I've been doing SEO for over 15 years and optimized 100's of websites.

Here are the best techniques you can use to rank higher in Google 👇

Answering the searchers' intent is key

Anyone who's doing a Google search wants 1 of 4 things.

1. Information
2. Navigation
3. Transaction
4. Comparison

Let's dive in all 4
1. Informational intent

These are queries like "turkey recipe", local weather and how-to's.

People are looking for help on how to get things done. They'll do it themselves. You just need to give them the right tools.
2. Navigational intent

People using these keywords are looking for something specific. A brand like "Hypefury" for example.

It's not hard to rank for competitors but you won't get a lot of traffic out of it. Focus on the comparison intent (which we'll talk about in a sec)
3. Transactional intent

This is used when people want to buy. The search results are littered with ads and it's pay-to-play.

It's really hard to rank high on these types of keywords AND get any meaningful organic traffic. This is where Google makes its money.
4. Comparison and investigation

Before you buy you need to convince yourself you're buying the right thing so you Google: "Best restaurant in nyc"

These are also highly competitive terms but
Now that you know what types of user intent there is we can focus our on-page optimization to match and exceed expectations.

Here's a table of keywords (from Ahrefs) and their search intent.
For informational content you need to be exhaustive in your answering. The below tweets will help you to create the best page for the users' intent.
This is how you exceed a searchers' expectations:

1. Google the term
2. Check the top 10 results
3. Take the best from the top 10 and add it to your page
4. Add things to your page the competitors haven't thought about yet
Check Answerthepublic [dot] com and see what common questions and terms are used surrounding your topic. A gold mine for what to talk about on your SEO pages.
Connect your website to Google Search Console (Google it)

You'll get insights on what keywords you rank, what position you have, etc.

It helps you check specific keywords and where you rank comparing to competitors.
Create "money pages".

These are pages that answer people's informational intent but where you know they can buy your product / service.

For Hypefury it's: How to get xxxx followers on Twitter for example.
Answer it as best as you can & create supporting pages that link to that page.

Pages like:

- Best accounts to follow on Twitter
- How to create a great Twitter bio
- What's a good Twitter header

Every internal vote (=link) tells Google how important you consider a page is.
Don't expect results in the first 6 months. Keep grinding.

In 2020 we got 86k organic visits
In 2021 we got 414k organic visits

The goal for 2022? 1MIL+
Thanks for reading!

If you enjoyed this:

1. Follow me for more of these @Yannick_Veys
2. RT the tweet below

https://t.co/ZavBfCCEsj

More from All

॥ॐ॥
अस्य श्री गायत्री ध्यान श्लोक:
(gAyatri dhyAna shlOka)
• This shloka to meditate personified form of वेदमाता गायत्री was given by Bhagwaan Brahma to Sage yAgnavalkya (याज्ञवल्क्य).

• 14th shloka of गायत्री कवचम् which is taken from वशिष्ठ संहिता, goes as follows..


• मुक्ता-विद्रुम-हेम-नील धवलच्छायैर्मुखस्त्रीक्षणै:।
muktA vidruma hEma nIla dhavalachhAyaiH mukhaistrlkShaNaiH.

• युक्तामिन्दुकला-निबद्धमुकुटां तत्वार्थवर्णात्मिकाम्॥
yuktAmindukalA nibaddha makutAm tatvArtha varNAtmikam.

• गायत्रीं वरदाभयाङ्कुश कशां शुभ्रं कपालं गदाम्।
gAyatrIm vardAbhayANkusha kashAm shubhram kapAlam gadAm.

• शंखं चक्रमथारविन्दयुगलं हस्तैर्वहन्ती भजै॥
shankham chakramathArvinda yugalam hastairvahantIm bhajE.

This shloka describes the form of वेदमाता गायत्री.

• It says, "She has five faces which shine with the colours of a Pearl 'मुक्ता', Coral 'विद्रुम', Gold 'हेम्', Sapphire 'नील्', & a Diamond 'धवलम्'.

• These five faces are symbolic of the five primordial elements called पञ्चमहाभूत:' which makes up the entire existence.

• These are the elements of SPACE, FIRE, WIND, EARTH & WATER.

• All these five faces shine with three eyes 'त्रिक्षणै:'.
@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?