Adventures in Keyword Research

Posting insane queries I come across doing keyword research. People are weird.

Often NSFW. DM me your degenerate queries

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@sophie_launch Anybody citing "domain authority" as a valid metric to judge the revenue of an app simply doesn't know what they are talking about.

You can buy $5 gigs on Fiverr to raise DA, that's how easy it is to manipulate.

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@searchliaison @lilyraynyc It is so much easier for me to hire a bunch of spammers in India to boost a reddit thread to the top for a query than it is to build an entire site around a topic and build backlinks to it.

Please don't change this.

Making cash money off of these new algo updates.

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

This is to prevent congress from having AI summarize 4000 page bills and actually understanding what is in the bills they vote on.

[Techmeme @Techmeme]

Source: the US House set a strict ban on congressional staffers' use of Microsoft Copilot; Microsoft hopes its upcoming tools will address the House's concerns (Axios)

https://t.co/csU4dhPgQy

📫 Subscribe: https://t.co/OyWeKSRpIM
https://t.co/xgQp0t4va9

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@googlehonesty Good luck finding a law firm that is competent enough in the technical aspects and is also willing to foot the multimillion dollar bill that will be required to sue these robber barons.

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@googlehonesty @lilyraynyc

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

Depending on the channel, some governments might kick your door in.

#SEO

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@rustybrick Probably a warning from @googlesearchc to stop reporting on the Reddit deal.

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

Feet pics are big in D.C.

#SEO

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@BarryGoodknight @schachin @GrindstoneSEO So fragile

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@ctwtn @Nick_zv_ I use them all the time in B2B. They do work.

Just harder to find opportunities.

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@realBrookNash Say "no" more than you say "yes". A lot more.

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@seempaq A waste of payroll

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

Working on sites about dogs has been incredibly red-pilling.

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

Revealing one of my niches

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@seonobull Are they preparing for a flood?

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@googlehonesty If you haven't moved on to intestinal worm SEO you've already lost.

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@KyleRisley Fake LinkedIn profile generator. Ya know, for EEAT.

[Adventures in Keyword Research @WTFKeywords]

@benaveryisgood @elonmusk So they could steal every last dime from Elon and that would be able to pay for approximately 3 weeks of the US Government's operation.

Yeah, you really solved the problem.

Never mind that number is net worth, which is obviously beyond your comprehension.

[Jamie I.F. @Jamie_IF]

Okay FINE, I'll bite. As it's obviously about niche site SEOs.

TL;DR: why can't publishers + google have clear productive convos on where you're planning to take the algo, instead of weaponized ambiguity and condescending subtweets. Let's discuss this on a podcast so we can all get clarity :)

1. SGE is currently worse than the content creators you're subtweeting about (and it's theft)

SGE = low quality, low effort (stealing with little-to-no attribution, Bard with ~0). Hypocritical.

2. This is also a Google product problem, not just a publisher problem

You incentivised the exact content meta that exists by your product (algorithm) being designed this way.

How can you be mad at the results when these are/were the rules of the game?

Separately, you could fix the "parasite SEO" problem in minutes by just reducing the weighting high authority newspapers have in CBD, gambling niches.

You've actively chosen not to, so how can you be mad at those who do parasite SEO? It's completely fair game if you're going to leave the door open IMO

They're basically SEO penetration testers, and they've been pointing out flaws in your algorithm for years

3. Overgeneralisation with low quality sites

By lumping all niche site SEOs together, you conveniently obfuscate that many bloggers are producing fantastic, fresh insights adding to the world's knowledge (that your LLMs then steal and repurpose without payment).

I have experts on my payroll that add never-seen-before-online insights to posts that delight readers. All we do is try to create the best quality experiences possible. We try to win on meritocracy.

But this is lumped in with low quality, low effort to you, because we've mentioned making good money on Twitter from it?

Not separating high-quality publishers, and spam sites, is disingenuous here

Why are you assuming all the people bragging on twitter are low-quality low effort content? This is just not the case

4. "Protected by the industry"

How? When have you ever seen an affiliate SEO get invited to BrightonSEO to share their learnings about affiliate SEO?

5. Niche sites give people careers, and are an accessible path into employment

Anyone can start a site and self-teach, and work their way up into a job. It's one of the most accessible, lowest barrier to entry careers.

There's little to no expense so not restricted to those with financial privilege, and no discrimination -- the algo doesn't judge. This is a beautiful thing!

Why act so condescendingly towards the most inclusive and accessible path into an SEO career?

6. This is unproductive and childish, and prevents us from having productive discussions so publishers can understand where the organic search meta is moving realistically

SEOs worldwide are panicking because they have no idea what their jobs will look like in 6-12 months, and it's yours, and Google's, fault for not giving them more clarity.

"We're taking your feedback on board" when you KNOW you have no intention to cite sources, is poor behaviour

Let's be honest, this decision was made probably a year + ago. So just be honest - you're planning on cutting publishers out entirely and not citing sources.

This is weaponised obfuscation, and it's really harmful to people who, with more knowledge, would be able to take the best decision for their career before the real shocks come when you roll this stuff out.

At least tell them this so they can start retraining for a new career.

That's the worst part to me. I'll be fine, but what about the others working to provide for their families?

They deserve more clarity on how much organic clicks are likely to reduce over the next year (and thus how likely they are to be made redundant at their agencies, etc).

Conclusion: Let's discuss this

I would love for you to come on to my podcast and discuss this in depth, because I think publishers deserve to know what your (and Google's) current mindset is towards niche sites, publishers, and general SEO

I'll give you all the time in the world to say your piece - zero railroading from me, just full respect and fairness. I'm only interested in hearing your thoughts on the topics you tweeted about, and learning more about your thoughts.

All I'll do is ask questions based on this. I think this would be helpful for SEOs around the world who are worried about what is going on right now.

Do you accept?