Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy(boringseo.org)
boringseo.org
Boring SEO guide for the non-lazy
https://boringseo.org/
62 comments
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.
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.
> 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.
You don't need any of those as a baseline.
What's more to it?
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.
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.
Can confirm, built my own markdown-to-HTML PHP blog: https://github.com/Cristy94/markdown-blog
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 suggestion.
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 suggestion.
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 with:
> And while you're updating your page, I wondered if you'd be open to including some further resources that could help people struggling with similar issues.
> Compelling Content Title
> http://www.clientsite.org/compellingcontent
> Compelling Content Title 2
> http://www.clientsothersite.com/compellingcontent
Which would be the URLs that you're trying to obtain links towards.
> 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 with:
> And while you're updating your page, I wondered if you'd be open to including some further resources that could help people struggling with similar issues.
> Compelling Content Title
> http://www.clientsite.org/compellingcontent
> Compelling Content Title 2
> http://www.clientsothersite.com/compellingcontent
Which would be the URLs that you're trying to obtain links towards.
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
[0] https://moz.com/blog/the-broken-link-building-bible
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.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This broken link building thing has kind of gotten out of hand though. I run a popular website and I had to create a very complicated filter just to keep those hundreds of emails I get about some 10 year old link or look Google changed Adwords to just Ads type emails. Also the free guest post email. Just no.
There has got to be a better way to build these links if that is so important for SEO. I think email spam will drop by 10% the day this happens.
There has got to be a better way to build these links if that is so important for SEO. I think email spam will drop by 10% the day this happens.
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 promoting your work organically through real connections to real people.
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 promoting your work organically through real connections to real people.
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)
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!
Edit: I got downvoted for this comment, but the author has made the change. My sacrifice was not in vain!
Could I ask why with the apostrophe is correct? Google defines "guru" as "a spiritual teacher, especially one who imparts initiation." The article uses the plural of the term. I don't know of any English rules about apostraphizing a plural - generally, I've heard that one should keep the apostrophe for possessives. Could you give me a reference for a rule about adding an apostrophe in a possessive?
Singular: guru; singular possessive: guru's; plural: gurus; plural possessive: gurus'.
(If the word ends with an 's' you can (or not) add only an apostrophe and omit the added 's', afaik it's down to style/how you'd pronounce it. 'Socrates' work' for example, because 'Socrates's' looks and sounds awkward.)
(If the word ends with an 's' you can (or not) add only an apostrophe and omit the added 's', afaik it's down to style/how you'd pronounce it. 'Socrates' work' for example, because 'Socrates's' looks and sounds awkward.)
Exactly this. Also, the other points in the list already follow this: "Research your keywords", "Do not pay for SEO courses", etc.
I highly recommend "Blogging for Business" by AHrefs. It's free.
https://ahrefs.com/academy/blogging-for-business
https://ahrefs.com/academy/blogging-for-business
Solid list. But there's a key idea missing. That is:
Your site is not the customer. Google doesn't care. The customer is the real human person doing the search. Google's top priority is make and keep that customer happy. It's wise to try to do the same.
Your site is not the customer. Google doesn't care. The customer is the real human person doing the search. Google's top priority is make and keep that customer happy. It's wise to try to do the same.
Back in the mid 2000s I part-owned a start up company and we made a reasonable living going around telling people pretty much the contents of this list (except for the backlinks stuff which is spammy). Good to see some of it is still relevant. I would add a couple more (from back then - don't really know if they're relevant now):
* Lightweight, accessible website mostly implemented in as close as you can get it semantic HTML. (We used to say, possibly inaccurately, that search engines are like blind web users - make your site accessible, and you're helping blind users and search engines).
* Read your log files. For every customer I used to ask for their log files, and then I'd read them. Very interesting insights can be had about how people find the site and where they go which is more difficult to see from tools. If possible I would spend a few hours tailing the logs live.
* Lightweight, accessible website mostly implemented in as close as you can get it semantic HTML. (We used to say, possibly inaccurately, that search engines are like blind web users - make your site accessible, and you're helping blind users and search engines).
* Read your log files. For every customer I used to ask for their log files, and then I'd read them. Very interesting insights can be had about how people find the site and where they go which is more difficult to see from tools. If possible I would spend a few hours tailing the logs live.
This is not a valid Show HN - please read the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html. I've taken that bit out of the title now.
> Do not create your own blogging engine
> This one is for tech folks specifically. Use Wordpress, Webflow, Hugo or whatever you want, but do not created your own engine. Creating your own engine is a lot of work and a big waste of time.
Is this meant in the sense that existing blogging engines have good defaults with regard to SEO, and if you did it on your own you'd spend a lot of time figuring out by trial and error what you could otherwise get out of the box? Or are they just making a value judgment on how to spend one's time?
> This one is for tech folks specifically. Use Wordpress, Webflow, Hugo or whatever you want, but do not created your own engine. Creating your own engine is a lot of work and a big waste of time.
Is this meant in the sense that existing blogging engines have good defaults with regard to SEO, and if you did it on your own you'd spend a lot of time figuring out by trial and error what you could otherwise get out of the box? Or are they just making a value judgment on how to spend one's time?
How to spend your time. If you want to create content, SEO it, make some money, use a pre-existing blog or CMS. If you want to build a CMS, build one. If you want to create content and your first thought is "but first, I need a CMS!" then you'll probably* fail at both.
* Everybody knows that one person who succeed in both, yay. There's way more that failed.
* Everybody knows that one person who succeed in both, yay. There's way more that failed.
Fair enough! Related comic: https://rakhim.org/honestly-undefined/19/
It's providing fair warning that writing useful content is a skill that takes time.
Look at any HN post about personal websites. This community is more interested in discussing their SSG tooling than actually ever writing anything on that over-engineered Markdown converter.
Look at any HN post about personal websites. This community is more interested in discussing their SSG tooling than actually ever writing anything on that over-engineered Markdown converter.
This site is auto-blocked by my organization's internet filter and is categorized as 'high-risk'. I wonder if it is because of the some techniques or examples shown?
[deleted]
>"Do not outsource the writing. Vetting good writers is difficult and time-consuming. They are also expensive. If you are just starting out, you probably do not have the time and the money to do it right."
Not sure I agree. Outsourcing is great IMO but you need 2 things;
1) Give them a solid brief on what you want. This take times but not as much as writing. And a bunch like KW research you need to do anyway before you would write.
2) Rewrite what they wrote after. Don't accept the article as finished, take it as a template to base your own off. Ask for a higher word count than you need and you can cull back content while adding more and rephrasing. At least for me I find it personally much faster re-writing an article that's been given to me than starting from scratch.
Particular for point 2 I find an efficient middle ground between writing and not.
Not sure I agree. Outsourcing is great IMO but you need 2 things;
1) Give them a solid brief on what you want. This take times but not as much as writing. And a bunch like KW research you need to do anyway before you would write.
2) Rewrite what they wrote after. Don't accept the article as finished, take it as a template to base your own off. Ask for a higher word count than you need and you can cull back content while adding more and rephrasing. At least for me I find it personally much faster re-writing an article that's been given to me than starting from scratch.
Particular for point 2 I find an efficient middle ground between writing and not.
Respectfully, this is basically the equivalent of "here's how to build a house"
* Buy some land
* Buy some wood
* Pour some concrete
* Hammer the wood together on top of the concrete
* Put on a roof
There ya go, you know how to build a house!
And to that end, SEO is simple on the surface - Make sure your site is super easy to crawl and loads super fast. Write search keyword-optimized content. Build (or as the modern SEOs like to say "earn") links from high authority sites.
But none of those things are really that easy, in that they all take time, expertise, and honestly some times a chunk of luck (go and try to get a backlink from a site like Business Insider in the next 3 months, it takes a lot of stars aligning).
* Buy some land
* Buy some wood
* Pour some concrete
* Hammer the wood together on top of the concrete
* Put on a roof
There ya go, you know how to build a house!
And to that end, SEO is simple on the surface - Make sure your site is super easy to crawl and loads super fast. Write search keyword-optimized content. Build (or as the modern SEOs like to say "earn") links from high authority sites.
But none of those things are really that easy, in that they all take time, expertise, and honestly some times a chunk of luck (go and try to get a backlink from a site like Business Insider in the next 3 months, it takes a lot of stars aligning).
"3. Draw the rest of the fucking owl"
Futhermore. It's a process. Once you get past the initial basics, it comes down to repetition.
[deleted]
> But none of those things are really that easy, in that they all take time, expertise, and honestly some times a chunk of luck
And quite honestly, they don't even work anymore. The Buzzfeeds of the world kind of killed SEO as a viable organic traffic strategy.
And quite honestly, they don't even work anymore. The Buzzfeeds of the world kind of killed SEO as a viable organic traffic strategy.
I don't understand the comment about Buzzfeed, but I disagree with the suggestion that SEO isn't a viable strategy for organic traffic anymore. There are billion dollar businesses that are entirely reliant on it as essentially a singular channel (not that I recommend this reliance, but it does work).
I can assure these strategies still work when done well.
Source: I run several SEO projects
Source: I run several SEO projects
> And quite honestly, they don't even work anymore. The Buzzfeeds of the world kind of killed SEO as a viable organic traffic strategy.
Startups aren't competing for the same keywords as Buzzfeed.
Startups aren't competing for the same keywords as Buzzfeed.
Anything that starts with talking about "your keywords" mean it is still written for people who are trying to get any site, about any thing, to have good rankings in hopes of future monetization... which is not the same thing as trying to get good rankings for your specific site.
The only SEO you need to worry about for your own business site is "Write Good Content". And that does not have to be the vague wishy-washy meaning of "good". There are specific actions you can take -- (BTW, this is where you actually do worry about keywords.) Put the keywords you care about in the title, in the meta description, in headers, and in the content. This proves to the algorithms that the term really is accurate for this page. Do not spam keywords in meta tags, be accurate and selective. Use header tags to actually hold content headers. And make sure your HTML is valid. A few years back, I'd get really easy SEO gigs, with awesome search improvements, just by running a site through the w3c validator and fixing any problems that are listed.
Once that is done, you'll start getting better placement in results. Afterwards, people will follow the link and read your content - at this point, Google watches whether or not they come back to their results and follow more links. If your content is engaging enough to satisfy them so they do not go back for more results, you'll get the final boost you need to stay at the top of the results.
The only SEO you need to worry about for your own business site is "Write Good Content". And that does not have to be the vague wishy-washy meaning of "good". There are specific actions you can take -- (BTW, this is where you actually do worry about keywords.) Put the keywords you care about in the title, in the meta description, in headers, and in the content. This proves to the algorithms that the term really is accurate for this page. Do not spam keywords in meta tags, be accurate and selective. Use header tags to actually hold content headers. And make sure your HTML is valid. A few years back, I'd get really easy SEO gigs, with awesome search improvements, just by running a site through the w3c validator and fixing any problems that are listed.
Once that is done, you'll start getting better placement in results. Afterwards, people will follow the link and read your content - at this point, Google watches whether or not they come back to their results and follow more links. If your content is engaging enough to satisfy them so they do not go back for more results, you'll get the final boost you need to stay at the top of the results.
Finally! I hate the whole "keyword" thing because it makes your writing terrible (IMO). Of course you want the keyword and meta stuff to make sense but getting all these messages about "use your keyword here, here, and there" is just too much.
I find it hits the chicken and egg problem though. If you are starting out, most people end up on your business website/blog using keyword searches from Google or other search engines. Otherwise it is pretty hard from the get-go as a relatively unknown individual or company to generate content and hope it gets found.
I agree writing good content and the tips you share about the title, meta description, headers, and valid html are spot on in my experience.
Here's a small tweak that helped me with one of my articles.
I wanted an article to rank higher when people searched for "slack user groups". Initially I had a question h2 with "What are Slack user groups?" and the first sentence started with "user groups allow you to group people...".
I got a tip from a friend that I could add "Slack" somewhere near "user groups" to help with ranking. So I changed the sentence to start with "Slack user groups allow you to..." and it improved my ranking by 6 about a week later.
Here's a small tweak that helped me with one of my articles.
I wanted an article to rank higher when people searched for "slack user groups". Initially I had a question h2 with "What are Slack user groups?" and the first sentence started with "user groups allow you to group people...".
I got a tip from a friend that I could add "Slack" somewhere near "user groups" to help with ranking. So I changed the sentence to start with "Slack user groups allow you to..." and it improved my ranking by 6 about a week later.
> The only SEO you need to worry about for your own business site is "Write Good Content".
I provide SEO services to small businesses. Content creation alone is not enough, you'll eventually hit a wall. Just like creating a Facebook page/Twitter account and posting to it is not enough (anymore).
"Build it and and they will come" doesn't work on the Internet when your new website is an island in the middle of an ocean of websites. Backlinks are the other side of the coin, and while I don't' agree with the advice in this particular article you can do everything else wrong, and with good backlinks you'll rank well.
I provide SEO services to small businesses. Content creation alone is not enough, you'll eventually hit a wall. Just like creating a Facebook page/Twitter account and posting to it is not enough (anymore).
"Build it and and they will come" doesn't work on the Internet when your new website is an island in the middle of an ocean of websites. Backlinks are the other side of the coin, and while I don't' agree with the advice in this particular article you can do everything else wrong, and with good backlinks you'll rank well.
Enough for what? I've done my share of small biz consulting, and the discussion circles around why they want a web site to begin with. Honestly, I have yet to meet a small biz owner who gives a crap about the web site for its own sake. It needs to contribute to their larger goals. That is not always growth... I've worked with folks who are already at capacity for their size and want streamlined communications, not growth. Maybe a few forms for their customers to submit info to them, make appointments, etc.
Maximizing search placement is sometimes useful for small biz sites, but it is never a goal in and of itself - it is a tool. SEO approaches need to regard it as such.
Maximizing search placement is sometimes useful for small biz sites, but it is never a goal in and of itself - it is a tool. SEO approaches need to regard it as such.
Exactly that. Every local small business website approach needs to be tailored to the business needs of the company in question.
Some might need growth. Some, as you said, streamlined communications. I built a site for a small doctor's practice because she needed a way to inform about Covid regulations for the practice.
And her imprint needed to be in line with the legal requirements.
Nothing more. No SEO, no growth, no nothing. Too many patients already.
One needs to take the business needs into account. Always.
Some might need growth. Some, as you said, streamlined communications. I built a site for a small doctor's practice because she needed a way to inform about Covid regulations for the practice.
And her imprint needed to be in line with the legal requirements.
Nothing more. No SEO, no growth, no nothing. Too many patients already.
One needs to take the business needs into account. Always.
> Enough for what?
We're talking about SEO, so: "enough to increase your rank".
I agree in the larger picture there's more to consider for a small biz. But purely from a standpoint of increasing rank, content creation alone is not enough.
We're talking about SEO, so: "enough to increase your rank".
I agree in the larger picture there's more to consider for a small biz. But purely from a standpoint of increasing rank, content creation alone is not enough.
For small biz getting NAP (name address place) sorted and have some place to rank for your name is often the first priority.
> 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?
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?
Wikipedia has fantastic SEO and no ads at all.
Recipe blogs all suck because it’s nearly impossible to make money just publishing recipes. So every single one has to do the worst stuff just to barely survive. Song lyrics are a similar area.
If you want to see a strong SEO play supporting a product, look up almost anything related to film production, like “line producer” or “second assistant director” or “call sheet.” I bet you find a studiobinder.com link in the top 5 results. They publish a ton of super helpful and easy to understand content about how movies get made. And they make money via sales so they have no ads in the content.
Recipe blogs all suck because it’s nearly impossible to make money just publishing recipes. So every single one has to do the worst stuff just to barely survive. Song lyrics are a similar area.
If you want to see a strong SEO play supporting a product, look up almost anything related to film production, like “line producer” or “second assistant director” or “call sheet.” I bet you find a studiobinder.com link in the top 5 results. They publish a ton of super helpful and easy to understand content about how movies get made. And they make money via sales so they have no ads in the content.
> Nobody writing in good faith sets out to write “content”. Anybody whose objective is “content” is not to be trusted.
The article is an SEO guide for startups, not recipe blogs, which exist in a separate category of SEO gamification.
Startups usually get their SEO hits by writing detailed guides on something tangentially related to their product. For example, I will see posts from Lucidchart's website when I'm looking up "process mapping template". They've created a lengthy web page discussing different types of process mapping, and include downloadable templates.
I had never heard of Lucidchart before, they appear to be a competitor to MS Visio. I ended up signing up for an account, but ultimately felt it wasn't right. I wouldn't have signed up at all if I felt the article I discovered wasn't useful.
Of course you can choose not to bother with SEO at all and hope your website magically generates qualified leads.
The article is an SEO guide for startups, not recipe blogs, which exist in a separate category of SEO gamification.
Startups usually get their SEO hits by writing detailed guides on something tangentially related to their product. For example, I will see posts from Lucidchart's website when I'm looking up "process mapping template". They've created a lengthy web page discussing different types of process mapping, and include downloadable templates.
I had never heard of Lucidchart before, they appear to be a competitor to MS Visio. I ended up signing up for an account, but ultimately felt it wasn't right. I wouldn't have signed up at all if I felt the article I discovered wasn't useful.
Of course you can choose not to bother with SEO at all and hope your website magically generates qualified leads.
One way to get quality backlinks is through a community like Help a Reporter, where journalists literally link up with bloggers.
Great article! I'll dig more into the skyscraper technique, thanks.
[deleted]
Good framing on the boring and non-lazy.
Don’t listen to SEO gurus - ok
Which brings me to a big point the article missed: Page loading speed is important for search ranking. I have a blog I add to once every other month. It uses HTML and CSS, and I write it in Django admin using markdown. Lots of room for improvement UI-wise, for both reader experience and writing interface. Yet, it's a low-traffic site, and most of the blog entries show up on the first page of Google for relevant keywords. Relevant: It gets a perfect Google Page Speed Insights score, by virtue of being an HTML/CSS page.
I bring this up for 2 reasons: Using a blog engine will probably make it tougher to get fast load times. You can rank high on Google just by having good content and fast load times.