, probably in about 5 seconds flat. And, even if it was a useful page, it still has to land on the the first couple of pages to be read, because practically all of us don't go past those first two pages. Hell, many don't even go past the first page. And, it has to remain ranked high also. Many are knocked out by other sites, or they disappear for no apparent reason. And... Okay, that's enough ands.
PERRY: PLEASE prove what you are saying. I know you cannot with your articles, so do it this way. Give the percent figures of search viewers clicking on the second page, position #11 to #20. I know them, the people I teach know them. You do not know what true SEO writing is, so do not write about it. Cinesechess: There is a wide misunderstanding of keywords. Few "writers" know their meaning or useless facor unless used properly. The targeted keywords could be "Chinese" and "dragon" and end up being the words "the", "and". Simply put, in well over 90% of cases keywords are simply the words in the content that have the highest per/hundred usage or ratio. The variance factor = synonyms. Please do not put down people in India, many of them outshine the ghetto or ebonic talkers in America. False users are merely creating internet doggie litter, the poster above gives a good example of doggie litter.
@perry - what people can also do is have some relevant content above the fold and have "bot" content below the fold. That will measure up your keyword density, etc. @dyadvisor - thanks for your advice.
Chinesechess: You appear wise. The first two Goggle search listings snag over 50% of the traffic for that search phrase. The top 10 garner 93%. The #11 to #20 only gather 5%. If you do not already have this FREE truth serum product, get it. If you use Firefox, download the SEO Quake tool, and have it loaded on your mouse. Put it to action. On any webpage, right click the mouse, pick SEO quake and pick "keywords" <E>. Because of Google Mayday 2010, focus on the single word list. The top 5 should be the keywords, with the next 5 as supporters. Google density should be 2.0 per hundred words to 2.5. Above 4.5 is definite red flagging, although often unintentional. Under 2.0 is simply not using important words often enough. An excellent test, that even few "SEO" keyword pros pass on organic word use. Hope this helps you or another wise person-------------
People most certainly do go beyond the first and second pages of the results. Depending upon the topic, sometimes those first two pages aren't really even worth reading or contain variations of the same exact article. I work in two niches, pets and crafts, where filler and copied content often outranks the real resources. The problem in both is that the people who share information freely out of a love of the subject are often not SEO savvy and are often easily outranked by more SEO savvy folks posting gibberish. I've seen hits to my websites from search engine results in the low to to mid 200s. I seem to recall at least one hit from a 500+ result. Granted, that's not a frequent occurrence but I know of many working in those niches, including myself, who skip to page 5 or 6 of the results in an attempt to find quality sites. I'm not going to debate the numbers. My point is simply that while there are studies and statistics to provide general guidance, those averages simply do not represent 100% of topics. So, in answer to the original question, depending upon the niche and the level of SEO knowledge of the competition, bot copywriting can unfortunately be highly effective. However, those results often last only as long as it takes the folks providing quality content to get more web savvy and learn more about SEO, linking strategies and site promotion. Keep putting quality content on your site. Keep building quality links. Keep building a site worthy of visiting. Hopefully, in time, your "competition" will be chasing you.
*chuckles at dyadvisor* Go take your medicine, there, wizard. Other than pointing out your continuous BS and making up numbers in your empty little head in new members' threads, my time isn't worth exchanging serious posts with you. Absolutely. But we all put it in there anyway, so that is a moot point. But, just know that if you over do it, you very well may have cut your own throat. Keep it natural. No "keyword stuffing"!! What works, what ranks a site high are backlinks. Then again, maybe you already know this. ;-) Bottom line, is what I said in my first post. And...if you aren't on the first couple of pages anyway, well, expect just a few hits every now and then, if that many. But that doesn't really have to do with your question, though, so.... What you have described on what other webmasters are doing CAN be effective, since the spiders could care less about that, as long as the keywords are spelled correctly. BUT...just about all of the first-time visitors will leave within seconds, never to come back. Good luck with your site(s).
YMC The figures are correct. I think you do not give yourself credit that you are working in niches where knowing your subject determines ranking. This means,you often use synonyms very effectively, and a wide use of terminology. A high quality article does not have top twenty potential on one search phrase. I teach, where a writer must list at least 30 possible combos. With good synonym use, and less knowledgeable competition you are developing an easy another 30 more. This probably holds true in your case. So often your planned search phrase might have too much competition. However your words are matching less popular search phrases. This is ideal. If you get 10 out of 100 monthly searches for one unknown combo this adds to many others. Thereby, you may be getting 200 visits, pulled in from the search engines from search phrases less commonly used. That is better than 100% of nothing. This is effectively and smartly delivering you steady traffic. Then it does not matter if your targeted search phrase is #500 or #5,000. Just check Alexa, you will see the terms people used to reach your site. Often they did not match your intentions, but caught Google's eye. You are using natural SEO. Bottom line: You delivered to enough searchers. Do not view the "SEO savvy" as competition, there are so few to do it organically like you are. I believe you know more about SEO than 90% of them. Wrong again Perry. Quality relevant backlinks are important, not quantity. 10 authority or association links from your trade are worth more than 500 bought ones. Quality always rules. A true knowing of SEO is wise, but a false one is dangerous. You are using it correct.
@dyadvisor - good advice on new kw combos. do you have a special way to find these? i've tried semrush to see what people are searching and to an extent compete.com - google kw tool is useless as it's too broad to really help me narrow down what are the new kw's. @ymc - you made a good point that i've always failed to notice. in the past, if i were to look for the original content you'd have to go to the next page to really get the source. in many cases, the "source" isn't in it for the money nor optimization. they're usually the researchers or .edu, etc. but that makes me think rewrites can be very effective it done right and perhaps even better than the source. question: do you know great rewriters? thanks all for your great and thoughtful advice.
Dyadviser, I wasn't referring to my own sites but those of others. Many folks with blogs and even highly informative websites in those niches are not SEO savvy. Researching sites to add to my directories has proven this to be true time and again. Sure, some of my sites see hits from keyword phrases where I rank way back; we all do. That information is golden. It tells me all of the sites before me are not offering what was being looked for. I have several articles that virtually own the top spot for keywords that Google essentially handed to me on a silver platter. I wrote about this back in 2008 on my blog Google Gives #1 Rankings for Free. That page still rules the SERPs over 2 years later! Chinesechess, yes indeed that's the irony. I've seen what I would call true "authority sites" way back in the SERPs behind over-optimized, often factually incorrect, unreadable, gibberish. Trying to chase them with a rewrite is a short-term strategy. A well-optimized (keywords & backlink strategy) and original piece can have you virtually owning the number one position. The reason so much of the quality work fails to rank, at least from my observations, is often due to lack of backlinks. It's the sad reality that the search engines equate backlinks with quality and that an article from an expert on herpetology can be easily outranked by fluffy keyword stuffed nonsense like "Frogs make good pets. Good pets like frogs are small animals that take up little room. Pet frogs are small and require little food."
Uhh, no shit? ... Really? *shakes head* Obviously, fool. And, um, quality has nothing to do with it. The word is relevancy. And, um, a webmaster needs both, quanity AND relevancy. Your BS is consistent, I'll give you that one.
Perry: the only backlink you have is deep throat. Source = Google YMC - Michelle, on what you are referring to? You have 2 Google backlinks, and O from Yahoo. You have a PR3 (respectable). Your search word phrase or blog page? I could write an article, no backlinks, and knock those search terms out. Fortunately for you no one has done it. However if you keep writing quality standards high, you will get many times "longtail keywords" that rank without you knowing about it. I could prove it to you, but I do not want to harm your position holding. If you pick a "competitor" 4 word search term phrase, just for your sake I will prove it. I should know before writing, an indication of placement. No links, no black hat, just skill and relevant content. Why are you so negative to your blog responders? The point made of use of frames was very valid. Is your "secret phrase" here?: 1 crafty tips 4.43% 2 pvc pipe projects 3.24% 3 craft tip sites 2.61% 4 pvc pipe arts 2.21% 5 heather's friendship bracelets 2.10% 6 needlepoint embroidery 2.02% 7 pvc craft 2.00% 8 collage decoupage 2.00% 9 collage and decoupage tips 1.82% 10 bleach pen crafts 1.71% Those are your top traffic drawers.
*chuckles* Um, wizard, among so many things you get wrong and you make up, you didn't even know who owned Alexa. lol So, your facts, figures and endless dribble, that really don't mean anything anyway, that you continue to make up in your head to make yourself look sooooo intelligent are even more laughable. Now, go take a pill, and then a nap.
Perry, you should be ashamed if people looked at your e-juice, old unsold book shop, with a memorial to yourself mug shot, that was suppose to be that of a writer. Looking at Alexa shows sub par figures for even someone with under 6 months performance, and googling your name keeps bringing up your dribbling deep throat experiences. On most, the same shows a person's accomplishments and character qualities. You have well established a reputation that shows no validity of mastering anything to do with writing. Your total misuse of snip its? And then your insistence on the wording of cann spam and lack of the complexity of this area. Even after another member and I showed the word was can-spam, and a regulated area where guessing asks for trouble. I show my skill in areas only where it exists. Just like in the the post note to YMC, I have no intention of proving ability to hurt another member's work. In other areas, often YMC knows more, like long page copywriting, and I have said so. I also mentioned to others that the website pattern was top notch. Yet you profess to know copywriting also, and even running boards like DP's? When is your blinded imagination going to stop? You have self-professed on here of posting while drunk. I would find it hard to blame everything totally on that. From Canada, you with your older age, certainly understands baseball. A good team like a forum consists of singles hitters, home run hitters, bunters, rookies, and advisors. What they no not need is someone who strikes out over 3,000 times in a row. Try a different game. Writing is a career, where everyone wise at ANY part is constantly learning and adjusting. Wisecracks from peanut throwers only create a mess. Please show at least one existing person here some respect of their subject knowledge. I sure get enough communication (outside the posts) reflecting your weakness showing, and tired of being misled from those false, often very crude words. I am sure there is some kind of job you could find, or are you a hopeless victim of unemployment?
Actually no, none of those are the phrase that I am referring to. And do please refrain from continuing to list guesses if you really have "no intention of proving ability to hurt another member's work." Why the fixation on putting my example under a microscope? I thought we were having a discussion on whether or not low-quality filler content can impact a site's rankings. My point was only that not all niches are created equal when it comes to how difficult or easy it is for low-quality writing to rank well and that people looking for information on those topics will go quite deep within the results to find it. I also made the suggestion that when someone visits your site using some long-tail, often off-topic keyword phrase, it should be seen as something that might fairly easy to rank for. Nowhere did I say that your numbers were incorrect. All I said was that IMHO they represent an average across topics and at least two that I work in do not fit that norm.
search engines love unique content. They hate dupe content, almost as much as they hate badly-spun or 'markoved' content. If your bot-generated content doesn't trip their filters, they'll love it. Real humans might not, of course. there's only one bot that I aM AWARE OF THAT WRITES AS WELL AS YOUR TYPICAL 'BURGER WRITER'. oops, slipped into caps. My bad. Damn this fat thumb.