SEO Avalanche Technique - Ranking With No Resources

[CCarter]

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

This whole thread is talking about starting off from nothing. It’s the second sentence: “It's pretty much how to get started off when you have zero resources, no outreach, no backlink budget, no connections, no secret SEP (search engine pray) sauce, nada.”

If you want to contribute then add your process and/or start a thread to help people out. Because I haven’t seen you add any value so far.

 

[thisishatred]

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!

What was vague about the reply? He even did the math for you and told you where he goofed.

I mean visitors/sessions/clicks are kind of a huge barrier to entry for most of the decent advertisers out there; Mediavine is now 50k sessions/month and I'm fairly certain they got rid of the 25k sessions for additional sites. Then there's Adthrive at 100k/month.

Also, niche matters? No shit Mufasa.

Is this guy suppose to help people pick their niche and do a full on clustering/siloing of their keywords too?

 

[eliquid]

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

This is one of the worst comments I have seen on this forum.

Traffic means nothing, eh?

Option 1 - Let us see your niche with 1 visitor a month, and the amount of money it provides. It's gonna be nothing.

Option 2 - Now let us look at a site with huge traffic numbers from search and the revenue it gets per month.

I'd pick option 2 any day of the week.

Now, let's look at a site doing huge numbers, compared to a site doing low numbers but a good niche....

1. The bigger traffic site is more than likely going to get a HIGHER payout due to it's traffic numbers and the amount of referrals/ads processing it does

2. The bigger site has more leverage and weight when it comes to other negotiations.

3. The bigger site can more likely sell for higher multiples, especially if the traffic it gets is Search.

4. Simply put, most times a larger traffic site wins out over a smaller more niched site, if the owner is smart and uses all their resources. Sometimes a smaller site that is more niched can win out, sometimes.. but that's limited thinking.

More eyeballs = better opportunities. But only if the owner is smart.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I read that awesome post about Avalanche SEO. I have one major question, a big headache actually….

I have a site already planned out and half built. I have chosen main ‘money pages’ which are big articles on the various topics in the niche. Those will be 2-5k words long, and will obviously include a ton of keywords and related subjects.

I have also built a nice list of Avalanche style keywords, low SV, and gonna run them through low fruits analysis to start with the ones with the best chance of ranking.

But then comes the dilemma…

With every avalanche style keyword I look at, I worry about keyword cannibalisation and/or duplicate content issues. All these small KWs are on subjects which will be covered in the site’s main money pages, so aren’t I building a huge great duplicate content site?

I know the answer must be “no”, because this thread makes so much sense and I know it works as a friend told me it does and he’s doing very nicely in SEO. But I’d love if someone could explain where my thinking is wrong.

If my site is about hiking backpacks, and two of my pillar pages are :

- Best Hiking Backpacks
- Hiking Backpack Contents

Wouldn’t it be harmful to write a 0SV (avalanche) post targeting the term “what to put in a hiking backpack”, when I have a pillar page which will at least in part cover that?

TL;DR - Aren’t there risks of keyword cannibalization/dupe content with the Avalanche approach?

 

[Ryuzaki]

TL;DR - Aren’t there risks of keyword cannibalization/dupe content with the Avalanche approach?

Yes. The solution is pretty simple. Know what topics you've posted and don't post them twice (topics, not keywords). If a search query uses different words to deal with the same user intent, then it's the same query. You can manually confirm this by searching both and seeing if the same bundle of 10 sites appears in the top 10, maybe in a different order, maybe not. It's a good practice to check because Google may determine the intents are slightly different.

 

[CCarter]

TL;DR - Aren’t there risks of keyword cannibalization/dupe content with the Avalanche approach?

This was answered already in this post: post #6

If your pages were good and they would already be ranking for the terms you are going after correct? ARE they ranking for those terms? If not than what are you worried about?

If no page from your domain is being served for "Best Hiking Backpacks" nor "Hiking Backpack Contents" - let's get in the SERPs first. Then see how much traffic it brings in.

You need to worry about 2 keyword cannibalizing each other when you have 2 pages ranking going after the same keyword, even then I don't see the problem. Do you believe you are going to get "too much ranking"?

You're overthinking and worried about FUTURE problems when you have the immediate problem of getting in the SERPs.

As @Ryuzaki says, look in the SERPs, if #1 through #10 are the exact same pages for "Best Hiking Backpacks" and the #1 through #10 for "Hiking Backpack Contents", then you can worry about that. That instance would mean Google believes the intent of both terms are the same. But the likelihood is 0% with your example.

This type of thinking is a form of procrastination. It's like saying "IF I make a billion dollars where am I going to park my Ferarri...?", let's get the billion first. I have a feeling the problem will resolve itself.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

This was answered already in this post: post #6

If your pages were good and they would already be ranking for the terms you are going after correct? ARE they ranking for those terms? If not than what are you worried about?

If no page from your domain is being served for "Best Hiking Backpacks" nor "Hiking Backpack Contents" - let's get in the SERPs first. Then see how much traffic it brings in.

You need to worry about 2 keyword cannibalizing each other when you have 2 pages ranking going after the same keyword, even then I don't see the problem. Do you believe you are going to get "too much ranking"?

You're overthinking and worried about FUTURE problems when you have the immediate problem of getting in the SERPs.

As @Ryuzaki says, look in the SERPs, if #1 through #10 are the exact same pages for "Best Hiking Backpacks" and the #1 through #10 for "Hiking Backpack Contents", then you can worry about that. That instance would mean Google believes the intent of both terms are the same. But the likelihood is 0% with your example.

This type of thinking is a form of procrastination. It's like saying "IF I make a billion dollars where am I going to park my Ferarri...?", let's get the billion first. I have a feeling the problem will resolve itself.

Ha. I'd have NO problem with parking MY Ferrari! I'd live in the mofo.
Thanks. So short version... I am worrying about a GOOD problem (if it ever occurs at all). That makes sense. I had a cannibalized site before and it was a huge nightmare to sort out, so I guess I am a little paranoid about it. I will just get publishing low SV content, and using Ryuzaki's approach of choosing ones I doubt will be covered in even the longest pillar pages, all should be good
Thanks again both of you.

 

[Bothan Spy]

Hi all, noob here.

Forgive me if this has been answered already, but when we're talking about 'visitors' (as per the original post) Are we referring to 'impressions' or 'clicks' per Google Search Console?

The way I understand it is impressions are every time Google serves up a page in a SERP, whether a human visits the page or not (that would be clicks, obviously).

So with the tier chart that CCarter provided, are we to calculate our daily and monthly traffic based on impressions or clicks and then figure out our level from that? (I'm pretty sure I'll be starting from Level 0 regardless)

Thanks, happy to be here.

 

[CCarter]

Are we referring to 'impressions' or 'clicks' per Google Search Console?

People landing on your website, so clicks. NOT impressions. You should be looking at your analytics not search console.

 

[Bothan Spy]

Thanks for the quick answer, haven't used Google Analytics much compared to GSC. I assume that all the data in GA refers to clicks only? Real human clicks?

 

[garygee]

I read that awesome post about Avalanche SEO. I have one major question, a big headache actually….

I have a site already planned out and half built. I have chosen main ‘money pages’ which are big articles on the various topics in the niche. Those will be 2-5k words long, and will obviously include a ton of keywords and related subjects.

I have also built a nice list of Avalanche style keywords, low SV, and gonna run them through low fruits analysis to start with the ones with the best chance of ranking.

But then comes the dilemma…

With every avalanche style keyword I look at, I worry about keyword cannibalisation and/or duplicate content issues. All these small KWs are on subjects which will be covered in the site’s main money pages, so aren’t I building a huge great duplicate content site?

I know the answer must be “no”, because this thread makes so much sense and I know it works as a friend told me it does and he’s doing very nicely in SEO. But I’d love if someone could explain where my thinking is wrong.

If my site is about hiking backpacks, and two of my pillar pages are :

- Best Hiking Backpacks
- Hiking Backpack Contents

Wouldn’t it be harmful to write a 0SV (avalanche) post targeting the term “what to put in a hiking backpack”, when I have a pillar page which will at least in part cover that?

TL;DR - Aren’t there risks of keyword cannibalization/dupe content with the Avalanche approach?

If you're using lowfruits anyway, check their excellent clustering report for guidance re. which kw's to include on which page.

 

[CCarter]

I posted this video in the A.I. thread, but it's worth re-posting it here:

Julian added the ChatGPT element that takes this to the next level by having A.I. create the outline as well as evaluate the content you created to make sure it's inline with Google's Helpful content guideline.

To help you guy even more with the ChatGPT aspect, check out Matt Diggity's video on it. @eliquid showed it to me awhile back and I was blown away by his techniques:

If you can come up with your mashed up strategy with this, you can take over niches rather quickly. I've been working on a secret project and testing ranking A.I. content with some WickedFire Ancients - and what they got going on is nuts.

I'll be the first to say, A.I. content rankings. As long as, like the Ancients said, your site has a helpful/useful content classification.

How do you know whether your content is deemed helpful/useful? Well after every algorithm update your website is increasing or at least NOT declining in terms of traffic. If you started seeing declines every algorithm update - your content is not helpful - according to Google and logic.

These guys are showing me traffic volumes of up to 10,000 where they jump into the top 10 positions - ALL A.I. generated AND the content is FLAGGED as A.I. by detection software. I've seen example after example after example to the point - hands down A.I. content can and does rank.

 

[Afgoon]

Any reason why we should only be posting 1 article per day? Are able to pump up those numbers?

 

[Joe Wee]

This thread is awesome and helpful, so thank you for making it. It makes total sense too that it should work like this. I created a site a few months ago and only started making content about 2 months ago for it. I think I messed up a little in the content I created because I didn't drip out my articles and instead created like 20 two months ago and published them all at once and now about 2 months later I published 20 more. Both in a single day. I am started to get leads nearly every day though roughly 1-3 and half of them convert so its a good hedge against current churn rate.

The terms researched were all very low traffic by coincidence and the new articles target traffic a little higher in volume just not exactly targeted to the buyers directly searching the kind of product I have. More education guide type of things. I think Ill wait a little while and then start dripping more out. Ill let you guys know how it pans out

 

[Joe Wee]

Wanted to add the part I couldn't fit before, since what I left out is probably more useful than what I put in.

The two dumps of articles turned into an accidental experiment of this method.

Batch 1 went up cold on a site with basically no history. Took about 5 weeks before anything moved

Batch 2 went up yesterday.

Same prompt. Same publishing pattern. Same all-at-once dump.I used Claude Fable Max effort and the prompt was something like

"you are a world class seo expert use maximum expressive form to build silo structured BERT semantic reasoning content for these terms [kw list] that funnels educational content for the informational keywords to link exact match commercial intent keywords to the main page/leadpage with the goal of ranking my site to number 1."

That's what I'm watching now, and I'll report back when batch 2 is the same age batch 1 is today.

I don't think the volume is producing the leads. I think it's the shape of my articles if that makes sense.

Let me clarify-

The informational pages aren't trying to sell anything. They answer the question completely, then hand off to the one commercial page linked with the exact match anchor of the commercial intent keywords I'm targeting.

So somebody can land five different ways and still end up in the same place. When a lead comes in I can see the entry page, and it's frequently never the money page, it's a guide or a comparison page.

That's why the low volume terms mattered less than I expected. 70 searches a month that all funnel to one page beats 3,000 that scatter.

And something more interesting are the ai referrals because I wasn't thinking about them when I created the content.

Several of my newer leads told me ChatGPT sent them, or that they found me through an AI answer.

No idea if that's the silo being easy to parse or just the pages being complete enough to get cited because people have strongly opposed me on twitter when I mentioned the semantic meaning silo strategy. But it's real traffic and none of it shows up in Search Console. I'm like on page 2 and 3 for the majority of the keywords I really want. If you were only measuring clicks you'd think those articles did nothing.

Backlinks are next on my list to try to get to page 1. Trying to expand on this with higher searched terms as guides (I can see the impressions in Google analytics for side effect terms that are getting ranked from educational guides so I'm leaning into that with usage data from my current customers that no one in this niche is currently citing (My theory is it could be a gold mine for ai recommendations)