Internet Marketing with Josh SpauldingMaking Money through Ethical Marketing.

41 comments

1. Peter Tremayne (4 comments.)
   16th May, 2008 at 5:27 pm 

   Good post Josh.

   I too have seen my blog slip down the rankings for a competitive search phrase after several months at the top of Google.

   But like you say Long Tail Keywords are easier to rank for and are more targeted.

   Also linking to internal pages of a website or static homepage blog with LTK’s will add to the ranking value of your homepage.

   ~ Peter Tremayne

2. Mark Mason (24 comments.)
   16th May, 2008 at 5:29 pm 

   Josh;

   Given this post, do you think that $5 niche sites (as documented in your report) would best be implemented on blogs, allowing for infrequent (monthly?) updates?

   I know that you have previously stated that you prefer static sites for this purpose. Is that mostly because of layout control?

   Thanks,
   Mark

3. Alejandro Reyes (5 comments.)
   16th May, 2008 at 5:32 pm 

   I have a friend that I still believe has the #1 spot for “home based business” and he said something that I found totally true (kinda…lol).

   He said, “I figure I’m going to do the work so I might as well GO BIG.”

   Although I agree with that - I’m still a fan of the long tail stuff as I’ve found that they’re way better visitors.

4. Sunshine (1 comments.)
   16th May, 2008 at 5:37 pm 

   Great job Josh for providing a clear and excellent distinction between the two types of ranking objectives.

   This information was indeed priceless and will save those who heed your input major headache and time.

5. Dane R. (3 comments.)
   16th May, 2008 at 5:51 pm 

   Excellent post Josh..

   Gonna have to really implement these ideas!

6. David Cooley (6 comments.)
   16th May, 2008 at 5:55 pm 

   Excellent article and points.

   Trying to force feed the search engines can result in wasting a lot of time (which is money).

7. Josh Spaulding
   16th May, 2008 at 5:58 pm 

   @ Peter - Internal linking is certainly important and may or may not add to the authority of your homepage, depending on your internal linking structure.

   @ Mark - It is indeed for the layout control, primarily the ease of placing adverts where they will convert best.

   The great thing about long-tail marketing, whether going by my $5 formula or not, is that you really don’t NEED frequent visitors and frequent incoming links because you’re grabbing those low-hanging fruits and you don’t have to worry about losing those rankings quickly, in most cases.

   @ Alejandro - lol well, I suppose that’s true, but if the content is good enough he won’t have to do the work. I suppose it all depends on the ROI in terms of time and income.

   @ Sunshine, Dane and David - Thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it!

8. Courtney (11 comments.)
   16th May, 2008 at 6:03 pm 

   Great post…as per usual. How do you determine the difference between a competitive keyword and a long tail keyword? For example, the phrase “get paid to write online” seems long tail to me…but there are over 6 million results. Is it just a matter of finding something that has low competition?

9. Wilson (1 comments.)
   16th May, 2008 at 6:08 pm 

   I actually agree with you, what’s the use of putting your energy to rank for make money online which is not much of a buyer keyword when you can focus the same amount of effort to rank for tons of long tail buyer keywords. Thanks for the tip

10. Josh Spaulding
    16th May, 2008 at 6:25 pm 

    @ Courtney - There is no definitive way, or fine line, for me at least, which says “This is competitive.”

    I guess you could say it just depends on the search volume. If any particular keyword or phrase gets at least 1,000 or more daily searches than I’d say it’s competitive.

    That’s funny, as you know I hold the #2 spot for that phrase, as you know

    If you look at the SEO Book keyword tool, you’ll see that it only gets an est. 4 daily searches, so that tells me it’s not competitive.

    @ Wilson - True, although the MMO niche actually is a buyers market, most people just don’t understand the targeted market. I’m actually writing a report, which I’ll be releasing next week for free, which explains what I’ve found to be true about the MMO niche as a whole.

    The report is called “The “Make Money Online” Niche Exposed.”

11. Sami (13 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 6:34 pm 

    Interesting post Josh.

    Writing compelling (& static) content that gets lots of natural links and ranks on page one of the SREPs for a static site, is a pretty tough proposition. No matter how many backlinks it gets, if the page is not updated then it will fall out of favor with the engines much faster.

    The super successful sites that occupy the top of SERPs don’t write one static piece of content. Many use a content management system (CMS) for publishing and “still” add fresh content quite regularly.

    And that is also the actual appeal of blogs (for ease of publishing and article management).

    But the two can be combined. You can make one of the Wordpress pages your static home page and still benefit from easily adding fresh content to the sub-pages and still get all automatic RSS pings etc.

    The only thing is that even that static home page must be updated (but not as regularly as a blog) to reach the top of SERPs for a competitive keyword.

    But doing it this way, the blog’s internal linking structure plus the daily fresh blog posts will contribute significantly to the rise of the home page in the SERPs additionally to the natural backlinks.

    S

12. Trent Brownrigg (4 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 6:41 pm 

    I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree.

    I do agree that blogs are easier to get natural links and do tend to rank higher because of that. They are also much easier to update and updated more often so building a site you want to rank highly in a competitive niche is probably best done with a blog.

    However, I also have a static home page on a site that ranks highly for numerous competitive keyword phrases relating to work at home, home based business, and make money online.

    It has had those rankings for years and doesn’t take me a whole lot of work to maintain them. Sure I do still manually get some inbound links here and there but most of my links were obtained a long time ago and the site still holds very good rankings.

    I think it can be done effectively both ways. It just depends on what you prefer for your site.

13. ComputerDoc (9 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 6:41 pm 

    I understand the logic of long tail allowing you to stay on top because of good content. However, don’t you need to do something to get people to see it in the first place?

    Will selecting long tail keywords generate the initial traffic in its own right by having less people producing for it?

    Does long tail once successful eventually lead to more competitive keyword success?

    Thanks for this very informative article

14. Alec (6 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 6:41 pm 

    Hey Josh,

    It really only makes sense to rank for the terms on which you will actually deliver the goods - and therefore you will get both natural links and contrived links.

    Bragging rights are great, but a little bit pointless.

    For less than stellar sites, long tail is definitely the way to go.

15. Chas (3 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 7:11 pm 

    “People are constantly saying that SE’s favor blogs over static sites. That’s simply not true, BUT blogs do tend to rank better than static sites.”

    OK……….Ranking better is what I consider to be “Favored by the search engines.” So I say “It’s True”. And you seem to back me up on that so we’re friends.

    A NON-competitive key phrase is one that has less than 100 “Exact Match” results on Google. I prefer 10 or less myself. Just watch for 10-20 Google ads on the right and you’ll know there is measurable traffic there no matter what the tools are saying.

    Competitive terms are the ones larger than that and takes more than one month to be #1. And then you always have to watch your back.

16. Josh Spaulding
    16th May, 2008 at 8:02 pm 

    @ Sami - “No matter how many backlinks it gets, if the page is not updated then it will fall out of favor with the engines much faster.”

    That’s actually extremely false.

    I know alot of people will tell you that, but I can show you many examples that prove otherwise!

    It’s all about the number, quality and frequency of incoming links!

    The next person who tells you a page needs to be frequently updated in order to rank, as them for proof; they won’t have any! Then send them to me so I can show them my proof!

    @ Trent - I know of your site and I know you’re telling the truth.

    I would say that you either have some VERY authoritative backlinks and/or you have more natural linkage than you think.

    I’m not saying you’re WRONG, but I do believe there may be more going on behind the scenes than you realize.

    @ Computer - I’m not sure I totally understand what you’re saying, but I’ll give it a shot.

    “However, don’t you need to do something to get people to see it in the first place?”

    Of course. You can submit articles, social bookmark, exchange links etc.

    “Will selecting long tail keywords generate the initial traffic in its own right by having less people producing for it?”

    Sorry, I really don’t understand that one. Can you rephrase?

    “Does long tail once successful eventually lead to more competitive keyword success?”

    Well, if you’re targeting long-tail phrases then you’re not trying to target competitive phrases, so I don’t think I understand this question either, sorry.

    The beneficial thing about targeting long-tail keywords is that they can be easily obtained and then you move on to another and another etc.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    @ Chas - lol but you missed the next part in your quote, which is:

    “Why? Because blogs are more user friendly. People are MUCH more likely to frequent a blog than they are to frequent a static site, as it’s updated more frequently.”

    So, it’s not true, but I’m glad we’re friends

    Exact phrase searches are extremely inaccurate!

    Just because your phrase is in the title doesn’t mean the page is targeting that keyword!

    Exact phrase matches should be looked at, but it should be one of many factors used in determining the competition of any given keyword!

    The # of Google adverts to the right is also an extremely inaccurate way to determine competition.

    Any good SEM will use every related keyword known to man, whether it has search volume or not.

17. Howard Young (3 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 8:17 pm 

    Josh, good talking points on SEO. Like you, my experience is that it’s easy to get ranked high, but maintaining it requires continual marketing.

    Plus if you do not provide enough content on your site that merits the ranking, you’ll slip back down.

    This most likely is do to search engines finding better value in your content and providing it to their customers and other sites finding your content equally valuable and linking to it.

18. Doug McIsaac
    16th May, 2008 at 8:25 pm 

    Josh,
    I agree getting page one for a competitive term is definitely easier than keeping it.

    Doug

19. ComputerDoc (9 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 9:10 pm 

    @ Josh

    “Will selecting long tail keywords generate the initial traffic in its own right by having less people producing for it?”

    @ Josh Sorry, I really don’t understand that one. Can you rephrase?

    What I meant is that since there is less competition for long tail, will a minimal self generated link effort suffice?

    “Does long tail once successful eventually lead to more competitive keyword success?”

    What I meant by this is once you’ve gained some credibility and traffic on the long tail, can you use this to attempt to capitalize on more competitive keywords?

20. Terry Heath (16 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 9:27 pm 

    You make an excellent point about the longevity of natural links within articles vs. quick-fix sidebar links. I’ve been thinking lately about the value of backlinks, so your post was timely for me. It’s easy to inflate the number of links, but what does it really prove? You can make a worthless site appear valuable? In the longrun, it will still prove a worthless site.

    Thanks for the great article.

21. Chuck (64 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 9:31 pm 

    I love blogs, but I have to agree…when it comes to ad placement, et al…a static site is much easier to manage.

    Also, and I guess this is just personal preference…but, to me, a blog is designed to be a dynamic entity. I think you sorta have to ignore the basic structure of the thing to use it just as a “content” site. For me, it just doesn’t make sense. Not saying it doesn’t work…but there are so many things…like what’s the point of the RSS function, what do you do about the post dates falling further and further into the past when you’re not adding new content, and how do you keep all your posts no more than a single click from the front page (and still presented in a friendly and easily browsable manner)?

    I’ve never been a niche site guy…and I don’t expect to be going in that direction in a major way (because I don’t see the long-term value…), but I have built three little niche sites from scratch lately, and bought and “rehabbed’ 3-4 of them. For me, a static site (with an RSS newsfeed presented in HTML to provide that dynamic element) is the way to go. Then, you can just worry about links…however you choose to pursue them.

22. Mark Andrews (1 comments.)
    16th May, 2008 at 11:06 pm 

    Josh You Star!

    I’m ever so glad I subscribed to your regular updates via email, every time you write with clarity and it’s always a joy to read your pearls of wisdom and to take on board your advice.

    Many thanks again!

    To your continued success!

    Mark Andrews

23. Internet Marketing With Rika Susan (1 comments.)
    17th May, 2008 at 6:58 am 

    Thanks, Josh. As always, this has developed into an interesting discussion. I usually target more of the long tail terms, but as a rule the more competitive term is included in that phrase. So, I hope to get the best of both worlds in time.

24. Sami (13 comments.)
    17th May, 2008 at 7:29 am 

    @ Josh

    “The next person who tells you a page needs to be frequently updated in order to rank, as them for proof; they won’t have any! Then send them to me so I can show them my proof!”

    OK, Josh show me your proof!

    And please note, we are not talking about individual and specific sites. We are talking about general principles …

    Are you saying of two groups of sites competeing for a very competitive keyword, all other factors being equal, then ones with fresh content will have NO advantage over the ones with dated content?

    If that’s what you’re saying, I’d very much like to see your evidence that applies “across the board” and not just the odd site that is doing well with completely static.

    S

25. Washington Mutual Savings Acounts (2 comments.)
    17th May, 2008 at 12:03 pm 

    Josh,

    Would you please go through your process for determining whether a niche is competitive and how long you think it will take you to get on the front page of Google?

    I would love to know the tools you use, the metrics you look for, and how you predict how long it will take you to get to the front page.

    Thanks,
    Fred

26. Neil (17 comments.)
    17th May, 2008 at 12:23 pm 

    Hi Josh

    Very interesting as always. I’ve experienced the frustration of my site dropping down the rankings.

    I’ve had some experience of the opposite of competitive keywords. I’m starting to follow elements of your $5/day formula and I’ve come across 1 keyword (a common mis-spelling) that was so uncompetitive that posting a link from my blog to a page written about the keyword was enough to put it to #1 in google. If only they were all like that!

    Neil

27. Howard Young (3 comments.)
    17th May, 2008 at 1:51 pm 

    @Josh, like @Sami, I don’t believe that if your page merits any value to the search engine, you don’t need to add content to it.

    Just take a look at Wikipedia. These pages are static and rank in the top SERPS. No one is “frequently” updating those pages. These pages are ranking high because people are linking to them as a cross reference or footnote on their site.

    However, I can see that if someone writes a thin or controversial post, on topic comments would be added creating a very keyword rich, unique page. Perhaps this was what you were thinking of?

    @Josh - Show us the proof!

    -H

28. Josh Spaulding
    17th May, 2008 at 4:34 pm 

    @Howard - Yep, in regards to competitive niches, very true. Niches that aren’t very competitive are much easier to maintain.

    @ Computer - “What I meant is that since there is less competition for long tail, will a minimal self generated link effort suffice?”

    Ah ok, yes. The least competitive a niche is the less link building is required to maintain rankings.

    “What I meant by this is once you’ve gained some credibility and traffic on the long tail, can you use this to attempt to capitalize on more competitive keywords?”

    Well, I suppose you could. Each page is ranked separately, so if you targeted long-tail phrases for all of your pages, then decided to wanted to go for some more competitive phrases on new pages you certainly could.

    If you were targeting a long-tail keyword on one specific page, then later decided to target a more specific keyword you could if the relevance were very similar, but that’s not likely.

    @ Terry - That’s true and a point I didn’t really hit on. It’s easy to tell when a site is ranking naturally or not just by looking at it’s backlinks. A naturally ranked site will have more in context links, while an artificially ranked site will have alot of sidebar/footer links.

    @ Chuck - Nice to see ya, Chuck. Thanks for stoppin by

    I feel the same in regards to blog platforms as mini-sites. I think those interested in using them for this purpose are doing it because they either don’t have the ability to create static sites or just don’t want to bother with it.

    You and I have put up so many html sites we can do it in about 2.2 seconds, but many people want an easier route and I guess there is nothing wrong with that.

    Other than the difficulty with ad placement/tweaking, I suppose it doesn’t hurt though.

    @ Mark Andrews - Glad to have you. Thanks for your support and kind remarks.

    @ Rika - I have a similar technique with this blog. Targeting alot of long-tail keywords with the posts, but in the long run I hope to rank for one very competitive term.

    @ Sami - “And please note, we are not talking about individual and specific sites. We are talking about general principles …”

    So you want me to show your proof, but you don’t want me to show you proof?

    I understand what you’re saying, but here is my thinking.

    I don’t sell SEO advice. My SEO knowledge is for my benefit (and I offer it to others who want to here it) so if I have sites, which I do, and I see LOADS of others sites, that hold top 10 rankings for YEARS without being updated, then why should I take someones word for it that a site/page must be updated to maintain rankings?

    I understand one site/page could be an oddball that somehow escaped the alogrithm, but thousands?

    Here’s your proof:

    http://www.wikipedia.org/

    Sure, Wiki pages can be updated and many are, but more are not updated for years at a time and still hold top ten rankings for VERY competitive terms. Why? because they get linked to like crazy!

    It’s all about the links!

    I also have a handful of sites that I own, which have help top 10 spots for years. Granted, these aren’t terribly competitive niches, but according to “common” SEO advice, competition doesn’t matter. It’s said that ALL pages MUST be frequently updated to hold rankings, right?

    I’ve help TWO top 10 rankings for “Germany Tourism” for over 2 years! Including a top 20 ranking for “Germany Travel” for over a year. everythingaboutgermany.com and thegermantruth.com

    Neither of those sites have had any major updates for as long as I can remember and the very minor updates were few and far between.

    Those are a few off the top of my head, but if I really wanted to spend alot of time on this I could easily come up with loads more.

    Waiting for your proof and I’m very open to the possibilities that I’m wrong, but so far all I hear are rumors and no facts, while all I see are SERPS telling me otherwise.

    @ Fred - It would all depend on what the purpose of the site was. But, in general, I combine all of the following into my decision: Google Toolbar PR, Alexa Traffic Rank, Title Relevance, Overall Relevance, Backlinks.

    As for how long it will take to rank for any given keyword, you never know.

    @ Neil - Congrats Hope it’s sending some traffic?

    @ Howard - “Just take a look at Wikipedia. These pages are static and rank in the top SERPS. No one is “frequently” updating those pages. These pages are ranking high because people are linking to them as a cross reference or footnote on their site.”

    Exactly I think you’re confusing my thoughts with Sami’s. It sounds like you agree with me and not Sami?

    Proof is above.

29. Sami (13 comments.)
    17th May, 2008 at 5:48 pm 

    Josh & Howard

    Yes it sounds like Howard is agreeing with Josh and not me.

    Josh you’re being a little unfair here when you say:

    “So you want me to show your proof, but you don’t want me to show you proof?”

    Yes proof would be good and you may have statistical proof in the form of say a key phrase
    for which in the top SERP (10 results) all the listings are pages that are not updated. So in this way you can support your conclusions.

    This could be your proof “without” picking on one specific site that has dated content and is still ranking high.

    I don’t have a problem with your sites that have held their rankings purely based on incoming links.

    I think you missed my point … I do acknowledge the value of backlinks (who can deny that one!). I am saying (as stated before “all other factors being equal”) if 10 sites get backlinks and 10 sites get backlinks and have regular fresh content do you think that the static ones would still occupy the top 10 SERP positions?! I think not.

    None of us have any idea how the SE algorithms work and for this reason the Wikipedia example is a non-starter for this discussion. There is a school of thought that believes “authority sites”, especially the non-profit ones such as Wikipedia, get a different search engine treatment than others.

    If linking was the only criteria and content freshness did not matter, then Wikipedia and one or two other similar sites should be above all other results. But of course there are a great many occasion that other sites out rank Wikipedia for some keywords and yet they have far fewer back links.

    Anyway, Josh it has been an interesting debate but as it “seems like” your tone is getting more aggressive I sign off on this debate … my purpose was to contribute in order to get clarification. The idea wasn’t to aggravate or insult anyone.

    And I do agree with you that the SE’s do not favor Blogs over others. I believe the ready-made better designed (and perhaps more professional) internal linking structure, the presence of RSS feeds and auto-pinging (in the case of Wordpress) plus of course the more fresh content all contribute to Blogs ranking better.

    Signing off
    S

30. Milan Kosanovic (2 comments.)
    18th May, 2008 at 7:42 pm 

    @Sami who said: “No matter how many backlinks it gets, if the page is not updated then it will fall out of favor with the engines much faster.”

    You’re wrong. It IS possible to have great rankings without updating the pages often. It’s very natural that some information changes often and some doesn’t. That’s just the way the world is, and Google should follow that. There are some books from the 19. century which you can read now that are still great, fresh and modern. And there are some books that are just outdated. That’s very natural, not favoring sites just because they’re often updated. Besides, often changed content does not equal fresh content.

    I personally have a site which is on top 10 for even single word keyword since 9 years (since 1999.). I significantly updated the site only once, couple of years ago when I redesigned it completely. The links still come (naturally), and it’s still on top. My competition is updating their sites daily. I know becuase I’m getting Google Alerts every day. I still beat them.

    I’m not alone. Experts, like Jonathan Leger experience the same.

31. Milan Kosanovic (2 comments.)
    18th May, 2008 at 7:59 pm 

    Oh yeah, as for the proof, can I show things we bought of that site over the years?

    Sami, I understand your point. However, like I said: content changed, added often does not equal fresh (and quality) content.
    While Google is a machine, to the certain extent Google can know the difference. LSI algorythm can tell if your content is “fresh”, by “looking” and the content of other sites. To a certain extent, Google can tell a quality of the content. Writing something like “If you’re looking for you’ve come to the right place” and repeating for different keywords just doesn’t work anymore, becuase of the algorythm for content quality control.

    So, for LONG TERM success with competitive keywords, it’s more about good (and fresh) content, not about updating and adding content (like it should be).

32. Web Success Diva (2 comments.)
    19th May, 2008 at 12:39 pm 

    This is an excellent post — especially the part about se’s ranking blogs. It’s not preference, its the features of a blog that get it ranked better. Great information

    Maria Reyes-McDavis

33. Mike (1 comments.)
    19th May, 2008 at 1:24 pm 

    Just came across your blog and read this post. You are “spot on”. I have many sites ranked first page google, but staying there takes a TON of work and most people are not willing to do it.

    Also, deciding what specific approach you want to take to make money online is critical. It’s so easy to get caught up doing many different things and none amount to decent money.

34. Josh Spaulding
    19th May, 2008 at 2:47 pm 

    @ Sami - “as it “seems like” your tone is getting more aggressive I sign off on this debate … my purpose was to contribute in order to get clarification. The idea wasn’t to aggravate or insult anyone.”

    No, not at all!! I’m not aggravated at all. The fact that so many people will believe hear-say over fact just because 99% of the “advisers” recommend the heard-say and only 1% recommend fact, does get to me a bit, I’ll admit, but I’m not at all being aggressive toward you

    Here’s the bottom line.

    You’re right, I don’t have solid proof with “all other factors being equal” but I’ve seen plenty of instances where individual sites maintain rankings with absolutely no fresh content and in many cases for very competitive phrases.

    So, although that may not be the type of proof you’re looking for, I’ve yet to see any proof from the other side.

    I’m more than open to your side of the story. Believe me! I’m not closed-minded and I WILL admit when I’m wrong. I have many times in the past!

    You may very well be right, but so far I haven’t seen any proof at all that a page needs to be constantly update to obtain and/or maintain rankings, with all factors being equal or not.

    @ Milan - Great way to look at it “There are some books from the 19. century which you can read now that are still great, fresh and modern. And there are some books that are just outdated. That’s very natural, not favoring sites just because they’re often updated. Besides, often changed content does not equal fresh content.”

    Sorry for the delay in approving your comments. Akismet has you in their grasp! Might want to send them an email.

    @ Maria - Glad you enjoyed it, Maria

    @ Mike - Yep, in regards to the last paragraph, build a list and help them

35. Mark McCullagh (5 comments.)
    20th May, 2008 at 12:04 am 

    Great advice Josh. I also like how you speak from experience and not theory.

    It always seems to come down to the basics of providing value [good content].

    If you build a strong foundation based on serving the readers in your niche, you cannot go wrong. Hence the importance of building an authority site.

36. Josh Spaulding
    22nd May, 2008 at 6:34 pm 

    “I also like how you speak from experience and not theory.”

    99.9% of the Internet Marketing related blogs out there are just putting rumors into their own words.

    Showing proof or at least showing something more than “everyone says” is an excellent way to stand out!

    a “nobody” could come into this niche and rock it if they simply did their homework and started testing things!

37. Barb Thornback (7 comments.)
    27th May, 2008 at 7:49 pm 

    Josh,

    Reading your post and then the comments is like being at college and taking a course.

    I think I learn more here than anywhere else!!

    Barb.

38. Josh Spaulding
    27th May, 2008 at 7:51 pm 

    @ Barb - I barely made it through High School, so college just sounds borrrrrring

    Glad you learn something here…glad to help!

39. RealWebToday.com (1 comments.)
    30th May, 2008 at 1:09 am 

    Thanks so much for your post. Such good informative material. As someone new to blogging I can tell you understanding SEO is some valuable knowledge.

40. Chuck (1 comments.)
    20th June, 2008 at 2:44 am 

    Consider “work from home”

    Your more likely to find spenders, Says:

    http://adlab.msn.com/Online-Commercial-Intention/oci.aspx

41. Jeff Schuman (6 comments.)
    28th June, 2008 at 3:53 am 

    Good post Josh. I gave up targeting my competitive keywords myself awhile back and only target longtail phrases now. My traffic keeps going up when I combine blogging and seo with article marketing for readers and not search engines.