SEO Avalanche Technique - Ranking With No Resources

[MrSanti]

Hey guys, I have a little question about interlinking, since I'm a bit confused. And I have a bit of a problem with money pages.

So when writing my articles, I'm just making silos to interlink a "group" of similar articles. Basically the money page is in the center, and I link info pages to that money page. Plus I try to get some web 2.0 backlinks for the money page and some info pages. Just like @Ryuzaki explains in the new crash course thread.

I have I bit more than 20 articles. And 2 info posts are bringing like 80% of the traffic. They rank for a shit load of long term stuff, even though these are 0 vol terms.

The thing is: Can I use these info posts to interlink to more money pages? Because those are already linking to a money page. Is there a limit? Like when linking outside, so that Google doesn't think you are selling links, or you can go full wikipedia interlinking?

And about the money pages. Looks like these are not ranking at all compared to the info ones. A lot of info pages that I uploaded on July are ranking on top 1 to 5, even a few are on the featured snippet, one is the one with the retarded url "looking at you @CCarter haha".

But when looking at my money pages, even targeting a KGR term with 0 search vol. Those not rank even on the second page. There is more competition though, but they don't target these specific keywords, and they still outrank me. Could this be a problem about on-page SEO, or maybe these have too much competition?

 

[DanielS]

But when looking at my money pages, even targeting a KGR term with 0 search vol. Those not rank even on the second page. There is more competition though, but they don't target these specific keywords, and they still outrank me. Could this be a problem about on-page SEO, or maybe these have too much competition?

It could also just be time-related. It can take months for individual posts to more up the rankings- especially on new websites.

 

[JamaicanMoose]

Hey guys, I have a little question about interlinking, since I'm a bit confused. And I have a bit of a problem with money pages.

So when writing my articles, I'm just making silos to interlink a "group" of similar articles. Basically the money page is in the center, and I link info pages to that money page. Plus I try to get some web 2.0 backlinks for the money page and some info pages. Just like @Ryuzaki explains in the new crash course thread.

I have I bit more than 20 articles. And 2 info posts are bringing like 80% of the traffic. They rank for a shit load of long term stuff, even though these are 0 vol terms.

The thing is: Can I use these info posts to interlink to more money pages? Because those are already linking to a money page. Is there a limit? Like when linking outside, so that Google doesn't think you are selling links, or you can go full wikipedia interlinking?

And about the money pages. Looks like these are not ranking at all compared to the info ones. A lot of info pages that I uploaded on July are ranking on top 1 to 5, even a few are on the featured snippet, one is the one with the retarded url "looking at you @CCarter haha".

But when looking at my money pages, even targeting a KGR term with 0 search vol. Those not rank even on the second page. There is more competition though, but they don't target these specific keywords, and they still outrank me. Could this be a problem about on-page SEO, or maybe these have too much competition?

Go nuts on the internal linking if it's relevant. You won't get penalized. I have between 10 and 40 internal links (excluding menu, related posts, widget, etc) on each page. No problems.

Your money pages need more time to rank because there's more competition. You'll be fine. Send some niche edits towards them if you want to speed up the process.

 

[zelch]

Has anyone used this for ranking in the map pack? Wondering if the formula works the same for getting a business/website to pop into the map pack for keyword targets.

 

[zelch]

I have a site ranking high for branded search. Did the method and the articles didn't rank on Pg 1. Wondering do you think branded search could be making our site look like it is a higher level search than it really is?

 

[dlangpap]

Game Plan using KGR (Keyword Golden Ratio) Technique:

1. Determine where you are within the Google organic tiers - in our example we are going to use 20-50 organic visitors daily.

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.

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.

​

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

@CCarter Thanks for this great post! I'm about to try this and wanted to clarify something from the bolded parts above:

I'm building a silo. Let's say my site is about electronics and the silo is Ipads. So I focus my keyword research around Ipads, and find the first 30 keywords with KGR < 25 to publish posts about in the first month. At the same time, I do normal KW research (meaning keywords related to the 30 KGR ones but with KGR not necessarily < 25 iiuc, with the same search volume) and use these in the same post. Finally, I insert internal links in this post to money pages, for example, a page with affiliate links.

1. What remains unclear is why the necessity to include non-KGR keywords in the post, and

2. How would this look in practice?

Hope this makes sense...

Cheers!

 

[CCarter]

1. What remains unclear is why the necessity to include non-KGR keywords in the post, and

So you can rank for other terms and long-tailed versions of those terms like "iPad apps for mothers" - if you found "iPad apps for mothers" a good term (doesn't need to be below or at the search volume level of the KGR term that you are targeting, can be higher).

Remember also Google shows excerpts of content areas and also now has some sort of auto-scrolling scenario or whatever (I can't recall the name of it at the moment) where that portion "iPad Apps for Mothers" gets highlighted in the search results.

As well you can use terms like "iPad Apps" (which lets say has 1 million search volume). You are SUPPOSE to be internally link to the money page targeting "iPad Apps". 3 internal links equals one inbound link (from external source) according to Kyle Roof.

Remember these KGR pages are the bottom of your pyramid and you are linking upward to more powerful pages, pillar pages, and money pages. You want the traffic flowing from the bottom of the pyramid to the top, with the top silo being the call to actions that generate you the most money.

You have to visualize the user moving through your website to the optimal call to action. If this was an affiliate site I would capture their email and other contact information as my primary. But that's me cause I think long-term and am creating a brand.

 

[dlangpap]

So you can rank for other terms and long-tailed versions of those terms like "iPad apps for mothers" - if you found "iPad apps for mothers" a good term (doesn't need to be below or at the search volume level of the KGR term that you are targeting, can be higher).

Remember also Google shows excerpts of content areas and also now has some sort of auto-scrolling scenario or whatever (I can't recall the name of it at the moment) where that portion "iPad Apps for Mothers" gets highlighted in the search results.

As well you can use terms like "iPad Apps" (which lets say has 1 million search volume). You are SUPPOSE to be internally link to the money page targeting "iPad Apps". 3 internal links equals one inbound link (from external source) according to Kyle Roof.

Remember these KGR pages are the bottom of your pyramid and you are linking upward to more powerful pages, pillar pages, and money pages. You want the traffic flowing from the bottom of the pyramid to the top, with the top silo being the call to actions that generate you the most money.

You have to visualize the user moving through your website to the optimal call to action. If this was an affiliate site I would capture their email and other contact information as my primary. But that's me cause I think long-term and am creating a brand.

Just wanted to follow up on this process of applying the avalanche technique. So have ordered a list of KGR < 0.25 keywords in the silo I'm trying to build in my niche and got a list of about 70. Most of these are commercial intent keywords ("best x for y") and many of them would fit as secondary keywords in other articles I have already written (money pages in theory).

So the question is: what would be the better strategy:

1) To write independent articles on some of these keywords (even though, as said, they are similar to or would fit as secondary KWs in existing articles) or
2) Include these KWs in the existing articles directly?

You mentioned that one of the uses/benefits of the KGR articles is to link to money pages with 3 internal links counting as one external link. Will this effect be lost with No. 2? I mean, I know that if the KWs are included in existing articles, there will be no internal linking, but wouldn't this be compensated by the additional search traffic brought on by the new terms that the page would, hopefully easily, rank for?

It seems to me that from a site quality perspective, having lots of small articles dedicated to one or a few KGR keywords only would hurt? Or, in any case, that having longer articles with lots of keywords to rank, including the KGR ones, would look and organize better?

Having said that, I guess that the first approach would also have a better chance of improving time on site, in turn, helping with ranking? I was recently following the case of an affiliate site who was kind of "linking down": from his larger "best x for y" articles he was not linking directly to the merchant but to the individual reviews of each of the products (which I assume could be KGR), and from there to the merchant. I guess this also improved his time on site; he claimed this was working for him but he was linking all over the place really as well, so not sure what the real effect of "delaying the affiliate referral" could be...

Cheers!

 

[lion1978]

1) To write independent articles on some of these keywords (even though, as said, they are similar to or would fit as secondary KWs in existing articles) or
2) Include these KWs in the existing articles directly?

I'd suggest doing both.
Write independent articles on the KGR KW's to get the inital easy ranking as well as the internal links to your money page, where I'd also include them.
Reason is as statet earlier, by creating individual content for the kw's you'd get some easy rankings and internal linking opportunity, as well as increasing time on site, plus the added bennefit of "conditoning" your readers to click on links on your page, which is probably also why the affiliate site you mentioned is linking all over the place.
As long as the links makes sense and doesn't seem forced in there.

Now in order for the KGR page and the money page to not compete with each other, I'd use the tactic of perhaps elaborating on specific part of the KGR term on the money page, and do the actual KGR page more generalised, for thatt term.

 

[dlangpap]

@CCarter @lion1978 Just to follow up on this now with a real life example. I'll just change the names of the product in the post, but the example is real and what I'm doing right now.

So I have a post that was published on August 2, 2020, let's call it "best double camping tent". The current data from Ahrefs for the keyword "best double camping tent" is:
-Volume: 0-10
-Allintitle result from Google is: 76, so KGR minimum of 7.6

The post's average position according to AHrefs has been 27.

My page is in the 50-100 Level.

There's another keyword, "double size tent for camping" that has allintitle results of 2 and volume of 0-10, so KGR minimum of 0.2.

My question: this was supposed to be a money page (best x for y) but as it seems the post is not going to rank in the top 10 for the original targeted keyword, would it be a good idea to try to rank by changing the keyword it's targeting to the one with the good KGR, so change the on page SEO of the article according to the new keyword and the article itself where needed?

Or would it be a better approach to leave the article as is and publish other shorter articles based on related KGR keywords, linking to the original keyword article to see if that helps with ranking?

This is my first try with the technique and I have other articles that I could do the same with, so I wanted to ask for opinions as it could determine the whole strategy going forward.

Would really appreciate your feedback.

Cheers!

 

[lion1978]

@dlangpap in the exampel, whet I would do and what I advice you to do is first have alook in the serps for the keywords and more specifically their sercher intent, if the results are fairly similar in serch intent, then I'd change the original article, if thy are different I'd create a new article targeting the second keyword and then ofcourse link to the original article, within the second one.

My inital bet is that you will find that the search intent for the two keywords is different, but I could be wrong.

 

[CCarter]

this was supposed to be a money page (best x for y) but as it seems the post is not going to rank in the top 10 for the original targeted keyword, would it be a good idea to try to rank by changing the keyword it's targeting to the one with the good KGR, so change the on page SEO of the article according to the new keyword and the article itself where needed?

Money page? SEO Avalanche content LINKS to money pages, they aren't money pages. I would create separate pages that link to the money page - where the money page is the targeted intent short-tail term. That's what this psychopath would do.

Or would it be a better approach to leave the article as is and publish other shorter articles based on related KGR keywords, linking to the original keyword article to see if that helps with ranking?

Yes.

--

There seems to be some confusion about interlinking and what content to create.

First avalanche articles should be supplemental to other content that you are creating. It's like the pipes under a city, you still have to build the city on top of the pipes, you just can't have pipes.

 

[freshpeppermint]

Yo so I was wondering if I will have the same problem as Daniel because a lot of, or most keywords I target are within this same range: Should I be good till 50k - 100k per month traffic or should I have to constantly be upgrading? Because I Know that even tho whatever it says "Search volume" is, it's way off and probably way more NOT ONLY that, articles rank for way more keywords.

 

[DanielS]

Yo so I was wondering if I will have the same problem as Daniel because a lot of, or most keywords I target are within this same range: Should I be good till 50k - 100k per month traffic or should I have to constantly be upgrading? Because I Know that even tho whatever it says "Search volume" is, it's way off and probably way more NOT ONLY that, articles rank for way more keywords.

Do you mean will this list of 30 (approx.) keywords get you to 50K to 100K organic visits per. month? Or, do you mean if you write "x" number of articles targeting keywords in this range, will you be able to reach 50K+ organic visits per. month? If you meant the former then the answer is no. If you mean the ladder, probably not.

The low search volume keywords are meant to help build a moat for your website. They're meant to get the ball rolling and provide your website with some security and stability (and interlinking opportunities). You are supposed to continually "tier up" as you go, as by the time your articles in tier 5 (for example) start ranking, you may already have a website eligible for keywords that fall under tier 7 based on your daily/monthly search count.

Your issue is that you aren't experienced enough to know if you'll be able to rank for keywords with 0-10 monthly searches 6 months from now because you've never done it, which is why everybody on the forum has been pleading with you to put your head down and publish content for the next 6 to 12 months.

There are no guarantees. This is why you should take things in stages. Don't try to find 500 keywords- find 50, write the articles, and see if any of them rank. If they do rank, you'll know that you can move on and find more keywords because your keyword selection has been validated. Don't find 500 keywords, order 500 articles, mass-publish them, and hope for the best.

 

[freshpeppermint]

Do you mean will this list of 30 (approx.) keywords get you to 50K to 100K organic visits per. month? Or, do you mean if you write "x" number of articles targeting keywords in this range, will you be able to reach 50K+ organic visits per. month? If you meant the former then the answer is no. If you mean the ladder, probably not.

The low search volume keywords are meant to help build a moat for your website. They're meant to get the ball rolling and provide your website with some security and stability (and interlinking opportunities). You are supposed to continually "tier up" as you go, as by the time your articles in tier 5 (for example) start ranking, you may already have a website eligible for keywords that fall under tier 7 based on your daily/monthly search count.

Your issue is that you aren't experienced enough to know if you'll be able to rank for keywords with 0-10 monthly searches 6 months from now because you've never done it, which is why everybody on the forum has been pleading with you to put your head down and publish content for the next 6 to 12 months.

There are no guarantees. This is why you should take things in stages. Don't try to find 500 keywords- find 50, write the articles, and see if any of them rank. If they do rank, you'll know that you can move on and find more keywords because your keyword selection has been validated. Don't find 500 keywords, order 500 articles, mass-publish them, and hope for the best.

Why not just implement the strategy from the get-go? Like you didn't level up which was your problem. But what if you buy 500 articles all at once, you plan like 30-60 are gonna be like 0-10 and others gradually go up and up in traffic. Someone I talked to today just said that it takes them typically 8 months to really rank for a 1000 keyword. Is this accounting for that?

I recently became interested in this seo avalanche style method because I realized people who were succeeding targetted keywords that were low comp BUT also had higher traffic. So they are subconsciously doing the SEO avalanche method, is there anyone else who did the avalanche method like following it ditto excluding the KGR thing?

 

[larcha]

Why not just implement the strategy from the get-go? Like you didn't level up which was your problem. But what if you buy 500 articles all at once, you plan like 30-60 are gonna be like 0-10 and others gradually go up and up in traffic. Someone I talked to today just said that it takes them typically 8 months to really rank for a 1000 keyword. Is this accounting for that?

I recently became interested in this seo avalanche style method because I realized people who were succeeding targetted keywords that were low comp BUT also had higher traffic. So they are subconsciously doing the SEO avalanche method, is there anyone else who did the avalanche method like following it ditto excluding the KGR thing?

I think this strategy does account for that. Going after a 1000+ monthly searched keyword will take time to rank for a new website. But this strategy gives you an outline of content to publish and interlink with that article and start to give your site some traction.

Don't get too caught up in waiting to 'graduate' to the next tier. Think more in terms of allocating your time and resources when planning your content in particular visitor tiers. In other words, don't spend time doing 100 articles at the 0-10 visitors tier, use your efforts to go after slightly more competitive topics.

For example (referencing original post):
30 articles at 0-10 visitors tier a month
30 articles at 10-20 visitors tier a month
30 articles at 20-50 visitors tier a month
Etc..

I pushed out a lot of articles in the first few months of my recent authority site (hundreds of articles in the first few months). I did not go after the lowest tier of keywords for all of those articles. I spread out the tiers knowing I was eventually going to rank for other keywords as my site's authority grew. However, those bottom tier keywords helped my site actually receive traffic the first month and it showed me what was working/what Google liked. Also, gave me opportunities to interlink towards more competitive topics.

In the first 100 days of my site, I outsourced 300+ informational articles. Only 40 of those articles were 100 monthly search volume or less. Now, those 40 articles brought in most of my traffic in the beginning but now, they are such a small piece as I allocate more resources towards higher search volume keywords.

 

[DanielS]

Why not just implement the strategy from the get-go? Like you didn't level up which was your problem. But what if you buy 500 articles all at once, you plan like 30-60 are gonna be like 0-10 and others gradually go up and up in traffic. Someone I talked to today just said that it takes them typically 8 months to really rank for a 1000 keyword. Is this accounting for that?

Estimated search volume isn't everything. You still need to perform basic keyword research (SERP analysis, etc.) to validate topics. You shouldn't buy 500 articles at once because your keyword research methods haven't been validated yet- you don't know if you've been doing effective keyword research because you haven't received feedback on the 50 (I believe) posts you purchased last month. Posts can take up to 6 months (or more) to age into the SERPs and rank- especially on a new website with low authority.

If you want to risk peeing your money down the drain then go ahead. But if things don't work, don't come crying to us. Regardless of how much money you spend or how many posts you buy, time is still a factor, so get ready to spend a significant chunk of money and not get any of it back for a long time (if ever).

Honestly, through reading your posts, it appears as if you have no real experience operating a content-based website. Not a churn and burn WSO review B.S. AI content website- a legitimate website created with longevity in mind. This is why I'm hesitant to say, "Yeah, go for it- spend all the money on articles."

I'm not saying don't spend any money, I'm saying don't spend it all up front, because if you've screwed up your keyword research, you'll have 500 posts that are never going to generate an ROI for you.

 

[BwTruitt]

Question:

I know I'm digging up an old thread from March 2019 but I have a question for those with experience using the Avalanche Technique.

I've done a test with 9 low competition long tail search terms and all but 1 page hit the first page of G's SERPS within a few days. Ranging from #1 - #10 in the SERPS - extremely competitive niche (one of the most extreme). Competing sites on the first page are DR 70s - DR 90s. My baby site is a DR 8.

However, I think most of these are close to zero traffic long-tails so expecting very little in traffic. But big traffic wasn't really the goal. The goal was to have pages on the first page of the SERPS as per the termite or avalanche analogies.

So finally here is the question:

Does Google still reward you for having pages in the top of their SERPS even though they're extremely low traffic?

I ask this because I've seen/heard a few "gurus" claim that unless a page actually gets traffic it doesn't give you any G cred, and some even say they should be pruned (deleted). My guess is this is BS and that we would get some brownie for beating out DR 90 websites for these long-tails.

Curious George isn't getting frustrated.

 

[Ryuzaki]

and some even say they should be pruned (deleted).

This is super dumb. Deleting pages should be based on quality, not traffic or links. There are sites that are of the highest quality possible that get little search traffic because they don't optimize for keywords. Or those keywords are no longer relevant in the current year. Deleting them would be ridiculous.

Does Google still reward you for having pages in the top of their SERPS even though they're extremely low traffic?

This is what the Avalanche theory is based on, partially. The rest being traffic level qualifications. I think it's already baked into the algorithm based on Page Rank for the most part. You could argue that the Avalanche method isn't about this concept at all and more about building an unshakeable moat instead by targeting keywords bigger sites aren't willing to "waste the resources" on.

 

[BwTruitt]

Thanks Ryuzaki - I figured deleting is super dumb.

So these kinds of low traffic pages, assuming their good quality of course, are worth it because they're part of the moat?

B

 

[Ryuzaki]

So these kinds of low traffic pages, assuming their good quality of course, are worth it because they're part of the moat?

I didn't come up with this method, so I may be speaking out of turn, but my view on it is that adding high quality content that's going to rank for the lower competition keywords is providing multiple benefits (the benefits of the moat).

One is that you're getting SERP exposure and therefore traffic and possibly earning links from it. Another is that you're generating topical relevancy beyond what your competitors are doing. Another is that you won't lose these rankings because everyone else is "too sane" to spend the time and money on it.

And a final benefit is that you're going to minimize the size of your rollercoasters. With enough traffic, you can gain big or lose big during updates. And even without updates you'll have day-to-day fluctuations in traffic due to people's routine behaviors throughout the week. All of this can help minimize the height difference between the peaks and the troughs. If you're monetizing well this can create a more stable financial environment to work out of.

But the big problem with this thread and its impact has been that people think they need a million posts at the 0 - 10 volume mark. Nowhere does the method imply that. It says to "level up" to the next higher tier of traffic. Nobody should be publishing 100's or 1,000's of posts at the super low volume. It's just there to help you establish the baseline.

In my view though, there's nothing wrong with dumping a lot of resources in into a 300 - 500 volume range. You can get a lot of mileage out of that. But staying lower than that for too long is self-sabotage. I know you're not saying this, but it's been done a lot by people reading this thread, and this is another chance for me to warn them against it as I've done in the previous posts of the thread.

 

[BwTruitt]

Love "Too Sane" - very chuckle worthy.

I get it - hammering away on no traffic content for too long doesn't make sense.

I suppose if you're seeing all your 1-10 posts stay on the 1st page of the SERPS after say 30 posts you should try one tier up for higher traffic subjects. Without that testing and tracking you're just pissing in the wind.

 

[Philip J. Fry]

I did this exact same technique to take a company to $8,000,000 a year with over 14,000 published articles. IMO this works because, if you write all these keywords, you'll cover the breathe and depth of a topic, which ends up being authority for your brand. You really gotta start somewhere and 0-10 search volume keywords are the best.

right now, I'm at 800 clicks/month and it's all from 10 volume/month keywords. Still waiting to hit it big with these other keywords and am writing about other topics at the moment to broaden my reach.

In my view though, there's nothing wrong with dumping a lot of resources in into a 300 - 500 volume range. You can get a lot of mileage out of that. But staying lower than that for too long is self-sabotage. I know you're not saying this, but it's been done a lot by people reading this thread, and this is another chance for me to warn them against it as I've done in the previous posts of the thread.

IMO it'll be better to cover the depth and breath of a topic than to just go for 0-10 volume keywords. For example, let's say there's 200 articles. 100 can cover low volume keywords but there should be article targeting higher volume keywords just to make the silos make sense. For web hosting it can be:

• Cloud web hosting
  • free cloud Webhosting
  • cheap cloud web hosting
  • 24/7 uptime cloud web hosting
  • SSL cloud web hosting
  • adult cloud webhosting
  • etc

The silo still has "cloud web hosting" which is a head term and high volume keyword. This makes the site... a real business. lol. No one's gonna make a website that's purely about long tail keywords except some SEOs who never left their mom's basement. I'm speaking for myself here. Sometimes you just gotta get your head out of the weeds and ask "what would normal people do here?" and do that. Or, as someone on Wicked Fire said ages ago, "if you can't explain your business to your mom, you're not doing it right."

 

[CCarter]

Update (ERROR in maths found):

If you've successfully published 180 articles in 6 months and can't even break the 13,200 visitors a day per month mark - start filling out that McDonald's application, cause this method is the most brute force, cheapest, and one of the safest ways to build a moat.

This part in bulletpoint #9 should say per month. That comes out to 440 visitors per day on the low end, but 880 visitors on the aggregated end using the 26,400 per month number.

NOW - it's critical to note if you've published 180 articles/pieces of content and are NOT breaking 1,000 visitors a day, something IS WRONG, because these are low-end conservative numbers. And the articles, even though they are KGR, they still get additional traffic from variations of the keywords you targeted.

So even a conservative double - that's 1,760 per day, equally 52,800 visitors per month. These aren't astronomical numbers here guys. Especially if you are using "Power Boosts" like interlink, social, having strong domain age, and google Trust.

And as stated here, make sure you are building up while building down - meaning the Avalanche technique should be a SUPPLEMENT to your ongoing marketing content pieces and marketing efforts. You are building a basement that holds up the structure, but there has to be a structure ONTOP!

 

[Biggy]

Update (ERROR in maths found):



This part in bulletpoint #9 should say per month. That comes out to 440 visitors per day on the low end, but 880 visitors on the aggregated end using the 26,400 per month number.

NOW - it's critical to note if you've published 180 articles/pieces of content and are NOT breaking 1,000 visitors a day, something IS WRONG, because these are low-end conservative numbers. And the articles, even though they are KGR, they still get additional traffic from variations of the keywords you targeted.

So even a conservative double - that's 1,760 per day, equally 52,800 visitors per month. These aren't astronomical numbers here guys. Especially if you are using "Power Boosts" like interlink, social, having strong domain age, and google Trust.

And as stated here, make sure you are building up while building down - meaning the Avalanche technique should be a SUPPLEMENT to your ongoing marketing content pieces and marketing efforts. You are building a basement that holds up the structure, but there has to be a structure ONTOP!

That's vague reply. Why? Simple visitors mean nothing!

1) you can have 2000 visitors and far better RPMs , affiliate revenue ( because its 10x harder entry)
2) or you can have 10.000 and have same revenue / profit as 1)

It's not all about traffic. Stop jerking off on amount of traffic you have. It means nothing. Niche is also important!