Darth Autocrat (Lyndon NA)

.
Being "Unoriginal" is - well, unoriginal :(

The recent shifts and popularity of AI apps,
such as ChatGPT just highlight/magnify the simple fact that a % of people aren't "original",
and enable them/others to be unoriginal, faster/cheaper.

AI's not the problem.

>>>
#SEO https://t.co/oq4G0r6LYh

If you only rely on AI to generate content for your startup or personal brand you won't be original, interesting or yourself.

You'll sound like everyone else.

You'll blend in with the crowd.

You'll sound like a robot.

When the goal is to stand out.

Be original. Be yourself. https://t.co/gDAnP2DR5s

CEO of @acquiredotcom. Former CEO of Bizness Apps & Altcoin (both acquired). EIR at @500GlobalVC. Occasionally write for @entrepreneur and @forbes.

Andrew Gazdecki

>>>

Let's face it - the vast majority;

* are looking to save time, effort, money
(Perfectly understandable!)

* lack the skills, ability, knowledge, confidence
(Again, sensible!)

* don't know/understand what the current AI tools "do" or how they work
(this is an issue)

>>>

>>>

But, again ... these aren't "problems" per-se.

There are 3 distinct problems.

1) A % of people don't understand the output of these apps, from general prompts/the general data, is not "built" how they think.
It's just a bigger version of their phones text suggestions!

>>>

>>>

2) A fair % don't really care what they produce/publish using such tools,
isn't "good" or "right" etc. - they are simply looking for quick/easy/simple/cheap "content" or "answers".
They are more interested in the "experience" than the "result".

>>>

>>>

3) A fair % of those consuming the content won't know any better, nor really care.
So long as it sounds right, and/or, suits their preferences - they will accept it.

The problem isn't the LLM.
Nor is it really the applications utilising it.

It's the people/society!

>>>

>>>

"Copying" is pretty much standard,
and the Internet made it far easier to do,
and even rewards it to some degree
(It's not like Google only shows the originators version - they will happily show a scrape/thief's copy instead!)

>>>

>>>

And so long as it's "popular",
it's accepted (by SEs, by people in general etc.).

We're looking at the AI/NLP equivalent of questionable fast-food.
Most people don't care where the "meat" comes from,
or if the "chef" washed their hands first.

They just want the food.

>>>

>>>

Do they care that they could get the same burger from 582 different places?

No.

So we need to educate people,
and help them learn to not only understand what it is they are using/consuming,
but to be more discerning/demanding!

Darth Autocrat: 
Internet business consultant 
(SEM (SEO/PPC), CM & SMM, with UX, CRO & ORM)

I Fix things for other SEOs, (or what they broke).
He/Him

.
:: To change a URL, or to not change a URL? ::
Honestly, it's not much of a question.

I'm shocked that "non-sensical" is not the first item listed!
(/index.php?item=1343xf68aql)

Don't think : "SEO Friendly URL"
instead, think : "User Friendly URL"

>>>
#SEO #URL #301redirect https://t.co/gL76LONmcx

When is an existing URL worth changing?

• Core keyword is mid to end of a long URL (/blah-blah-KEYWORD-blah) 
• URL is disconnected semantically from top content keyword (/link-building-ideas-and-techniques/ for "What is Link Building")
• URL traffic is less than 10% of… https://t.co/WAKzFjnDsr

Founder/CEO @siegemedia, a content marketing agency specializing in SEO. 6x Inc. 5000. We help great brands scale with SEO-focused content marketing.

Ross Hudgens

>>>

So if the URL isn't particularly helpful, informative or clear to a person ... you can consider changing it.

Now - it used to me "not worth it".
301's used to "lose" about 15% of value,
and G took time to update.

Between loss and fluctuations - it hurt.

>>>

>>>

But since 2017(?) G pass 100% value through 301's,
and are far faster at updating.

So the only real reason to not do it ... is internal issues 
(approval, implementation, testing and resources etc.).

That said ... you shouldn't expect to see any real
"SEO gains".

>>>

>>>

Google's @JohnMu has repeatedly said (suggested?) that the "value" of a URL is tiny, and typically short-lived (they may use it initially, but once the page is parsed, and G have a better idea of the content, the URL content is kind of redundant).

>>>

>>>

Also, don't change URLs to alter "the page depth".
Moving from
domain.tld/dir1/dir2/dir3/dir4/page
to
domain.tld/dir1/dir2/d3-d4-page
isn't important - it's the IA/links that matter.
(moving a page closer to root isn't important, sorting your Nav/Links out is)

>>>

>>>

Can you think of anything else?

Bad reasons,
Good reasons,
clever tricks?

.
:: Planning ahead is important! ::

I honestly struggle to stay calm when I see this sort of thing - as it's old advice/tactics.

Want some more/detailed tips?

See the next tweet!

>>>

#SEO #OldContent https://t.co/yxnvBZ9nq2

Updating old posts is the lowest hanging fruit of content marketing.

You invest a lot of time and resources in writing great content.

But then after you hit publish you completely forget about them.

Huge mistake yet so few people do it regularly!

All it takes is a few minutes… https://t.co/VmaBBpfcoY

Andrea Bosoni

>>>

All Content on your site should:

1) Have pre-planned updates + dates to update

2) Have scheduled reviews

3) Have "trigger terms" (for events/changes etc.)

4) Have "trigger terms" for existing content and mutual inter-linking

5) Like (4), but for newer content

>>>

>>>

6) Have a "rotation" in certain link blocks, shown on "ancestor" pages
(think "popular" links; queue the links - rotate through every X days)

7) Have tags/triggers for "related links" blocks
(automated by category/topic/taxonomy etc.)
(4 is manual/in-content links)

>>>

>>>

8) Have planned promotion actions
(socialise on twitter etc.)

9) Have planned re-promotion actions
(either automated, or for manual selection to repost after N days/weeks/months)

10) Have promotional trigger terms
(for specific events, news etc.)

>>>

>>>

All of those are standard/established,
and often missed because it's "work" and requires a bit of planning.

To do it better - add manual review in.
So you don't rotate in links or socialise stuff without reading the room/wrong time etc.!

>>>

>>>

And none of them are "shallow" !!!

I do NOT advise people simply:
* Alter the title
* Tweak the h1
* Make a change to the "publish date"

Instead of stupid little insignificant cheat-changes...
(which, despite what G may suggest - DO WORK!)
(Shame on you G!)

>>>

>>>

... you should instead have additional content/changes (from the writing/editing process!) that you can apply.

* A little added content.
* A little content removed.
* A little reorganisation of sentences.
* A tweak to a term/phrase.
* A quote/citation added.

>>>

>>>

For some content, it can be bigger,
such as updates to figures,
new dates for confirmed events/showings,
updates on attendance,
etc. etc. etc.

People seem to forget that content can be "living pages", and aren't written in stone.

And G does seem to reward such

>>>

>>>

(Note: There is a difference between 
* QDF (Query Deserves Freshness)
and
* Fresh/Re-Freshed content

(QDF topics require a lot more updating/more often)

>>>

>>>

I will include a warning though...

Mind your focus/terms!

(This is why you should plan ahead, and monitor your GSC traffic for terms etc.)

1) Do not make changes that will alter your relevancy/topicality,
unless
2) You see topic/term shift worth chasing

.
"Wittiest comment I've seen all week" award!

And, for those wondering,
it's a response about using the
[link:]
search operator - which doesn't actually work.

If you want to see recent links...

>>>
#SEO https://t.co/QpoaEYJQm2

Zak Kann

@zrkann poop:https://t.co/ZUm69E4Eg8 -site:https://t.co/ZUm69E4Eg8
also works. Would you recommend to use "poop" search operator as well? https://t.co/C08IdDiY0q

Tonya Ugnich 🇺🇦

>>>

1) Parse your SALs (server access logs),
looking for referrers, dump them, unique them, store and compare (unique again) to prior lists.

2) Look through GA or other web tracker 
(similar approach to above)

You can also hunt for links/mentions via search.

>>>

>>>

You can use the Tools > Time option in the SERP,
or the [after:] operator,
along with things like
{"brand" "model" "location"} etc.,

And ...
... yes, you can use the link:operator,
but honestly, it's not "working" per-se,
and if there are similar domains, they may show

>>>

>>>

for example:
domain is [www.mysite.tld]
similar domain is [www.123mysite.tld]
you may see results including both domains
(the operator is broken/borked - so do not expect it to work "properly" :D)

... but it may mean:
1) No one was monitoring the SERP for intent
2) No one was tracking stuff in GSC
3) No one was checking Engagement metrics in GA/Web trackers
4) No one was watching/reporting conversion trend decline

In most cases, the #IntentShift is Not fast

#SEO https://t.co/5CE2h9nSRe

As a reminder, if Google chose to show an entirely different type of page than yours after a core update, it doesn't always mean your page is bad.

It means users wanted something different than what your page offers.

You're not going to find a silver bullet in those cases.

SEO by day | DJ by night | related to @artistmanray

Lily Ray 😏

>>>

I've been pointing out for years that you can often see a correlation between down-trending terms for ranking in GSC pre-update,
and the disappearance of rankings for those terms/that page post-update.

If you monitor, you can (often) see the warning signs.

>>>

>>>

This doesn't negate the fact that G drops your page,
and @lilyraynyc is 100% on the money about it not instantly meaning your page/content sucks.

But it does mean ...

>>>

>>>

... you missed the opportunity to create other content to suit the intent shift,
and utilise your pre-existing content to boost it!

.
:: Are you Bi-lingual / Multi-lingual? ::

If so - can you spare a few hours a month?

I've got a community project that needs you!

Please drop your details on this little form.
https://t.co/IiChVP3tjh

#SEO

Damn, some of you are quick off the mark!
Thank you

.
:: Google's Link Guide Changes ::

So ... G made some updates/additions to their docs,
and I'm seeing a few mentions of it ...
... and ...
I'm not seeing any real reason for it?

I don't think anything is "new" per-se?

https://t.co/C2xSyzMwZ4

>>>

#SEO #Links

>>>

Not squishing links together is common sense

Link text is known

Descriptive/informational link text is common sense

G using context (surrounding text) is known

G attempting to extract URLs for discovery is known

Not using JS reliant links is known + common sense

>>>

So it's really just a collation of the things that Google/Googlers have said for .... a decade+?

(much of this stuff was covered when I was a TC, so over 10 years ago!)

.

The bit that concerns me though ... is the Outbound Link bit...

>>>

>>>

"...
Linking to other sites isn't something to be scared of; in fact, using external links can help establish trustworthiness (for example, citing your sources).
..."

I can see:
1) People declaring OBLs as ranking factors
2) People jumping on (E)EAT (again!)

>>>

>>>

For those of you that didn't know;
links are a factor for the origin page, 
as well as the destination 
(the text in an <a> carries more weight than the same text in a <p>)

But that's not the same as saying that outbound links to good sites is a ranking factor.

>>>

>>>

So, if at all possible,
can someone from @googlesearchc please clarify that a bit more?

Are you saying/suggesting OBLs improve ranking 
(if so, how), 
and if there is influence from EEAT
(if so, is it actually part of the algo, not just QR metrics)
.

Thank you.

(Oh, and if you are able to help ... can you also make any required distinctions between Discovery/Crawl queue and Ranking - such as identifying, parsing and extracting URLs from JS based links ... do those pass PageRank etc., or are they solely for discovery still?)

Chris Moran

Barry Adams 📰

.
:: AI Content questions ::

There's some solid thinking from @chrismoranuk in the linked to tweets,
including a number of thoughtful and important questions.

But I have some of my own...

>>>

#SEO #AI #GenerativeAI
Via @badams https://t.co/F2HhJf0kKD

Lots of businesses right now seem to be asking the question: "With generative AI poised to completely shake up the internet and more, what do we need to build to avoid being left behind?" And I think it's a really useful starting point to really consider where we are now

Head of Editorial Innovation @guardian. Ophan, digital publishing, news, culture change, data and analytics

>>>

How did something (several things!) with so many (known) issues get to go public?

How comes these (potential) flaws were not declared upfront/immediately?

Why were certain types of "prompts" permitted,
(ones known to trigger "creative" responses)

>>>

>>>

Why were not attempts made to alert the user to verify/validate generated content (if not automate those checks)?

Why are there questions regarding the content used by (some of) these tools?

>>>

>>>

How did certain sources get "approval" for inclusion,
despite ownership/IP etc. being an established and largely aware-of concept?

What efforts were made regarding filtering out "bad sources" (inc. those of poor taste/nature, inaccuracies etc.)?

>>>

>>>

Considering the nature of the output, and the structure of the data, why were sources (intentionally?) not tagged/incorporated?

etc. etc. etc.

We're not talking about a bunch of naïve, overly excited little script-teenies!
We're talking established professionals!

>>>

>>>

We're not talking about some ad-hoc, multi-faceted, cellular/insulated setup with randoms chipping in here or there!
We're talking structured, organised, well funded setups,
with experienced people, in positions!

>>>

>>>

So ... I'm left with the big, broad questions!

WHY!?

Why is it, 
with this many brains were involved,
this many experienced people,
in various projects,
permitted (encouraged?) to produce things with so many obvious/noted flaws,
and to go public with them?

>>>

>>>

I have a horrid suspicion that the vast majority of specific/detailed questions ... can be easily answered by that Big "Why?",
and I don't like a single one of the potential answers,
esp. when you look at the companies and personalities involved!

Kristina Azarenko

.
:: Website migration issues ::

Good list from @azarchick! 
Off the top of my head... 30?

1. Redirects no Rewrites
2. No redirects/Rewrites (dupes)
3. 302's not 301's (slower)
4. JS/Meta not server/script
5. Redirect chains

>>>
#SEO #Migrations https://t.co/r6DUsFlKeC

8 common issues with website migrations

A 🧵

SEO Hero | Building MarketingSyrup SEO Academy. 
Creator of THAT! technical SEO Course. Join 300+ ppl 👉  https://t.co/JJsvakM6jL
Tweet about Tech #SEO + Mindset

>>>

6. Incorrect order (older redirects in effect, not new)
7. Incorrect destination of redirects (HP etc.)
8. Untested redirects (fails/wrong dest.)
9. Destination is/are noindex
10. Destination is/are disallowed
11. Origin set to noindex (uses CLE + Meta/JS)

>>>

>>>

12. Origin set to disallow
13. Redirects taken down to soon (old DN drops)
14. Content is changed as well
15. Design is changed as well
16. Content + Design are changed as well
17. Pages are "cut"
18. Pages are "merged"
19. Nav/ILs get "optimised" at same time

>>>

>>>

20. Canonicals are left with old values
21. Canonicals are changed (see (14. "merged")
22. Resources (CSS/JS/Images) point to old DN
23. Internal links (ILs) point to old DN
24. Tools (GA/GSC) aren't setup/migrated etc.
25. No tracking of indexed pages/rankings prior

>>>

>>>

26. Reversal within weeks
27. Multiple migrations within a short time
28. Platform changes before redirects settle
29. Mass content changes before redirects settle
30. Destination/New site has "errors"

... so ... what did I miss?

1/🧵
🚨:: Does Google use Bounce Back Rate? ::🚨

*sigh*
It's not even 2 years since I last covered this!

🧵>>>

#SEO #BounceRate #BounceBackRate #BounceBackToSERP https://t.co/ReMgT3uW6N

2/?

Here's the thread I did at the end of 2021...

https://t.co/RzmRDif91i

But if you don't want to read through that,
I'll do a quick summary here...

>>>

3/?

Bounce Rate (BR) is an "Analytics" metric.
Dwell Time is a made up metric.
Click Through Rate (CTR) is a SERP metric.

G have stated none are used for Rankings.

But they "do" use user-behaviour in the SERP,
for various things (such as gauging algo performance etc.).

>>>

4/?

So we instantly hit Google's "semantic slide",
where they can answer truthfully/honestly,
and yet mislead at the same time.

Simply having a different name permits it.

Through in that the metrics people keep on asking are simplistic, shallow, limited etc.

>>>

5/?

There are numerous patents and papers for
"implicit feedback"
(user search/SERP behaviours)
which cover a range of potential uses,
ranging from spotting trending queries,
including algo performance gauging,
through to potential satisfaction proxies.

>>>

6/?

People will likely do better to get the concept of
"search sessions".
This may be a single query, or include multiple variations/refinements,
clicking on "suggestions" etc.
(So long as the primary topic/nature remains the same, it's the same session)

>>>

7/?

How often do you do a search, 
click a result,
decide the page isn't for you,
hit the back button,
click another result
(or click a suggestion etc.)
?

There you go.

>>>

8/?

It's NOT:

* Bounce Rate 
(only n% have GA setup, and BR includes closes etc.)

* Click Through Rate
(On it's own, weak/noisy - consider "last click" instead)

* Dwell Time (long/short click)
(Short time + a new search session is not the same as short/long + 2nd click)

>>>

9/?

* Pogo Sticking
(The influence would be dependent on whether the search session remains, or is amended etc.)

Each every single metric and shallow reference is flawed, as they can be noisy.

Instead, you need to look at multiple features.

>>>

10/?

If you've seen the latest tweet by @indexsy  https://t.co/p4HCYbMrC7

You'll note the phrasing "used to have".
This could be a simple back reference,
or suggesting that it's not used "now".

Personally, I'm willing to bet G still user SERP Behaviours,
but not simply.

>>>

11/?

So - do yourself (and everyone else) a massive favour;
don't over-simplify the concept of SERP Behaviours for Ranking.

Terms like "Bounce Rate" have no relevance.
Things like "CTR" are too simple/noisy.

>>>

12/?

G would have to combine multiple factors to make a strong enough signal to punch through all the noise.

AND ... they'd have to implement protections against click-farms/bots etc.

>>>

13/?

This is an age-old concept, and plenty have tried to abuse it ... so G are likely looking at 
Quantity over Duration (consistency/trend)
as well as multiple individual factors (returns, position, CTR etc.).

If you want more details:

https://t.co/RzmRDif91i

@darth_na's Latest Twitter Threads

Read threads by Darth Autocrat (Lyndon NA) and get notified about future ones.