Pray/Hope
4️⃣ ... it's for the right audience
5️⃣ ... it's something that contributes to your business goals
6️⃣ ... it's a relevant topic that aligns with your site
Simply copying is Not a good move
(nor is it a "strategy"!).
Most sites already have a load of content that ranks for a ton of irrelevant terms that do Nothing for the business!
Which means you're wasting resources
(at the least, time and effort, maybe money)
>>>
>>>
Investing a modicum of time/effort at the start,
to check the topic/intent, nature/purpose and suitability of the pieces could help you avoid such wastage.
It's this sort of shit that has lead to the internet being filled with highly similar, largely redundant crap!
>>>
>>>
Worse, a fair % of people end up replicating/recreating content that they don't really get,
and when they rewrite it,
often introduce errors, inaccuracies or misinterpretations (be it same or different language).
So again, even more shit online!
>>>
>>>
Instead, look, analyse, prioritise ...
... then plan and ... if you can't produce your own,
using your own knowledge, experience and ability,
then sure,
go ahead,
spin the competitors content as you see fit ...
... but only the good stuff,
that helps your business!
>>>
>>>
... and, if you're not a complete scumbag,
and you do utilise your competitors content heavily,
provide a link!
(Seriously sick of content thieves!)
You can generate a review of their content,
you can do an exploration, you can produce an "inspired by" piece ... etc.
>>>
>>>
Being a naive, lazy, thieving parrot is NOT a good thing,
and I don't give two fucks whether it's @nathangotch or @BrianEDean telling you to do it.
Do Better!
(And apologies - it's nothing personal ... it's just it's 2023 ... over 20 years of people simply copying each other ... it's a little worn and sad, don't you think?
At least provide guidance on how to "recreate" other peoples content sensibly, and possibly with morals?)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In many cases, there are competitors for topic(s) you want to target
You have several options: 1) Find terms that aren't competed 2) Find terms that are weakly competed 3) Provide more value 4) Produce multiple inter-supporting pieces
: Non-competed :
This is often harder than it sounds.
It's also complicated by semantic-clustering.
(the "exact" phrase may not be competed, but there are likely umpteen variations that are!).
Further, in the vast majority of cases,
these will be (very!) low volume
>>>
>>>
: Weak competition :
The problem you'll often find here is that they are often a mix of both low-volume and low-value terms.
(It's logical - it's not like people will ignore high-value, high-traffic terms :D)
Relative figures (grown by X%, gain by N%, return of Y%)
don't mean squat unless there is a real figure provided alongside (ideally, the initial/base figure - failing that, the final, and people can do the number crunching).
Why is it important?
>>>
>>>
Perceptual skew.
Go from 10 to 100
Go from 100 to 500
Go from 5,000 to 6,000
Each of those is increasing at a lower %,
but the actual figure increases.
It's easy to have impressive relative figures (such as ROI), when you start with a low figure!
You will see the same sort of pattern whenever there is a mass ingestion of content,
and usually when it fails to get traction/acquire links,
often due to being low quality (inc. cookie-cutter/dupes)
1) New content is added 2) G discovers new content 3) G crawls new content 4) G indexes new content 5) G ranks the new content for X number of terms
>>>
>>>
6) Site gets a huge uplift in traffic 7) G see's little traction/satisfaction 8) G see's little/no link acquisition 9) G starts to tag content as questionable 10) Pages start to drop in rankings 11) Pages start to get deindexed 12) Traffic falls
So, G have invested Millions into advancing their algorithms, developing cutting edge approaches to parsing content and identifying important information.
But …
… rather than using it for "Ranking"
… they chose to steal Traffic.
And this isn't the first time Google have committed such an offence.
Every few years, they make changes to the SERPs,
to benefit "their users".
> Knowledge Panel
> Featured Snippets
> People Also Ask
> FAQs
Each such addition - reduces traffic ...
>>>
>>>
... from the very sites that G are obtaining that content from!
And the plans for their AI addition (#Magi) is no different.
It will utilise content from 1+ sources,
and present it to "their users",
(similar to a FS, but a generated composite).
The problems here are: 1) Correlation 2) Shallow observation 3) Copy cats 4) Many factors are small/tiny, and don't show any visible impact at the top of the SERPs for high-volume/high-value terms