Post by amirmukaddas on Mar 13, 2024 5:36:32 GMT
How to achieve “difficult” ranking without incoming links by taking advantage of an advanced aspect of multiple mentions on a low trust site. A case of Evidence Based SEO. To view this embed content you must accept cookies. Read the extended information on cookies . Accept Cookies Every time you reflect on something innovative you attract criticism from the scientific community (practical in my case) to which you belong. It couldn't be otherwise, especially in a field like Italian SEO, where I realize, there are a series of dogmas that "the good ones" don't seem ready to question even under torture. Well, put it this way, someone has to do it… My reasoning today is based on a concrete case that I am ready to discuss privately with anyone who has the sagacity not to start from the preconception that certain things cannot work. It is based on the old technique (2009) of co-citation, but is extended by the presence of co-occurrences exploited as multiple mentions.
Problem #1: Co-citation no longer works The search engine is able to pick up on a link pattern based on co-citations, meaning that if I mention my target site plus Wikipedia and other super popular sites in the same article, Google notices my attempt to establish a relationship transitive and penalizes me. Real. Some time ago I insinuated the possibility that some websites were very important, but at the same time were not visible at all on Google, and were for this reason "perfect" to be used in a co-citation scheme. Various and disjointed reactions (as usual) kindly pointed out to me that Denmark Telegram Number Data there are no ultra-popular sites that rank badly. Today I know that this is not the case. The double degree of relevance When Google organizes the results to be proposed based on the various search queries, it works on the basis of what the average user is looking for, leaving out a series of sites or professionals who are very important and recognized in the reference community, but who have a level that does not interest average users, the mass of those who carry out searches. Which is to say that Giallozafferano will always be much more visible than the website of the most famous starred chef in the world.
When I talk about a double degree of relevance I am therefore referring to two levels at which Google acts, on the one hand popularity with respect to traffic and on the other that with respect to professionals. The latter sites (or simple names and surnames), although literally legendary, have no relevance for the average user, so Google does not offer them as search results. Well find them and use them. Second (or third?) degree analysis I have developed a technique that allows me to easily find the elements that fall into this second degree and which are therefore not visible at all on Google despite sometimes being websites with 8 PR points or professionals of interplanetary fame. The meaning of this analysis work is to select websites to link in an article or people to mention without links "together" with the most popular websites and people who are already very visible for the key of interest. The product of this work is a web document in which multiple mentions and co-citations are intermingled at a level that Google has never seen before. Highly visible but “popular” professionals are placed together for the first time with world-renowned professionals, who at the same time are difficult to find for relevant research. Yet they are relevant.
Problem #1: Co-citation no longer works The search engine is able to pick up on a link pattern based on co-citations, meaning that if I mention my target site plus Wikipedia and other super popular sites in the same article, Google notices my attempt to establish a relationship transitive and penalizes me. Real. Some time ago I insinuated the possibility that some websites were very important, but at the same time were not visible at all on Google, and were for this reason "perfect" to be used in a co-citation scheme. Various and disjointed reactions (as usual) kindly pointed out to me that Denmark Telegram Number Data there are no ultra-popular sites that rank badly. Today I know that this is not the case. The double degree of relevance When Google organizes the results to be proposed based on the various search queries, it works on the basis of what the average user is looking for, leaving out a series of sites or professionals who are very important and recognized in the reference community, but who have a level that does not interest average users, the mass of those who carry out searches. Which is to say that Giallozafferano will always be much more visible than the website of the most famous starred chef in the world.
When I talk about a double degree of relevance I am therefore referring to two levels at which Google acts, on the one hand popularity with respect to traffic and on the other that with respect to professionals. The latter sites (or simple names and surnames), although literally legendary, have no relevance for the average user, so Google does not offer them as search results. Well find them and use them. Second (or third?) degree analysis I have developed a technique that allows me to easily find the elements that fall into this second degree and which are therefore not visible at all on Google despite sometimes being websites with 8 PR points or professionals of interplanetary fame. The meaning of this analysis work is to select websites to link in an article or people to mention without links "together" with the most popular websites and people who are already very visible for the key of interest. The product of this work is a web document in which multiple mentions and co-citations are intermingled at a level that Google has never seen before. Highly visible but “popular” professionals are placed together for the first time with world-renowned professionals, who at the same time are difficult to find for relevant research. Yet they are relevant.