SEO Avalanche Technique - Ranking With No Resources

[CCarter]

phrase - allintitle:"keyword golden ratio"

I use double quotes. Nothing has changed.

This sort of situation is like when people ask if the Digital Strategy Crash Course is still valid cause it was written 5 years ago. If it was some sort of "Trick" or "Tip" than the methods might become irrelevant because tips and tricks are surprise tactics. Strategies give you the macro understanding of what you are going after, and then you employ tactics to execute upon the grand strategy.

It's sort of like war - is the tactic of flanking the enemy going to go out of style - probably not for a long time, not until we are in sphere ships that can fly in all directions and can also shoot in all directions. When a ship has no front, back, nor sides THEN you cannot flank it. But you can flank anything that has sides (flank = hit from the sides). The flanking tactic has been used for thousands of years in war, it ain't going away.

Our goal isn't to teach "Tricks" that work for a couple of weeks or months, like the SEO gurus do, and then get overran by spammers. KGR has been around for several years now and every single industry still to this date has hundreds of KGR terms available. Why? There are new questions, data, and ideas coming out daily within your industry, so people will continue asking questions about them.

more fluff

You have to change your mindset and get out of the "fluff" mentality. Either provide value or give up.

DB sites

Database sites are still around, I still own a couple. But going down this route means there will be a ceiling to the traffic for your moat. There is no growth once the database site comes 100% online.

This Avalanche method is for gaining upward traffic. A database site getting random queries about some dentist and their name isn't steady traffic. Since it's not consistent and there is literally 0 search volume for these random queries you are building a sand castle in the desert.

Using our analogy: you aren't traveling from New York to California; You are going to the middle of nowhere - a desert, where literally no one wants to be and building a sand castle. You'll get the one-off passer-by but unless you can actually provide value you're just going into the blackhat spammer mentality.

The only way to inner link the database site is by the city, state, zip code. With the SEO Avalanche method you are inner linking keywords with medium and high volume so you can push PageRank juice power upward to your money pages. A big database of a bunch of names and businesses isn't doing any of that, it's just creating a bunch of useless pages on the internet.

With KGR and actual content that is ANSWERING questions people are asking within your industry. That's providing value.

You have to switch your thought process cause once you provide value you can charge more for AD space, increase your pricing on product/services, or generate more revenue from ADsense. You can also grow a newsletter into an audience cause people see actual value from your brand.

Can you grow a newsletter list from a database site? You have to question the type of people that would give their email to a database site in the first place cause they clearly aren't the brightest - if that even happens.

If you can't get people to sign up for your newsletter than you clearly aren't providing value to the audience - that should be a telltale sign of value, cause real value, like the FEInternational newsletter, gives meat on the bone to the audience. What is a database site going to provide? It is at best polished spam.

 

[bopeep]

Our goal isn't to teach "Tricks" that work for a couple of weeks or months, like the SEO gurus do, and then get overran by spammers. KGR has been around for several years now and every single industry still to this date has hundreds of KGR terms available. Why? There are new questions, data, and ideas coming out daily within your industry, so people will continue asking questions about them.



You have to change your mindset and get out of the "fluff" mentality. Either provide value or give up.



Database sites are still around, I still own a couple. But going down this route means there will be a ceiling to the traffic for your moat. There is no growth once the database site comes 100% online.

This Avalanche method is for gaining upward traffic. A database site getting random queries about some dentist and their name isn't steady traffic. Since it's not consistent and there is literally 0 search volume for these random queries you are building a sand castle in the desert.

This is why I don't write content myself. I can't communicate well when I am asking something.
I didn't mean as a replacement of KGR content, I meant to use it a level below the KGR content in terms of the pyramid. I was referring to the Moat part of the SEO foundation and asking in using a DB will help reinforce the moat more. One level below the KGR because DB content is easy, and it could rank for local terms.

eg:
I am writing an article on widget, linking to online sellers and I will just add, in case you want to try local stores, here is a bunch of local retailers in case I reccomend.

 

[CCarter]

I meant to use it a level below the KGR content in terms of the pyramid.

That's something that might make sense. It's worth a try.

I just wondering if there is a thin page penalty of some sort that's possible. I doubt it cause I am generating 3-4K monthly traffic from a database site and have done the same in the past, but lets say it gets wiped out - cause of thin content penalty, it could negatively impact your KGR terms' rankings. They could be marked as bad cause the links coming to it were devalued.

In our scenario no links except side-ways links are linking to the KGR pages, so getting hit with devalued links doesn't happen. When you start adding stuff that's "questionable" that's where you start getting into unknown territory.

It's worth a try, definitely an idea I might look into.

 

[AlexR]

How does this strategy work with content pruning? I see a lot of people would rather 'merge' multiple articles into more authoratative ones?

 

[Ryuzaki]

How does this strategy work with content pruning? I see a lot of people would rather 'merge' multiple articles into more authoratative ones?

It defeats the purpose. The point of this is to be one of the few people with articles targeted and optimized specifically for these search terms. Yes, they might fit within a larger article, but that larger article won't be extremely optimized for the term. You won't be guaranteed to rank in those cases, but if you optimize the entire article for that specific term, you're going to take it down. Especially because nobody else is tackling them.

In terms of thin content in relation to content pruning, just don't publish crap for these terms. Make them well above par. If you do so, you'll probably own the SERPs for these forever. Who in their right mind would go through so much effort for such a low volume term? We would, because there's so much related traffic that you get too. A 100 volume search term might net you 1,000 visits a month due to these related terms, if you really dominate the 100 volume search term. And that requires a great article, one that you won't see any desire to prune.

 

[bernard]

I guess I just don't understand how the ball gets rolling initially with a new website.

Publish and wait.

There's really nothing you can do to force the issue. Nothing will really happen before 3-6 months for a new site.

Publish, publish, publish.

Promote the content on social media, Reddit, forums, blog comments etc etc.

 

[DanielS]

Publish and wait.

There's really nothing you can do to force the issue. Nothing will really happen before 3-6 months for a new site.

Publish, publish, publish.

Promote the content on social media, Reddit, forums, blog comments etc etc.

This makes sense! My "there must be a secret or something I'm missing" syndrome hasn't quite left me yet, haha.

 

[bernard]

This game is really all about future time orientation ability.

 

[JamaicanMoose]

And no, I'm not a fan of putting up junk content at first, though I understand the rationale. It's not just about Google, but about the visitors, and their on-site metrics get fed back to Google in certain ways that can stifle your progress. @JamaicanMoose starts with cheaper content and does well and maybe he'll have the time to explain his rationale on doing it that way.

I've actually moved on from putting up $0.60/100 word stuff. I'm now paying around $1 - $1.5/100 words and not bothering to replace it. It's not worth my time given how much content I'm putting up each month (400 - 750 articles, depending on the month).

College kids / stay at home Moms will write for this price on UpWork. Some vetting is necessary, but in general, I've found it to be as good as the stuff that $3 - $6/100 word content agencies do. After all, the people who write from these agencies only get like 40% of whatever rate you're paying. Might as well cut out the middle man and get 2-3x the articles for the same price.

I've posted in more detail about cheap content here: https://www.buildersociety.com/threads/the-authority-site-content-publishers-guild.4893/post-49417

My post on vetting people from UpWork here: https://www.buildersociety.com/threads/the-authority-site-content-publishers-guild.4893/#post-49394

I have had no issues ranking or converting with content that's dirt cheap. Amazon Associates says I convert 10-11%. The few other affiliate programs I'm in average about 8% conversion. Doesn't seem to matter if it's cheap, moderate, or expensive content. People really don't read shit when making everyday purchases. They scroll until they see H2/H3 headers, images, buttons, and lists. Present those in an article asap and it won't have a problem converting.

I'm a huge proponent of the 'throwing shit at a wall and hoping it sticks' strategy with content ranking in Google. It's a complete crapshoot whether or not an article will rank. Why bother spending $100 on an article when I can get 10 articles for that same price?

However, I don't think this strategy works with YMYL niches. But for nearly anything that Amazon sells, I don't see it being a problem.

 

[Thoth]

It's not worth my time given how much content I'm putting up each month (400 - 750 articles, depending on the month).

How many editors and formatters does this take? And how complicated are your posts in terms of image resizing and amounts of images, custom HTML or plugin usage, etc?

 

[JamaicanMoose]

How many editors and formatters does this take? And how complicated are your posts in terms of image resizing and amounts of images, custom HTML or plugin usage, etc?

0. Fuck all that noise.

I send a content brief and a couple of examples to new writers I hire. The articles have no spelling errors and are grammatically good enough. The articles are delivered in the format that I prefer, which makes uploading easy.

My theme resizes image uploads automatically. There's only 5 - 10 images per post. They're all product images or the one featured image. There's no custom HTML. Only plugin that's relevant to posting is MaxButtons.

Each post takes 2 - 5 minutes to upload. Time is based on which of my sites I'm uploading for. Some take a few extra minutes due to interlinking and/or uploading 10~ article clusters at once.

I like to create simple processes that are easily replicable and scalable. I die a little on the inside when I read people spending an hour formatting a post.

 

[Cash Builder]

I like to create simple processes that are easily replicable and scalable. I die a little on the inside when I read people spending an hour formatting a post.

I really need to start streamlining my posting and uploading! I’ve managed to cut the time down significantly, but some posts still take 30 minutes to format. You’ve given me something to think about.

There's only 5 - 10 images per post.

Each post takes 2 - 5 minutes to upload.

How are you finding these images so fast? Or are your writers finding them for you?
The biggest time sink for me when uploading is finding/editing images and internal linking. Need to find ways to make this quicker for my editors.

 

[JamaicanMoose]

How are you finding these images so fast? Or are your writers finding them for you?
The biggest time sink for me when uploading is finding/editing images and internal linking. Need to find ways to make this quicker for my editors.

I use the product images from Amazon. Go to listing, right click -> save image as, upload! Then for the feature image, I do a Google image search and use whatever is relevant when searching for the article topic

 

[MrMedia]

0. Fuck all that noise.

A fellow believer in volume moving the needle

 

[CaptainHustle]

I use the product images from Amazon. Go to listing, right click -> save image as, upload! Then for the feature image, I do a Google image search and use whatever is relevant when searching for the article topic

Is that not against Amazon Affiliate T&C? Generally when using Google images, are you worried about infringing any copyright?

 

[uzz]

eg:
I am writing an article on widget, linking to online sellers and I will just add, in case you want to try local stores, here is a bunch of local retailers in case I reccomend.

Currently trying this - but adding more location details to each place so it's not to thin looking.

After reading this thread, I've also decided to add the Avalanche method to it. I'll start a lab follow along. Starting at level 1 - time to go hunting!

 

[JamaicanMoose]

Is that not against Amazon Affiliate T&C? Generally when using Google images, are you worried about infringing any copyright?

For Amazon, don't use customer images. Product images are fine. I highly doubt any company is going to complain to Amazon about a website using their product image to promote sales of their product. In fact, most reputable companies offer media kits that have the same product images for people to use to promote the product.

However, I wouldn't use a company's product image if you're going to be shitting on their product.

For Google Images, if I get a message saying 'you're using my photo, give me credit etc etc', then I take the image down and replace it with another. If I really like the photo, I'll give them a nofollow link at the bottom of the page.

 

[Styx]

This is some really cool stuff thanks for sharing @CCarter . Had somewhat of a basic question, If starting with a fresh site how do you deal with multiple keywords targeting the same question with differing volumes?

For example if you had three keywords targeting basically the same thing:

How to x as fast as possible Canada - 10 volume
How to x as fast as possible - 50 volume
How to x - 1,000 volume

Would you initially create a piece of content for "How to x as fast as possible Canada" and then as time goes on and your site begins to grow edit that contents on page data to hit the higher terms or would you just create another piece of content with basically the same answer just reworded for the higher volume terms.

There could also be variations like this with a large amount of keywords differing in volume not just three?

 

[Ryuzaki]

@Styx, put them all in one article optimized for the longest tail keyword, which will include the short tails. Problem solved.

Don't worry about ranking for the short tail. If it happens it happens. But that's not the point of this method. The entire point is to NOT be greedy about what you're trying to rank for. It's to be the least greedy, and to be the website owner that will go the distance to rank for the small volume stuff that nobody else goes for.

There was a question above about merging content to rank for higher volume, higher competition terms. Any question regarding "ranking for higher volume, higher competition terms" is completely defeating the purpose of this method and should be seen as invalid.

What you'll find is that these tiny terms bring you more traffic than you expect because there's similar one-time questions being searched all the time. There's no need to be "greedy" about it.

You'll get what you're looking for if you employ the method as described by CCarter. Trying to rank for the 1,000 volume term as a "level 1" website isn't going to happen anyways.

Later on you can target the higher volume term itself on a different article. It's not going to destroy your site or cannibalize everything. The intents are often different, like your example tagging on the word "Canada." That changes the intent and thus you'll be fine in terms of cannibalization.

The short tails are always included when you use long tails anyways. You can't type "how to type fast" without typing "how to type" but the intents are completely different. Hope that helps.

 

[JamaicanMoose]

This is some really cool stuff thanks for sharing @CCarter . Had somewhat of a basic question, If starting with a fresh site how do you deal with multiple keywords targeting the same question with differing volumes?

For example if you had three keywords targeting basically the same thing:

How to x as fast as possible Canada - 10 volume
How to x as fast as possible - 50 volume
How to x - 1,000 volume

Would you initially create a piece of content for "How to x as fast as possible Canada" and then as time goes on and your site begins to grow edit that contents on page data to hit the higher terms or would you just create another piece of content with basically the same answer just reworded for the higher volume terms.

There could also be variations like this with a large amount of keywords differing in volume not just three?

If they were buyer-intent KWs, I would do separate articles for all 3. Quick money can be made with the 10 and 50 volume KWs.

If they were info articles, I would only do the 1,000 volume and 50 volume.

I do that on my sites and it works for me. I like to see sites earning revenue asap as a proof of concept. Targeting low MS KWs is a great way to do that. YMMV though.

 

[WinMore]

Use the Keyword Golden Ratio technique for the terms (AND do normal keyword research for the same search volumes to use within the content). I personally go to Fiverr and find providers that do the research for me within 24-36 hours. So for $5-50 days you can get a Fiverr give to generate you up-to 250 terms that have a KGR of 0.25 and under.

FYI Using the KGR technique is relatively new to me HOWEVER the growth has been exponential after months of creating content, so it's the go-to now for my SEO operation instead of just "low-hanging fruit" methods. I'm writing this with the KGR method as the primary but years before we didn't use intitle but simple double quotes for terms. KGR is a huge improvement.​

3. Order OR write the content yourself, for those terms. Make sure to use the research keyword researched terms, non-KGR, within the content so you can - get this - anchor link upward to your money terms and other important pages! Interlinking seems to be a lost art, but it's how news websites are ranking in the SERPs

The first sentence of the quote isn't 100% clear to me. Following the next paragraphs I assume:

The normal keyword research part has nothing to do with the KGR. You just take terms you want to rank for and add some value regarding those terms (or keywords) in your KGR article. Then you link to your money page, where you add real value, and hopefully, get a sale.
The main reason for the link is to get your money page up in the rankings. (considering you do this enough times)

In practice it would be something like:
Find a KGR, write content to fulfill the need of the searcher (could be long or short), and add some extra stuff on the page that you can use to link to pages of actual value. Pages of actual value are determined by normal keyword research.

2. Do keyword research and find terms that generate 0-10, 10-20, and 20-50 visitors a MONTH (NOT DAILY). Find 30-45 of them.

I assume total per tier? (so 3x 30-45 total of at least 90?) Once I have these 90+, then I do the KGR?

From the rest of the post I got the impression you would need a total of at least 90 KGR compliant terms.

It's not really that different When you start I guess, because at the end of month you would evaluate your power anyway, and adjust accordingly. You just need at least 30 KGR compliant articles total for the first month.

In SerpWoo the numbers are absolute in the keyword finder. So either 0 or 10.
If the AllInTitle has 0 results, but the volume is also 0, it's a KGR of infinity. My best guess would be that the term is fine for Tier 0. Or should people just ignore every 0 volume keyword? (Maybe double crossing with another tool could work)

 

[CCarter]

The first sentence of the quote isn't 100% clear to me. Following the next paragraphs I assume:

I give a further example that clarifies this here: Controversy #3

Example:

"How Do I Check A Company's Reputation" has a search volume of 150, with All In Title = 26, so the KGR = 0.17.

Step back for a moment - My service targets people doing "online reputation management", ORM, - so at some level I've already done this research and have money pages dedicated to terms. If not I do the research for ORM next.

I then add the ORM content and talk about it within the context of SERPWoo to the KGR article. Obviously I am answering the intent of the KGR article first.

I then interlink the ORM keywords I added to the above money pages.

Google comes to the KGR term, indexes it, then follows the link to the ORM money pages and also increases the rankings for those pages over the long term.

It's basic interlinking upwards to money, and pillar pages within your silo.

I assume total per tier? (so 3x 30-45 total of at least 90?) Once I have these 90+, then I do the KGR?

No, that's just the minimum. But if you are using a Fiverr gig they aren't going to limit it to search volumes like we do, so that's why you gotta order multiple gigs across your niche's categories, cause maybe only 5 or 10 comes back with 0-10 terms in a single gig - yet you need 30 articles.

At the end of the day you are organizing how you publish your content to your site, so you should know what the next 30-60 days looks like and adjust half-way through by adding more where needed.

If the AllInTitle has 0 results, but the volume is also 0, it's a KGR of infinity.

You are going to have to make a judgement call on whether the article/keyword makes sense for your intent and your audience. Just because a KGR article is targeting a 0 search volume term doesn't mean it will not generate traffic.

SEO Secret: Web pages can rank for more than 1 keyword.

You are thinking too hard.

Web pages rank for a ton of long tail terms that 99% of keyword tools never know about.

Some 30-50% of DAILY search queries within Google are terms Google has never seen before, so that means if GOOGLE hasn't seen them before no other keyword tool will be able to tell you anything about them. Yet Google has to give that searcher some page to fulfill the intent.

So using my "How Do I Check A Company's Reputation" example, I'm obviously going to rank for "How Do I Check A Company's Online Reputation" as well right?

You have to step back and see the bigger picture.

 

[Stones]

Whilst I've never looked into KGR particularly, it might be of use to mention that when these low comp pages are ranking and getting traffic, you ought to engineer your internal link(your link up the pyramid as explained here) so that it is prominent and some visitors will click through to your high comp article.

IMHO at least some of the ranking benefits come from the validation provided by traffic.

 

[MrMedia]

OK so here are my results on a 3 month old domain with zero link building.

There are many broad term targeted articles on the site already and as you would expect they are getting zero love from organic search at this early stage. So I decided to test this technique out to see where big G places my site in terms of levels.

I did this by getting my writer to do 5 articles each at different levels of monthly traffic.

The articles were published 15th July and the results as of today are as follows -

TERM	ALLINTITLE RESULTS	MONTHLY VOLUME	KGR	MY RANKING
A	3	70	0.04	5
B	14	590	0.02	NOT RANKED
C	91	210	0.43	1 *featured snippet
D	8	170	0.47	23
E	11	210	0.05	2

I am pleased to hit a featured answer snippet already and from the above table I am going to assume that my KGR boundries at the minute are keywords that have a KGR of 0.04.

Interestingly term B was a URL that I forced into the index via websmaster tools.

All others landed naturally within 24hrs of publishing.

Thoughts?

 

[proto]

OK so here are my results on a 3 month old domain with zero link building.

There are many broad term targeted articles on the site already and as you would expect they are getting zero love from organic search at this early stage. So I decided to test this technique out to see where big G places my site in terms of levels.

I did this by getting my writer to do 5 articles each at different levels of monthly traffic.

The articles were published 15th July and the results as of today are as follows -

TERM	ALLINTITLE RESULTS	MONTHLY VOLUME	KGR	MY RANKING
A	3	70	0.04	5
B	14	590	0.02	NOT RANKED
C	91	210	0.43	1 *featured snippet
D	8	170	0.47	23
E	11	210	0.05	2

I am pleased to hit a featured answer snippet already and from the above table I am going to assume that my KGR boundries at the minute are keywords that have a KGR of 0.04.

Interestingly term B was a URL that I forced into the index via websmaster tools.

All others landed naturally within 24hrs of publishing.

Thoughts?

I saw at the beginning google always show love but after few weeks the ranks always drop atleast in my case. Can you report after few weeks the rankings?