[jaman20]

I don't profess to be a search engine expert, however, I make these observations in an attempt to better understand how people actually find information. Some SEO "experts" seem to think that there's little value in getting high rankings on phrases that are not popular. I think that's flawed thinking because popular terms are likely to be ambiguous term that almost always lead to more specific searches to achieve a "discovery transaction"; i.e., the point at which a user actually finds something of value.

And it's this basic understanding of how people find stuff that has caused me to regard traditional SEO as a fundamentally disruptable model. In fact, SEO is being disrupted now. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the problem that Weblogs have created for SEO techniques; good or bad, it's disruptive.

So why are SEO techniques flawed ? Simple...

The argument that low popularity terms and phrases are not competitive, is also flawed. There are many instances where two searches per month can yield millions of dollars in revenue. Dominating a "competitive" term is relative only to the person who shares that domain of interest. If you happen to sell secure RSS tools, it’s extremely relevant to the very few people that need secure RSS tools.

There are certainly businesses that want to dominate highly competitive terms like "plays" -
ESPN and Broadway are two that come to mind. However, highly competitive terms are [generally] ambiguous and in most cases encourage, and eventually demand users to enter search terms that are less ambiguous. Measuring the number of searches in a month for "plays" is irrelevant if that’s not the phrase that was used to find what they truly wanted.

More importantly – you must measure the final key-phrase used that led to the discovery of actionable information and a commercial transaction. Furthermore, a good SEO strategy accounts for this behavior by recognizing that [depending on whose data you use] the average key-phrase is 3.6 words, not one or two. There's also the issue of the your content.

[billrainier]

Thanks for that post.

[Hafsoh]

Quote:

The argument that low popularity terms and phrases are not competitive, is also flawed. There are many instances where two searches per month can yield millions of dollars in revenue. Dominating a "competitive" term is relative only to the person who shares that domain of interest. If you happen to sell secure RSS tools, it’s extremely relevant to the very few people that need secure RSS tools.

Yeah that is the advantage of targeting a less competitive most searches for the term are usually targeted!

[rhett]

Have a misspelled keywords too. It will be available at low cost and they are great potential to growth also.

[Jessicasen]

Thanks for post.

[dsouza]

brilliant post , thanks for it.

[Jenie0109]

Great post! I learned a lot.. thanks for sharing...

[nina cook]

thanks for sharing your discovery and good post!!!!!!!

[laster001]

Originally Posted by jaman20

The argument that low popularity terms and phrases are not competitive, is also flawed. There are many instances where two searches per month can yield millions of dollars in revenue. Dominating a "competitive" term is relative only to the person who shares that domain of interest. If you happen to sell secure RSS tools, it’s extremely relevant to the very few people that need secure RSS tools.

I agree with you...RSS is very important for any blog or website...

good post .....thanks for this

[techiebaby]

thanks for this very informative post.... i learned a lot....