| 7:09 pm on May 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I launched a new health-based site about 7 months ago, and since then I have been diligently building links by creating valuable content and asking site owners to link to it. Using this method I have obtained almost 100 links from good quality, editorial sites, a mixture of blogs and link/resource pages. Some of the sites have higher PR/DA than others, but they are all good quality and editorial. The links are evenly split between my homepage and content pages.
I am very disappointed that, so far, this site only ranks #11 for its major keyword (which is not that competitive). So what am I missing?
1. Social media?
I am using a very basic, non-commercial template for the website, without any social media links. I believe that authority sites like libraries are much more likely to link to a site if it is non-commercial. This means that it has zero social media presence so far, but as far as I know social media doesn't really factor into rankings yet anyway.
2. Not enough linking domains?
There are currently ~100 linking domains, but my competitors have many more. Should I be going for some low-hanging fruit like directories or guest posts to broaden the link profile?
3. Not enough fresh content?
I am adding only 1-2 new articles per month, but they are great articles that are attracting good links. Do I need to publish more to go up the rankings?
Thanks in advance everyone. I'm looking for a bit of guidance as to which area I should focus on going forward.
| 8:56 pm on May 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Hi wilkinsj, if you sought out the links then maybe they're following something of a pattern. Bearing in mind that social seems to be becoming more important, using this could shake up the inbounds mix a little. Also, if you could go to town on content quality and depth in one or a couple of your key articles, they'd be more likely to attract some links naturally.
| 9:25 pm on May 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Rising to the top rapidly is not as easy as it once was (say 4-6 years ago). Also, the web is becoming more congested each year... even small niches these days have many competitors. Sounds like you are doing it right, going for quality links. As noted above, adding more quality content to your site and continually updating it with fresh new material will do much more to getting noticed... and ranking better.
| 10:21 am on May 20, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Don't forget the absolute basics. Read your pages, do they actually contain the desired search terms?
I know that I found my site coming lower than expected on some searches and, on checking, I found that I was missing some alternative terms in the content. (Writing about music, I have to remember to refer to something both as a "concert" and a "gig" or a "venue" and a "club")
| 1:57 pm on May 20, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Thanks all. I think the problem is likely the lack of fresh content, combined with a non-diversified link profile and a small number of linking domains. I'm going to do a couple of infographics to widen the base on linking domains, and start weekly posts to keep things fresh. Thanks for the advice!
| 3:32 pm on May 20, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Do your titles contain exact matches for keywords? Are the keywords longer than three or four words? What is your site architecture like, is it logically arranged by topic?
Following on piatkow's good advice, sometimes the reverse can be an issue (though I suspect maybe not in yours). What I'm referring to is that sometimes the pages can have off topic phrases on it.
Regarding the sources of inbound links, are these the places where your clients or influencers are likely to be?
| 8:36 am on May 22, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|this site only ranks #11 for its major keyword (which is not that competitive). So what am I missing? |
sometimes being on top of page 2 is much better than between #3 and #10 on the first page.
| 9:51 pm on May 22, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I used to reckon that number 3 often seemed to do better than the top position but G has changed that by sticking ads or local results above the SERPS.