- Sep 3, 2014
Sure. A keyword with 100 search volume might get 40 clicks per month at the #1 spot, but you'll also rank for a lot of keyword variations, synonyms, and long tails. At the same time, many you won't rank for and some you'll rank for that get way more traffic than you ever expected.Following the low comp low volume method, what do you generally expect for page views per month per article?
Would a low end estimate of around 200 be suitable to avoid inflating expectations?
Any low comp / low volume method needs to be compensated for by publishing at higher volume by casting way more fishing rods, in which case worrying about the average estimated monthly traffic to each doesn't really matter. What you end up feeding off of is the whales you find, not all the tiny little fish. Those might end up making up 20% of your total traffic. The whales will make up 80%.
You're not looking for whales. You're just casting tons of rods. The success isn't in what gets caught on the fishing line. It's in the act of casting the rods correctly (keyword research, on-page, and so forth). What comes after shouldn't be the focus, because if you're doing it right enough times, it will come regardless.
It's not a black or white issue. If you can find keywords to use for topical relevance that you can rank for now, then by all means go for it. If you can't find ones you can rank for now, but they still support the money keyword, they're still worth publishing. You may be able to rank for them later if you don't ignore link building. If you never rank for them, they're still worth having, and will still eventually earn their keep.Hey guys,
I am curious to note when it comes to building silos - is it best practice to find supporting articles with keywords that are within your Avalanche Search Volume?
Or would a supporting article purely be for topical relevance so it can boost the main article?
Or is it good to mix the two?
I ask this because there are some money keywords I am targeting, but I am struggling to find some supporting articles that are within my Avalanche SV and low competition.
There are some KW opportunities but the competition is fierce (KD 30-40/100 according to KW Finder, SERPs dominated by DR 40 - 90s).
Any input is much appreciated!
No, it's not always best. It depends on your goals, your demands, your needs, and who can meet those needs. Volume is one particular issue that determines which is best. If you want to reach volume with your own team, you'll spend all the time and opportunity cost training, evaluating, firing, hiring, training, hiring someone to do all that and training them, dealing with editors and all that. Or you can pay an agency to take care of that for you.Is it always best to hire via Upwork and effectively train/sculpt writers into the beasts you want them to be or sometimes are content farm/textbrokers simply the fastest/best way to get content clusters nailed?
Crap like TextBrokers doesn't bring the same benefits as an agency, though it'll come at the same costs most of the time. If I'm paying a premium, I want the benefits, which mainly include all the hiring and training and firing and editing and mainly accountability.
My opinion is to get them up to snuff then publish. Then you can move on with your life. Otherwise you're feeding Google sub-par crap and you'll tank your sitewide quality score for a long time. Even if you come back around and fix them rather quickly, you can wait for 6 months for your quality score to recover (we're talking Panda here).About aging posts and editing.
I ordered a bunch of articles that are ready to edit. A lot of them aren't optimized yet (not formatted properly for the snippet, possibly low CTR because of the intro, no images, OBL, etc.)
But, the articles are 85% there in terms of content scope, so I won't be changing them drastically or anything.
My question is, do I publish them immediately, and then play the editor? So that Google sees them and the post ages, etc.
Or do the usual, which is to edit each article with formatting, images, links, etc. All before publishing.
I really don't want my posts to sit around, not aging, but at the same time, I don't want Google to recalculate the post's rankings because of editing further down the line. Thank you.
Plus, you're just leaving open loops in your mind and your work flow. The next question becomes "do I go ahead and publish 100 more unfinished articles or do I finish the ones I already published and 'slow down' my progress". Just do it right the first time so life can move on.