Basics
What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
11–20 of 45 posts
Re: What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
#12I love the web and making no-BS web things so much that I'm really glad I'm not a Startup and need to know none of these things.
Re: What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
#13Nice content marketing piece and guide for an SEO beginner but I stopped reading here: > all with a 95% SEO acquisition strategy That's so wrong. Free organic traffic is great. But if you rely fully on organic traffic, it rather shows that your LTV is not bigger than your CAC and if Google or competition kills your search traffic, your business is done and/or you can't scale when your mighty SEO doesn't work anymore.
How does organic traffic show your LTV !> acquisition cost?
Re: What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
#14The real SEO is getting backlinks. They dominate every other aspect. Getting a high rank through "natural" SEO is really hard. I know someone who makes $12MM/year from high-ranking websites in extremely competitive keywords... and it's all about peddling links, really. The first page of results rarely has any correlation with quality (of information/product) and more than likely the correlation is actually negative.…
Any thoughts on https://millionshort.com ?
I've seen it mentioned here. I've thought about using it for stuff, but most of my searches are programming queries which google is actually really good at. It's noticeably better than DDG for programming because it usually infers correctly which language I'm talking about. But as you said, perhaps not so good for PHP? Also I use an ad blocker, so perhaps I'm not seeing what you're seeing.
Re: What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
#15The real SEO is getting backlinks. They dominate every other aspect. Getting a high rank through "natural" SEO is really hard. I know someone who makes $12MM/year from high-ranking websites in extremely competitive keywords... and it's all about peddling links, really. The first page of results rarely has any correlation with quality (of information/product) and more than likely the correlation is actually negative.…
>I know someone who makes $12MM/year from high-ranking websites in extremely competitive keywords... and it's all about peddling links, really.
How are these sites monetized?
Re: What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
#16Use keyword search tool to find searches that have no high quality results. Then write a blog post for that topic and post the link casually on Reddit comments, twitter, etc. then wait a few weeks and it will be the #1 result. I have used this strategy for several years, it basically comes down to writing quality content on topics that don’t have any content.
Searches/topics that don't have any content , usually have very low traffic.
So what's the point ?
Re: What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
#17The real SEO is getting backlinks. They dominate every other aspect. Getting a high rank through "natural" SEO is really hard. I know someone who makes $12MM/year from high-ranking websites in extremely competitive keywords... and it's all about peddling links, really. The first page of results rarely has any correlation with quality (of information/product) and more than likely the correlation is actually negative.…
Any thoughts on https://millionshort.com ? I've seen it mentioned here. I've thought about using it for stuff, but most of my searches are programming queries which google is actually really good at. It's noticeably better than DDG for programming because it usually infers correctly which language I'm talking about. But as you said, perhaps not so good for PHP? Also I use an ad blocker, so perhaps I'm not seeing what…
It doesn't help much. Most notably, it even removes credible sites like Wikipedia.
Programming queries are a completely different thing. I'm talking about queries like "plumber in X", "build website", "which laptop to use" etc - queries where there's a very direct path from search to money being spent. Those queries are completely littered, you can just skip 10 pages and maybe you will find some actual professionals or enthusiasts with actual information.
Re: What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
#18The real SEO is getting backlinks. They dominate every other aspect. Getting a high rank through "natural" SEO is really hard. I know someone who makes $12MM/year from high-ranking websites in extremely competitive keywords... and it's all about peddling links, really. The first page of results rarely has any correlation with quality (of information/product) and more than likely the correlation is actually negative.…
>I know someone who makes $12MM/year from high-ranking websites in extremely competitive keywords... and it's all about peddling links, really. How are these sites monetized?
A combination of ads and referral links. Ads are not Google Ads (or similar), but sold directly, no middle-man.
The business very starkly displays a core truth: if you really know how to do SEO, you will run your own websites instead of selling "SEO services".
Re: What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
#19Use keyword search tool to find searches that have no high quality results. Then write a blog post for that topic and post the link casually on Reddit comments, twitter, etc. then wait a few weeks and it will be the #1 result. I have used this strategy for several years, it basically comes down to writing quality content on topics that don’t have any content.
Searches/topics that don't have any content , usually have very low traffic. So what's the point ?
That would be true if the number of topics in the world were constant, but new topics materialize all the time, and the popularity varies on old topics. Articles get old/outdated and are fertile ground for new articles with updated information, etc.
Re: What I’ve learned about SEO (2018)
#20Nice content marketing piece and guide for an SEO beginner but I stopped reading here: > all with a 95% SEO acquisition strategy That's so wrong. Free organic traffic is great. But if you rely fully on organic traffic, it rather shows that your LTV is not bigger than your CAC and if Google or competition kills your search traffic, your business is done and/or you can't scale when your mighty SEO doesn't work anymore.
How does organic traffic show your LTV !> acquisition cost?
I feel like there are a few unstated assumptions in whsheet's post. Even with those, of course, no advice is universal or without exception. They do make a good point, though.
My version of the thought process is that, all else equal, SEO has three key disadvantages:
1. Attribution is often harder than some other channels, and your experimental design has to account for that.
2. There is a less direct, unitary through-line from dollars invested to dollars earned. Say you spend X dollars on various SEO improvements this month, and you get Y units of growth (conversions, revenue, etc.) that you can attribute to that SEO work. It is less reliable to assume (relative to other channels) that spending 10X on SEO improvements next month will reward you with 10Y units of growth.
3. If SEO is your dominant channel at 95%, and you ever hit the maturity in the channel, the effect of the above is can be fatal to a growth-oriented startup. However you measure your SEO-based CAC, it is probably going to be lower than the CAC of whatever your backup/next channel ends up being, and lower by a large amount. If you have to add in a lot of SEM with your SEO, CAC goes way up, and if your LTV was too precariously close to your CAC already, you are very likely to go negative on your unit economics.
#2 and #3 are what I assumed whsheet was intending as I read their post.