mki

Well. Apparently Amazon decided to slash their rates. https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/help/operating/compare I'm done. It's too difficult to create the content, rank the content, and the main thing is that it's too hard to market the content. Especially for basically half the commission. I'll leave my existing sites up, but I'm not touching them again. I'm done with AM as well. I've been burned too many times. Strictly working on ad revenue based sites now.

The Twitter verified account check mark.

So I came up with some custom CSS and HTML for a project that ended up creating a bunch of repeated anchor tags in the HTML mark up. This markup involved image mouse overs, so it's not like there was an obnoxious amount of affiliate links on each page, that's just how to the markup had to be coded to achieve the CSS effects I wanted with out using JS. This wasn't my intention, but I ended up with a few pages that had as many as about 70 nofollowed affiliate links. I've seen plenty of sites that have about 40 or so anchor tags that were affiliate links on one page and those pages ranked just fine, so at the time I wasn't concerned about it. I gave up on the site as it was not performing well and I finally got around to trying to figure out what was going on. When I mean not performing well, in my experience it seemed like something was pretty clearly wrong with the site. I didn't have any rankings on page 3 or higher, even on extremely specific phrase match keywords, that the content really should be ranking on. So to test, I removed the mouse overs on one page, which cut out about half of the anchor tags, then I cut some additional links out. For the first page, I added a bunch of text and reworked the page, which obviously skewed this test, but I was about half way through doing the changes I wanted to do, I saved the page and went to bed. Overnight I guess Google Bot came by (verified in my log) and re-crawled the page. I had no plans on indexing the page as I wanted it to be a good test, but I requested index on the page and with in 20 or so minutes, my ranking basically went up by about half of the number of positions the page was before. The upward bounce up could be caused by request index, but I generally find that the page will return to about that position later on, even if it drops a day or two after pressing request index. So, I tested another page, this time only removing the extra affiliate links, then requested index. Approximately the same result occurred and the page jumped up dramatically, about half of the number of positions again. So, does having excessive affiliate links/nofollow links hurt SEO? To me it would seem so. This isn't a 100% perfect pure isolation test, but I'm more concerned with my site performing and not trying to figure out what exactly Google didn't like. It's possible that it just doesn't like my mouse over code, but somehow, I doubt that. Edit: Added a GA screenshot. Obviously a pretty night and day difference in the impressions. It looks like it's going up further today as well. I'll probably start working on it again now that the issues seems to be resolved.

I have no plans on doing that. The pattern is clear enough to me, if it isn't for you, then I suggest you come up with a test that satisfies you. Edit: And no, it's definitely not what I wanted to find. I would much rather have found out that it isn't true, as that requires much less work on my end.

Whether or not content length helps a page to rank better has long been debated. One side says, "It sure seems like it does" while the other argues that "It's not the length of the content, it's that long form content attracts more links and that's why it ranks better." I used to be in the links camp, until I figured out a relatively simple test to determine this conclusively, at least in my mind. The test was simple: Find situations where a site with zero/near zero backlinks was ranking well in Google that was beating out sites that had plenty of links but shorter content. The logic is really simple: The sites with the long form content and zero links can't be beating out the other sites due to backlinks, since they don't have any. I was incredibly surprised by the results. It's actually quite common for a piece of long form content on a domain with zero quality links, to beat shorter content on a domain with an established backlink profile. So, yes, long form content, that is high quality, and contains a lot of relevant information, does actually rank better on it's target keyword. Edit: This does not mean that long content alone is adequate to rank in competitive search queries. This test indicates that long form content performs better than short content, it does not necessarily mean that the longer the content the better it will rank. /edit About the data: These are all information keywords, not local businesses, and do not represent a specific thing or entity. These are averages across 100 rows of data for this test. Note: The data is highly biased and does not represent typical results, the data was filtered out from a much larger data set. The average word length was 2655. Average ranking for the target keyword was: 1.9 Average traffic per page, according to Ahrefs was 268 visits per month. Average Domain Rating (DR) in Ahrefs was 0.166, scored 0 to 100. Average URL Rating (UR) in Ahrefs was 1.75, scored 0 to 100. Average SEMRush Domain Score (Similar to Ahrefs DR) was 1.11, scored from 1 to 100.

I have a bunch of content like "Best Mouse for World of Warcraft" Mouse and World of Warcraft were just examples, I do not actually have any content targeting that specific keyword. It works really well as long as you actually understand what a gamer would want for the game. Tip: The keyword search volumes are not accurate for trendy keywords like that. Especially if it's a brand new game. The number one result is hXXps://www.armchairempire.com/Reviews/gaming-mouse-reviews/wow SEMRush ~1k reports clicks a month to that page but it's probably more like 20-30k right now due to the release of WOW Classic. With stuff like that, if you know how to bait clicks with the "Click For Price" buttons, you can easily get a 25% CTR with some testing and the EPC (real average earnings per click) is usually like $1. Intitle test reveals there are 13 competing pages directly targeting the keyword. The SEMRush page score is a 56 though, which is quite high. With SEO Quake enabled, I see a DS 12 TF 14 domain in the #7 spot, which is directly targeting the keyword, so it's certainly page-1-able for an individual. The main issue there would be timing and rank transition. It's just too late IMHO, but who knows. I'm sure there's a bunch of sites that will create content for keywords like that since all of Blizzard/Activision games are super popular. I usually go for lesser known games/companies. It would definitely have been worth doing that 4-5 months before the release of WOW Classic. It might be worth it for Bing since you can rank the page instantly by using the Bing Webmaster Tools. Reminder: The intitle test only works if you are on the very last page of the results for that keyword and it doesn't work at all in Bing. If you are not on the last page, Google will display a random number and I have no idea what that indicates. So the keyword: "best mouse for fortnite", there are 58 pages with the keyword in the title, not 158.

So, this is a feature that I've really been looking for in a text editor. It really improves your ability to edit content because if you read it your own writing, you have a tendency to be blind to your own grammar errors. I find that it's a lot easier to fix grammar mistakes, if you listen to the words being spoken back to you. The feature is hidden away under the review ribbon. There are obviously other solutions, but I think it's really nice that it's built right into Microsoft word now.

The fact that you know that, yet 'medical' websites that Google devalued don't, speaks volumes to me.

I'm on the it's too late side of this.

This news is late but the expiration date that .co.uk domain owners had to reserve the .uk version of their domain name expired in July. To localize your site to the UK region, you will have to mess around editing your code or Wordpress theme. For Google/Yandex: <html lang='en-GB'> Optional: <link rel="alternate" hreflang="en-US" href="https://the-exact-link-of-the-page.uk/whatever-content"></link> For Bing: <meta content='UK' name='locale'> <meta content='en-GB' name='culture'> <meta content='£' name='currency'> This works for multiple regions that speak English, such as Canada and Australia, but you'll have to modify your code appropriately. That code should localize the site to the region with out backlinks but, obviously you won't rank very well with out some.

A lot of Youtubers use https://incompetech.com/music/

No idea but I find Amazon's new arrivals very helpful. Google : Amazon.com $niche new arrivals Then bookmark the pages as they're a pain in the ass to find. It's an excellent source for ideas if you're doing Azon stuff. Edit: Check prime obviously.

I actually found the file that I put that information into when I made my account here while looking for something else and figured I would log back in, but it didn't ask when I tried yesterday.

Not sure why, but I reset my Mozilla Firefox settings and the site was asking me for my birth day to log in. Just tried again and it didn't ask.

Mystery revealed. It's called "Rank Transition Function." From experience, new sites and new content get the "Initially Inverse Response Transition" and the dampened response transition seems more common on older content/sites. Note that these functions apply after forcing the page into the index using inspect URL -> Request index in the Google Search Console. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8924380B1/en So, there's no sandbox, there's just that. Length of time is 70 days or more. Note: This is old, but I didn't know about it and I don't think most people do.