"To view more results, you must upgrade your current subscription "

[mki 1,289]

SEMRush has failed me. I think I broke it.

[mki 1,289]

They emailed me back and fixed it.

WTS: 14,000,000+ US Searches Monthly / 41,000,000 Global Searches Monthly LOW COMPETITION KEYWORD with low commercial intent.

Niche: Something software.

There is currently a DA 5 on Page 1.

Let Me Know.

[yukon 1,546]

"Keyword difficulty" [sic]

"You'll need backlinks from - 329 websites to rank in the top 10 for this keyword".

Multiple fails.

[mki 1,289]

5 hours ago, yukon said:

"Keyword difficulty" [sic]

"You'll need backlinks from - 329 websites to rank in the top 10 for this keyword".

Multiple fails.

Not sure what you mean by the first fail? The screenshot is from Ahrefs. Both Moz and SEMRush provide similar data.

So what? 329 links is like 4-6 months of white hat SEO and it's going to take that long to rank anyways... (The keyword isn't a legal keyword, it's something about the web/internet/websites, so there are virtually endless link prospects...)

As I mentioned elsewhere, that "estimate" of links is based on PA 10 links or something and not quality links.

The competition in the top two spots is heavy and is skewing that number upwards.

The #6 domain has 61RD, Ahrefs reports a DR(DA) of 9, it pulls 1.7 million clicks a month. At an RPM of $10 (adsense), that's 17k a month.

Page 2 has multiple listings with zero links. With that search volume, there will be traffic on page 2.

The number 1 site pulls 50+ million clicks from Google and I admit that it would be hard out outrank.

I would target the keyword but my concern is that I would need a CDN to handle the traffic.

I might try ranking a Youtube video on that keyword, since it's not in my niche.

It would be worth the 1 hour to make a video and the 8 hours of SEO work to get it a few links, to get on page 2.

Also, I'm not actually serious about selling the data, I'm not going to post it publically though.

[yukon 1,546]

1 hour ago, mki said:

Not sure what you mean by the first fail? The screenshot is from Ahrefs. Both Moz and SEMRush provide similar data.

 

I know, it's not your fault. It's a sales gimmick, scores look important.

You can't count links and call it SEO. Well, you can but it doesn't rank pages.

One followed holy grail link can trump 10,000 superfluous links.

[mki 1,289]

1 hour ago, yukon said:

I know, it's not your fault. It's a sales gimmick, scores look important.

You can't count links and call it SEO. Well, you can but it doesn't rank pages.

One followed holy grail link can trump 10,000 superfluous links.

I completely understand that.

Actually a "holy grail link" could beat out more than that.

In theory, a "holy grail link" could beat 1 billion garbage links.

If you utilize the information that Ahrefs provides in an intelligent way, it's a great starting point to do things like figure out how many prospects you need to start with.

The first thing I did was look at the sites that are ranking and looked at their actual links. For the keyword I was discussing, I don't see any insane PA 50+ links. There are a few PA 30s but for more the most part, they look like links a regular SEO could achieve through outreach marketing.

Since I know how they come up with that score (they disclose how it's calculated), I already know that it would actually take far more links to get to #1 and far fewer links to get on page 1, since I analyzed the individual pages that are ranking and did not rely on that metric, which is nothing more than a numeric average of the pages on the first page.

Since the range is quite wide between #1 and #10, starting with an average would be a bad idea.

On SERPs where the range is relatively tight, it's perfectly fine.

As an example (wastes a token.)

The keyword "SEO" - "You'll need backlinks from ~835 websites to rank in top 10 for this keyword."

Looks at the SERP.

Looks at the actual links pointed to the pages.

Looks at the actual pages that are ranking.

...

Considering that 835 is just an average of the link count in the top 10 and also understanding that their links are extremely good (significantly better than average to say the least) :

Yeah, you're need something like 835 PA 30+ RDs linking to that page.

And more importantly...

The site's the are ranking well also have sitewide links pointed at the page they have ranking or are the index page of a site.

So you're going to need similar domain metrics as well to compete with their sitewide links.

Which is not happening without a team of people.

And a lot of money.

Alot of money...

Personally, I try to avoid competing against pages which are in the range of PA46 to PA73, where my competition is a DA 90+ and they have a sitewide link pointed to the page.

Because I know that I have to reproduce the authority from the links that are pointed directly to that page, AND the small amount of authority that flows from every single page on their site, which is actually the hard part there.

Moz actually "cheats" and has a second sitewide link from a bridge page.

Yeah so, ((100k RD) / (50 * 12)) * 50k a year = $8,333,333. That's not including managers, overhead, or anything else and assumes great luck. You could conservatively multiple that dollar amount by 2.5 and still not have the budget to get to page 1 for the keyword "SEO."

Unless of course you are Niel Patel and have a portfolio of multimillion-dollar websites that you can link to yourself.

So yeah have fun with that keyword.

BTW, why do you hate the tools so much? Just curious.

If you go off the data the tools provide, the worst that happens is you have to rerun the campaign two or three times. Assuming you actually understand the data that they provide, which to be fair, most people don't read the documentation and they think it's like number-porn or something, so... Yeah...