Myths About How To Get My Website Ranked In Google: Valid Or Invalid?
Valid Or Invalid?
Reading Stuart Walker's latest information on niche hacks, proves a very interesting and controversial reading matter regarding myths about how to get my website ranked in google.
Source: AuthorityHacker
Backlinks Are Still The #1 Ranking Factor
One of the 'facts' he mentions is Backlinks Are Still The #1 Ranking Factor, which we all know have adverse consequences in SEO according to Google.
How is it that Stuart has made such a definite claim to the contrary?
Source: AuthorityHacker
Shorter Content Favoured
Stuart also goes on to say that Longer Content is not a factor for ranking refuting the claim that longer content is favoured by Google. (Notice the spelling mistake of 'length' in the title of the graph, this one and another).
Source: AuthorityHacker
Keyword Parent Topic Count
However, an interesting point he mentions is the Keyword Parent Topic Count. This is a new concept to me and I don't quite understand what it is. I do understand that it appears from what he claims, within the content of the article written, the Parent Topic provides other keywords other than the one targeted.
Does anyone know about this concept and can explain it in better simple detail?
Source: AuthorityHacker
Shorter URLs Better
Lastly, Stuart believes that Shorter URLs are better than longer URLs. This goes against the purchaser's life cycle scenario when they search for specific information.
So what is the aim in making this claim?
How about you, what do you think about the myths about how to get my website ranked in google, are they valid or invalid?
Recent Comments
8
I don't believe what this guy writes. SEO is hard to understand. If short URL works then by nature we’d see him practice what he preaches. Niche Hacks and Authority Hacker as URL is not short. I’ve read articles on those sites have more than 2000k words in their content. Seems contradictory if you ask me. I know low hanging fruit and keyword parent topic are long tailed keywords. Thats all I need to know. They aren't perfect and SEO isn't perfect either but targeted keywords and keywords low hanging fruit in your content is enough to dispel the myths. If you do your own case study that will help you understand the science of SEO. Best wishes to you in figuring it out.
You make some valid points.
I was hoping for more interaction by the community to weigh up everyone's opinions and thoughts to be able to figure it out.
Perhaps it will come to light....
Interesting post Edu, I personally believe in knowing our audience and providing what they seek, rather than technical strategies, although it's smart to do all we can for SEO. For example, the keyword parent topic count has to do with all the keywords that will be naturally included in your content when you write a thorough article on your main topic; at least this is my understanding. God bless!
See more comments
Interesting...I have been wondering about titles myself -- it seems to me that shorter is definitely better. Many of mine are too long. When you look at the meta boxes, they say that 60 characters is the standard length for a title. I try to keep mine under that, but several are not.
Really not sure about your list's validity, but they are good factors to be aware of, anyway. Thanks for posting.
The list is not mine, it's a question about Stuart Walker's claims on each one. I'm trying to find out if what he says bares validity or not, or if their results are programmed to be biased?
Yes, I agree that the title should not be longer than 60 characters, but he's saying it should be for instance, VeganIdeas instead of VeganIdeasForTheWholeFamily.
I'm not sure I agree with this as I believe LongTail Keywords win in the long run.
We'll see if we get any more response from the WA Community.