The first article was unlikely to get much search traffic

[zihadhasan012]

It isn't. Consider two articles with which I've been involved, 2005: The Words and the Wordsmiths and Is the Carmen Winstead story really true? The first is a piece I was really proud of, and that got me a lot of positive feedback. I spent about a day writing it. The second is a good answer that I helped edit. Probably took less than an hour to research and write the answer. [From an SEO perspective, everything about the first article is currently broken, but it doesn't really matter].


No matter how well we optimized the SEO. The second article averaged over 1,000 search visits a day for over a year. Is the second article more entertaining, engaging, informative, and compelling? I d egypt mobile phone numbers database on't think so. But the second was a perfect SEO article, and the first was not. The zeroth law of SEO is this: Write an article whose title is a question people are asking Google and whose body is the answer.


By question I don't necessarily mean natural language question. Most of the search environment omits questions words in titles. Declawing your cat meets the zeroth law and is a candidate for SEO traffic. The Mets are Done but Season Still Fun is a fun article that does not meet the zeroth law. It doesn't matter (for SEO) which piece is more engaging, etc. Those laws only matter after you pass the zeroth law. This article is somewhere in between.