Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy

boringseo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy

#41

Post by pvitz »

enlightens wrote: post #23
jedberg wrote: post #21

Today I learned about the broken link building technique. Wow that is gross. At least the way that site says to do it is by straight up lying to people about how the link moved to a new site. It wouldn't be so bad if they would at least say, "I made a page with similar information", but suggesting that people straight up lie about it tells me everything I need to know about the ethics of the site that is making that…

I didn't take it that way, though I could be wrong. > I got an error message when I tried to click on this site: http://DeadURL.org/index.jsp > It looks like they made a change to their home page but didn't update it... anyhow, the correct link is here: http://www.FixedURL.org/ I think both of those URLs are third parties and supposed to be the content that the site used to link to. Then the email template goes on wi…

From the linked guide at [0], I understand rather that you find the broken link on a website with relevant keywords for your niche, determine what the website behind the broken link said (e.g. through the use of the web archive) and then create new content saying essentially the same. Then, you would inform the webmaster that he could link to you instead.

[0] https://moz.com/blog/the-broken-link-building-bible

Re: Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy

#42

Post by cyral »

mdoms wrote: post #36

As an alternative to techniques like "broken link building" and "the skyscraper technique" have you considered jumping into a hole and never coming out? I am sick to the back teeth of cold emails from these SEO chowderheads fishing for backlinks. How about, instead, you contribute to relevant communities (no, that doesn't mean spamming your keyword soup into them, it means making actual meaningful contributions) and…

This, you'd be surprised how well it works. My latest web app (~1 year old) is on the first page for a popular single word keyword, and #1 or 2 for a ton of two word searches that are relevant to my industry. Google must know that people are finding what they are looking for because I've never made a site with such good search presence for such minimal effort (I don't have many posts or articles on the site, and do no outreach for backlinks)

Re: Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy

#43

Post by mdoms »

jedberg wrote: post #28
enlightens wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't take it that way, though I could be wrong. > I got an error message when I tried to click on this site: http://DeadURL.org/index.jsp > It looks like they made a change to their home page but didn't update it... anyhow, the correct link is here: http://www.FixedURL.org/ I think both of those URLs are third parties and supposed to be the content that the site used to link to. Then the email template goes on wi…

Ah I see, you're supposed to actually find the fixed link and then send it along with your own links. I guess that's slightly better.

0% of these SEO dweebs do it this way.

Re: Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy

#45

Post by matallo »

the__alchemist wrote: post #26

I disagree on not building your own blog engine as a general rule: Building a blog engine can be as simple as using a markdown-to-HTML converter library on your server, and using your backend's admin interface. Or a simple HTML page with a big text box and submit button. Depending on use case, this can be fine. The cognitive complexity of integrating with a 3rd-party engine can be more complicated than writing a simp…

Taking a look at the source code I can't tell if the author used a generator but it doesn't look like it.

I've worked in growth teams with a lot of SEO related work and I disagree too. Another thing is leveraging one of those engines to publish your content sooner, then iterate and build your own content management system.

Re: Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy

#46

Post by donohoe »

the__alchemist wrote: post #26

I disagree on not building your own blog engine as a general rule: Building a blog engine can be as simple as using a markdown-to-HTML converter library on your server, and using your backend's admin interface. Or a simple HTML page with a big text box and submit button. Depending on use case, this can be fine. The cognitive complexity of integrating with a 3rd-party engine can be more complicated than writing a simp…

As a general rule; please do not build your own blog engine.

Unless you're doing something simple, then fine.

Also, do build your own blog engine if you are also happy to manage META tags for Twitter, OpenGraph (Facebook) and general META tags for each post. Also if you are good with generating your own schema.org JSON for Search engines, manage your own taxonomies (tagging, categories, events, locations, authors), and also generating/updating sitemap.xml as needed.

One last point from above...

> Using a blog engine will probably make it tougher to get fast load times

No it won't. The blog engine is not the same as the front-end. You can modify the template, theme, or whatever as much as you like. You have full control here. Thats all on you.

> You can rank high on Google just by having good content and fast load times

Um, maybe - but not for anything that will matter. There is more to it than that.

Re: Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy

#48

Post by jl6 »

> Write good content

Then why do pages at the top of search results for everyday searches like recipes all have that godawful life-story blogspam structure?

Those sites are the polar opposite of “good content” and yet they hit the top rankings regardless.

Nobody writing in good faith sets out to write “content”. Anybody whose objective is “content” is not to be trusted.

No, the way to get top ranking is to throw your readers under the bus and recognize how this game works: your objective is to create a page that shoves as many adverts as you can in your reader’s face. Short content? Pad that shit out so you can fit more interstitials amongst its paragraphs. Google makes money off most of these adverts, so they are happy to reward such sites with high rankings. You’re happy. Google is happy. Who else matters?

Re: Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy

#49

Post by the__alchemist »

donohoe wrote: post #46
the__alchemist wrote: post #26

I disagree on not building your own blog engine as a general rule: Building a blog engine can be as simple as using a markdown-to-HTML converter library on your server, and using your backend's admin interface. Or a simple HTML page with a big text box and submit button. Depending on use case, this can be fine. The cognitive complexity of integrating with a 3rd-party engine can be more complicated than writing a simp…

As a general rule; please do not build your own blog engine. Unless you're doing something simple, then fine. Also, do build your own blog engine if you are also happy to manage META tags for Twitter, OpenGraph (Facebook) and general META tags for each post. Also if you are good with generating your own schema.org JSON for Search engines, manage your own taxonomies (tagging, categories, events, locations, authors), a…

> Also, do build your own blog engine if you are also happy to manage META tags for Twitter, OpenGraph (Facebook) and general META tags for each post. Also if you are good with generating your own schema.org JSON for Search engines, manage your own taxonomies (tagging, categories, events, locations, authors), and also generating/updating sitemap.xml as needed.

You don't need any of those as a baseline.

Re: Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy

#50

Post by eljs »

Minor49er wrote: post #17

I hate to be that guy, but point 5 under what not to do should not have an apostrophe for the word "gurus" Edit: I got downvoted for this comment, but the author has made the change. My sacrifice was not in vain!

I should have left a comment: thanks for pointing that out, I made the change indeed!
Post reply on HN