Everything creators and bloggers need to know about SEO to drive massive traffic from Google.

With 100% free & useful videos showing each step.

A thread 👇

1) Align your topic with the exact keyword your audience is searching.

You can write about whatever you want... But if you don't use your audience's language patterns... They'll never find you!

High search volume and low difficulty phrases are the goal.

https://t.co/xugk84nVsJ
2) Double-check the intent behind the keyword.

You found your keyword, but you need to check and see if Google & your audience think that phrase means what YOU think it means.

Do a quick Google search of the phrase. Do the results match your topic idea?

https://t.co/HbGui3jPVO
3) Write your Title/Description at this point.

You've got Google open from the intent research, browse the titles ranking... Are they listicles? "How to" articles?

Your title is the promise of your post. Make it bigger, bolder and more compelling than what you see on pg1!
4-A) Outline the post based on the additional topics/questions/suggestions Google is showing you.

This outline will help you in 2 ways....

A) You will write MUCH faster

B) Your end product will be SEO optimized.

https://t.co/r1NWkyEiTQ
4-B) The above video is for personal brands, B2B, local businesses, content marketers, SAAS, etc.

If you are an affiliate marketer writing review posts, your outlining process is a little different...

Affiliates should follow this video instead...

https://t.co/CocXyfgNAX
5) "But Miles... How long should my blog post be?"

I got you fam

https://t.co/BMLpoJa4PU
6) From this point your writing process is going to be extremely structured.

Example: Your outline shows you have 6 main questions/subtopics

Your research shows you need 1800 words...

A few hundred words for each section and you're there!
7) Publish & Repeat!

Follow the process & publish multiple posts per week. Your efforts (and traffic) will compound!

There are some nuances & sub-steps I left out due to the limitations on Twitter...

This final vid is a full 'recap' w/additional detail

https://t.co/a3do6ggokY
If you like these kinds of threads (which I now know are a total pain to put together, lol) lemme know w/a comment...

Or...

Give it a like, share and retweet.

More from Tech

"I really want to break into Product Management"

make products.

"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."

Make Products.

"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."

MAKE PRODUCTS.

Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics –
https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.


There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.

You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.

But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.

And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.

They find their own way.
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
There has been a lot of discussion about negative emissions technologies (NETs) lately. While we need to be skeptical of assumed planetary-scale engineering and wary of moral hazard, we also need much greater RD&D funding to keep our options open. A quick thread: 1/10

Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential.
https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10


In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10

This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10

Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10

You May Also Like