Facebook Pixel
Join our Facebook Community

Why Bieber SEO Copywriting Sex Doesn’t iPad Work Minecraft

This guest post is by Greg McFarlane of Control Your Cash.

Today, I bring you heresy. Not on the scale of Galileo trying to convince Pope Urban VIII that the sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth, but close enough.

Stop believing the lies. SEO is a fool’s errand.

SEO copywriting is the worst invention since the vuvuzela, and does at least as much to drown out coherent thought. I’m not talking merely about the damage SEO does in the hands of independent bloggers like (presumably you) and me. Visit the landing pages of some major corporations and other business entities, and you’ll see particular words and phrases dispersed and repeated through the text so awkwardly that the finished product barely qualifies as English.

Here’s an excerpt from a famous American hotel’s landing page. Discretion forced me to substitute the name of another city for the hotel’s actual city, which will make it .002% more difficult for you to figure out what hotel the passage refers to:

Your Ultimate Cincinnati Experience Begins At Our Cincinnati Hotel Resort.

Elevate your experience at the (5-word phrase describing the hotel). See all the changes that make our Cincinnati hotel new – up down and all around. The best value on the Cincinnati Strip, the (5-word phrase describing the hotel) offers affordable dining, spacious hotel accommodations, exciting Cincinnati hotel casino games, headline entertainment and some of the best thrill rides in the world, all in a central location. Boasting the tallest freestanding observation tower in the United States west of the Mississippi, this iconic Cincinnati hotel is recognizable all over the world. Visit the indoor and outdoor observation decks in the (5-word phrase describing the hotel) to see why our panoramic view of Cincinnati was voted the Best of Cincinnati for 2010 and 2011 by the Cincinnati Review-Journal. Dine in the city’s only revolving restaurant, Top of the World, offering 360 degree views of Cincinnati. Grab a drink at one of our many lively bars. Take advantage of our exceptional Cincinnati hotel deals and relax in our spacious rooms.

Wait, where are you located? And what type of establishment is it again? Thanks, I wasn’t sure. The accompanying photos of the hotel and the iconic skyline it inhabits weren’t giving me a clue either.

No one has ever read that preceding dreadful paragraph in its entirety, possibly not even the person who wrote it, ran it through an SEO program and then posted it.

The worst part is that the people responsible know that SEO “copywriting” results in non-syntactical gibberish, yet don’t care.


SEO devotees got trapped in the minutiae and lost sight of the ultimate objective: getting people to buy. Everything else is secondary, including intermediate and tertiary goals such as moving up in Google rankings.

It’s as if you were to make it your life’s work to keep your car’s license plate as legible as possible. You shampoo it daily, then buffer it with the most reflective wax you can buy, letting the plate serve as a gleaming reminder to the vehicle behind you of who you are and what state you live in. Meanwhile, you never bother to change the oil, check the tire pressure, fix the shattered windshield, or even confirm that you filled the tank and inserted your key in the ignition.

SEO not only shouldn’t be an end in itself, it runs counter to the more basic goal of getting people to hear what you have to say. The above paragraph could have read something like this:

The best value on the Strip boasts affordable dining, enormous rooms, casino games, spectacular entertainment and world-famous thrill rides, capped by the highest observation tower west of the Mississippi. Stand behind the glass, brave the elements, or even enjoy a gourmet meal, 1,149 feet above the ground.

It’s not Shakespeare, nor even Dickens, but it gets the point across. More importantly, it would get read. Perhaps not by Google crawlers, but by eyes connected to heads (and indirectly to wallets.)

If you’re writing for Google crawlers, or anything other than humans, the battle is already lost. Otherwise, who are you writing for? Literally no one. For people who preach SEO as a moral imperative, verbal resonance doesn’t matter as much as strategic keyword placement.

Oh, isn’t Greg being cute and naive. His right-dominant brain thinks that cold science is sullying his precious art.

No. SEO isn’t a hard discipline like chemistry or physics. It’s an attempt to codify a metric that has only a tangential relationship (and occasionally an adversarial one) with the more important one of attracting customers. You remember customers, right? The people who buy your products?

Telling a talented writer to write for SEO is the equivalent of someone having told Mozart, “Those concertos of yours are okay, but you should include at least one diminished seventh chord and a couple of appoggiaturas every ten measures.”

There are even better arguments for the death of SEO, one of which is an insurmountable little mathematical problem. Just as not all children can be above average, not all sites can be optimized. If they could be, then your definition of optimization is wrong. If every blogger in your field intersperses the same select words and phrases throughout her copy, the result is nothing. You can’t have everyone move up in the rankings. If you have 100 competing sites, and they all adopt the latest SEO practices, what remains are … 100 competing sites. When every blogger spends less time creating content and more time trying to please algorithms, the result is that no one benefits and readers now have a more difficult time sifting through everything. It’s the Tragedy of the Common Nouns.

And another thing. No one mentions that every time you Google something, the initial page grossly overstates the number of results. People see an intimidating 7- or 8-digit monstrosity that’s supposed to represent how many instances of the relevant phrase exist online, and then those people panic. 

For instance, entering “control your cash” (with quotes) ostensibly returns 8,410,000 results. (Fortunately, the top six that appear in the screen capture all happen to reference my site.)

Search results

Of course, I indeed searched for that phrase when I was thinking of names for my site. At that time, had I wanted to, I could have thought, “Oh my Lord. Even if I somehow add enough keywords in my copy that I reach the 99th percentile, there will still be 84,100 results ahead of me. Google displays them ten to a page, so unless a searcher is willing to press the arrow labeled “Next” at the bottom of the page 8,410 times, no one will ever see me.”

Try pressing that “Next” arrow anyway and see what happens. Go ahead, I’ll wait and meet you back here 8,410 clicks from now.

More search results

“Control your cash” doesn’t return 8,410,000 usable results. It returns 479 unique results. And that’s for a fairly generic phrase. If you want people to search for something more specific, such as (“heating ventilation and air conditioning” + “Fremantle” + “open Sundays”), you don’t need to season your pages with endless repetition of the same words. You just need to exist and be a little self-aware.

Writing is still the fundamental form of communication among literate people, last I checked. And those same literate people expect other literate people to speak to them as clearly and concisely as possible. That sound you heard was Strunk and White emerging from their graves, bloodied but undead, ready to tap a bony finger on anyone who thinks that doing the opposite of writing something compelling is going to boost business.

Greg McFarlane is an advertising copywriter who lives in Las Vegas. He recently wrote Control Your Cash: Making Money Make Sense, a financial primer for people in their 20s and 30s who know nothing about money. You can buy the book here (physical) or here (Kindle) and reach Greg at [email protected].

About Guest Blogger
This post was written by a guest contributor. Please see their details in the post above.
  1. When your domain name also happens to be the key phrase being searched, it usually takes no effort to rank #1. Copy has little to do with it.

    • Yes, exact match domain names work but Google has put things in place to devalue exact match domains. In any event, an exact match domain helps you rank for ONLY the keyword in your domain name. Most traffic will come to your site from multiple keywords.

    • Yes, exact match domain names work but Google has put things in place to devalue exact match domains. In any event, an exact match domain helps you rank for ONLY the keyword in your domain name. Most traffic will come to your site from multiple keywords and keyword phrases.

  2. You definitely shouldn’t write web content exclusively by packing it full of keywords. However, you can strike a balance between good writing and the occasional inclusion of keywords to help out, as long as their inclusion doesn’t become unnatural like the example above.

    And let’s not forget, on-page keywords are only a tiny sliver of SEO. If you really want to rank well, you need to get your content shared and linked. Agreeing with Greg here, packing it full of awkward keywords won’t accomplish that goal.

  3. Exactly right. But it is a difficult trap to avoid.

    In April I wrote a silly post about pantyhose and thanks to Pippa Middleton it hit the google bigtime. Now I get dozens of hits (sometimes hundreds if any of the big media outlets mention pantyhose) for pantyhose every day. My top three posts of all time all have to do with pantyhose. I’m not a fashion writer and I don’t even wear pantyhose.

    Now the hits are nice and all ego-boosting, but I don’t want to be known for pantyhose and even though the hits are alluring they are also deceiving.

    I played a game with the SEO Pretty Toes today just to see what would happen. If only Pippa Middleton would sport some pretty toes this week I know it’ll go gold.

  4. Thank you for saying this.

    As a small business marketing consultant I often encourage my small business clients to …

    … oh, whatever.

    Important stuff.

  5. You are clearly a skilled writer, however your lack of knowledge regarding SEO is also blisteringly apparent. I’m not sure where you got it in your head that SEO = keyword stuffing but I can assure you only very unskilled/amateurish “SEO’s” follow this method. Anyone worth their salt in our industry will preach the value of writing for the user and not for the engines. Links are by far the most powerful ranking factor and great content is a lot more likely to attract said links. Further most people in the search industry also find themselves responsible for conversion rate optimization (turning all those visitors into sales).

    SEO copy (outside of getting the title tags right) focuses primarily on various triggers designed to attract links, social engagement and shares. Emotional responses. Linkbait. Things of that nature. The “SEO is dead” posts are really played out sir. Try using your skills to write about a subject you are more familiar with.

  6. The title of this article is so good, I tweeted it and I got two DMs asking me if my Twitter account got hacked.

  7. I think you need to differentiate between SEO-conscious writing, and BAD SEO writing. Your example is one of BAD writing (which is why websites should hire copywriters, instead of making interns create content.)

  8. I really hate when people take the worst example and try to use it to prove something is bad. SEO copyrighting done well addresses both the writing for people and search engines. If you are selling something and have a “plain writer” with no SEO experience (and worse yet no research) write your copy, your site/sales will under-perform.

    • Write what you need to say ane keywords will happen naturally. If they are not there, the info about them is also missing, so there is no need to rank for them.
      You think google is not aware of SEO? Their business is to provide best, written for human content and they know (and getting better every day) how to ignore poor, unreadable content.

  9. Heather says: 07/28/2011 at 7:54 am

    I just love that “Minecraft” ended that title. :)

  10. Hey Greg,

    First of all, I’m sure you don’t need to be told this, but you have a win title.

    Second, just writing consistent, valuable content in your field of knowledge should be good enough. You’re absolutely right, SEO copywriting is absolutely horrendous and it only seems to get worse.

    Sound like you know what you’re talking about and do it on a fairly consistent basis and you’ll get results.

    Good stuff!

  11. Good job. And I’m with you.

    Here’s your money line: “you don’t need to season your pages with endless repetition of the same words. You just need to exist and be a little self-aware.”

    That’s the key to true SEO copywriting.

  12. Those of us who provide SEO content know full well that a good article or web page is well written, contains keywords – sprinkled here and there but not indiscriminately – and that it should read well

    In fact, I hardly consider SEO when i write, yet the words magically appear.

    I believe that most of us write in this way and website owners tend to “sex” up the words to make them fit the keyword density they believe they need.

    Anyway hasn’t Google cleaned up its act and started to ask for more quality over quantity. thank goodness for that!

  13. Loved the article – just had to re-facebook it! ;-)

    I sincerely hope this message gets out to people. Of course, when people notice that bounce rates matters in SEO, they might wake up.

    At least, I hope.

  14. Joseph Caterisano says: 07/28/2011 at 8:41 am

    I have to admit the title forced me to click on it.

  15. Why do people keep coming out and saying that writing for SEO in any way is a bad idea? I have dozens of websites that I’ve built for the sole purpose of getting search engine traffic (and the several thousand dollars a month the traffic provides me as well).

    Content for SEO purposes is a big business and by suggesting otherwise is a huge mistake. Have you heard of:


    Is the content great there? No, but do they make millions of dollars going after frequently searched keyword phrases with their content? Yes.

    When you build a blog and are trying to retain regular readers yes you can make the argument that you should not be trying to fill the article with keyword after keyword but that isn’t what I do with SEO these days either.

    Also, “control your cash” is only searched 36 times per month as an exact keyword phrase. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don’t know why people that don’t know a lot about SEO bother writing about it.

    • >>> “control your cash” is only searched 36 times per month as an exact keyword phrase <<<

      This is his point: not everybody sets up their domains to be rankable, Mr. MakeMoneyOnTheInternet-dot-com, mostly because not everybody puts monetization in front of education.

      Content farms used strictly for SEO have been severely discounted in search rankings. Have you ever heard of:


      How have those sites been doing since March? (For those of you who don't know: http://www.ryantmalone.com/seo/ezine-and-the-google-slap-what-you-need-to-know/)

      Don't get me wrong. It's kick ass that you're making money while you sleep (for the moment). But, many squeeze-page craptastic mini-blogs that have been setup with the sole purpose of making money…

      (At this point, I stopped writing to go and check out your site before I continued mud-slinging)

      (You actually have a great site, Chris. Deep in content and serving a nice balance between quality and SEO. I bet you are doing very well for yourself, which is awesome)

      So instead, I'll end with:

      Considering Greg's obvious talent for writing (about money) and your marketing savvy (about making money), you guys should be boys.

      I guess you magically skipped the starting-out process. (Not) sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't know why people who have "made it" act pretentious to people who are trying. I guess that's how you make money on the internet (after all, I did visit your site for 12 seconds).

  16. Greg,
    I completely agree with you on this subject. I use SEO, but I hate people who want “SEO rich” content that really means “write this keyword/phrase as many times as possible”. I had to do a writing sample that was, essentially, just that. By the end of it, it sounded like rubbish, when I could have written something that actually sounded good with only using the phrase/keywords once or twice.

    Good content and good copywriting are much better than ‘SEO Rich’ content.

  17. Great advice and it reinforces my personal decision to focus more on content than on keywords. I probably need to find a healthy balance but for now I don’t want to turn my blog into keyword hunting.

  18. If you were going for controversy as a form of linkbait you succeeded. If you were trying to make a sound argument against SEO, sorry but you missed the mark. You example is the worst kind of SEO writing, keyword stuffing. Actually, keyword stuffing is not SEO. It’s search engine manipulation. SEO is not about tricking the search engines. SEO is about alignment with the goals behind the selection of high ranking documents.

    SEO is market research and execution. Understanding who the audience is, having whatever it is they seek and giving that to them through quality, targeted content. Broadcast advertisers do this. Print advertisers do this. Publicists do this. Online advertisers do this. And so do online content marketers…by using SEO.

    I find it difficult to believe that you truly believe this. Your readers deserve a broader, balanced view of SEO, both it’s potential pitfalls and how SEO can contribute to ROI.

  19. Completely clueless. I knew just seeing the title in my reader that this was going to be a post knocking SEO by someone that doesn’t have a real clue.

    You do a great job pointing out bad SEO but do you know why you didn’t show any examples of good SEO? because when it’s done well you don’t even realize it.

  20. Hi Greg,

    Although I only half-agree with what you have said, I love your writing style! The title of course made me click even if I had no idea what to expect in the post… And I loved the comparison with car’s number plate and ignoring maintenance…

    As others have said, I guess writing for SEO is still very much needed provided the content reads well. If one can write for humans while still having keywords in the text, why not??

  21. If ~80% of website traffic originates at a search engine, it’s pretty important that companies consider SEO during the copywriting phase of web development. Your example is not the norm. You simply fail to notice great copywriting with SEO in mind because you can’t tell it was in fact written with an SEO goal.

    In your example, your edit to the horrible SEO copy would not rank for anything (not that the horrible version would either; I agree it’s bad). Thus, your post-edit quote—”more importantly, it would get read”—doesn’t fly because no ranking = no eyeballs.

    As long as search engines continue to provide the directions we all [obviously] need to navigate the web, and so long as we continue to stop looking after the first 10 search results, there will be a battle for such positioning.

    SEO is exactly like social media in that every third person considers him or herself to be an expert—a “strategist.” Companies who hire search engine optimization experts should do their homework, plain and simple. And shame on that hotel in your example for not proofreading the copy that is their online reputation.

  22. Erica says: 07/28/2011 at 6:30 pm

    flash news, “non-syntactical gibberish” is called “keyword stuffing” and it’s bad

    Telling a talented writer to write for SEO means telling him/her to write for the web, which is different than writing for a newspaper.

    And the screenshots..? What is that all about? Wait, are you actually blaming web marketers for the way Google works? …

    Controversial post fail, sorry.

  23. Great topic and I partially agree with your arguement. SEO is not a bad thing…it’s when the site owner or copywriter writes for the algorythm and forgot about their readers but SEO done right will serve their readers well…mostly, because the people looking for their content can find them…once they’re there, the content can do it’s “sales” pitch…

  24. Nice work, I rank top for 5 different phrases and that’s all I need really!… If what you deliver is good, it will be shared!…

    All the best,

    David Edwards

  25. Completely agree with your article. Technology is destroying creativity and yet there is nothing better than reading quality, rather than contrived, content. If you write well about a subject it generates its own keywords naturally. Imagine if the great authors had had their hands tied by SEO. “It was the best, finest, foremost, leading, most excellent of times, occasions and instances, it was the worst, most dreadful, baddest and not very good at all of times, occasions and instances”.

    Seriously folks, don’t get bamboozled. Get good quality copy written that tells and sells a story and then market your website through other channels. Why? Because there is no point in driving traffic to a site if the message we’ll find is anything less than the best it can possibly be. Plus, being top of Google search is no indication of good services or products. It merely shows that on that particular day the technological wizardry paid dividends, whereas creativity doesn’t have peaks and troughs, it just shows an organisation in its best light at all times.

  26. I guess you haven’t met a GOOD SEO copywriter yet ;) Anyhow: if you know how to write a compelling article, use good keywords that will generate search queries and your article is actually useful.. Google will pick that up and you will start ranking. Just stuffing everything with keywords will do nothing, that’s just a no brainer ;)

  27. You’re wrong, completely, utterly and totally wrong. But don’t let that stop you, I’ll just keep ranking with optimised content (which doesn’t contain any dodgy words), effective link building, and that little bit of social nous to push it over the edge. ;)

    The example you’ve given is a really BAD example. I can show you a bunch of articles that are written that are – surprise surprise – actually optimised for their keywords. If you are talking about – say – “blue widgets”, then chances are you’ll mention blue widgets in the text and probably the title. Optimising text isn’t just about writing “blue widgets” everywhere – it’s about changing a piece of prose so that if you mention “They are”, you change it to “blue widgets are”. Still makes sense and – woah! – More optimised for your keywords.

    Yes there’s a little element of spam, but that’s being reduced on a daily basis.

    Your google search is inherantly flawed as well. You’ve searched for “control your cash”, which is a generic phrase, but actually not as generic as you think. You’ve focused too much on one discapline (on Page SEO – specific SEO Copywriting), but not focused on other things that get you ranked (such as link building, promotion in social media, making sure your site is well coded). Saying you need

    You then say SEO isn’t hard, but it’s quite clear from the article, despite it “not being hard”, it’s something you don’t understand. Then dismiss it as being dead.

    You know what? I don’t understand Tax Accounting, the rules change all the time, does it make it dead? Of course not. For as long as there’s Taxes there’s Tax Accounting. For as long as there’ll be search engines there will be SEO.

  28. Thank you! Finally a post that encourages proper, natural, talented copywriting over keyword stuffing which, personally, I find appalling from both a professional and usability point of view. What’s the point of sacrificing user engagement for a slim chance at a higher Google position? It may get you a few more hits from search engines but longterm conversion and user interaction will undoubtably suffer as a result.

  29. Greg,

    I think you would have been better off discussing BAD SEO copy-writing vs Good SEO copy-writing. A litmus test for good content is providing both sides of an argument. You failed to do this. You must also understand if your buyers and prospects CANNOT find your site, it will be impossible to make a sale. So there needs to be a combination of SEO and good SEO content that converts. I find your post a little naive and disjointed. For example, “Not every site can be optimized?.” SEO is SO much more than written content on a page. You must consider, site architecture, the amount of internal and external links, social sharing, and visitor interactions with your site.

  30. Perhaps SEO is not dead, but “SEO copywritting is dead”. Loved the approach.

    Also, Happy to see someone did point out that Google’s result numbers are inflated on the first page of results. This also holds true for their site index count too. For example, you might see Google show a site has 1,110 pages indexed. But click next to the end and see they really have just 894. I still don’t understand why they do this.

  31. Greg – For the record, I agree with your main point: Written communication must be optimized for people, not bots.

    However, you’ve effectively dragged SEO through the mud when you argue that the only way to create search engine optimized content is to stuff an otherwise reasonable piece of writing with keywords. WRONG.

    Google and Bing use something called “Latent Dirichlet Allocation” to decipher content. Basically, each word and phrase is assigned a vector. Similar words/phrases have similar vectors. Therefore, one doesn’t have to use the same keyword over and over again because Google and Bing can easily understand synonyms (the math is complicated, and I don’t fully comprehend it, but a good explanation is here – http://www.seomoz.org/blog/lda-and-googles-rankings-well-correlated ).

    Furthermore, while your hotel website example might illustrate your article, it’s more an example of bad SEO than it is anything else. If the page titles, various tags, and inbound links all indicate that hotel is in Cincinatti, then Google/Bing will figure out it’s in Cincinatti. Adding the keyword “Cincinatti” over and over again isn’t going to do any good.

    My point here is simple: writing for humans is smart, but saying that SEO is the equivalent of keyword stuffing is stupid.

  32. Greg,

    Probably a silly question, but I didn’t get how you went from 8,410,000 to 479 results.

  33. I enjoyed the article, Greg! Your headline cracked me up!

    I write for content and try to sprinkle in my keywords in when I can. I certainly don’t mimic your hotel example! I have seen sites like that and the farmer sites that is literally littered with keywords repeated over and over! Do people still think this works?

    People will put together a really crappy site with AdSense and Affiliate links on it. After all, for registering the domain (10 bucks) and an unlimited hosting account, once someone breaks $10 earnings, they are making money! I am sure you have seen the ads for courses talking about this – just make $5/month on 100 sites and you have an easy $6,000 /year doing nothing.

    Sites like that make it easy to rank!

    Thanks again for the post!

  34. Wow. What a breath of fresh air. And here I thought SEO was the Holy Grail of internet marketing. Instinctively, I always thought SEO was oversold.

    SEO is important because you want to use keywords that actual live bodies use when searching for information. But to festoon a site with inappropriately placed keywords just results in gibberish. Ultimately it’s counterproductive, because when a user reads the copy and finds that it doesn’t make sense, it’s off to another site. So all that work injecting keywords into the copy just to rank in the top ten goes wasted. You can have a high-ranking site that doesn’t make sense.

    The trick is to put enough keywords in the site to rank but still make the copy informational and compelling. That’s where the real writers excel.

    Good article. Thanks for the insight

  35. I’m just going to echo a sentiment that others have expressed here, which is to say that SEO copywriting isn’t inherently bad. It is a niche within the writing community that (like all other genres) can be done well, or it can be done poorly. Guess which category the example above falls into?

    But I will agree with this point: don’t ask a writer who doesn’t specialize in SEO copy to write your website content for you. Visit my website and have me do it instead :-)

  36. Here are my two cents…

    I think articles like these are dangerous, because I used to listen and focus on copywriting alone “because SEO was dead” and you know what? I didn’t earn a darn thing. Zero dollars. Zilch, while I spent so much freaking money on copywriting book A, course B, and spent a lot of time reading blogs from site C, D, E, etc. This went on for almost two years UNTIL I started learning SEO. Since then, my income has climbed to record heights.

    So get your facts straight: trying to get people to buy is a load of crap when there are no people in your store. FIRST you get the traffic, then you get the buyers. SEO and copywriting are two sides of the same coin: the online business coin. Traffic => sales. I’m not saying traffic will guarantee you to get sales, but I am saying there is no conversion optimization without a statistically valid amount of test subjects (visitors), so you NEED traffic for conversion because you can’t test without it.

    Plus, the knowledge of SEO you’ve demonstrated is deplorable I’m afraid to say. The number of search results that show up for any given term is irrelevant, because you can rank #1 for any term on a long enough timescale if you put some systematic hustle into your working hours.

    The only problem is you need to figure out if that effort is worth it, because if you’re on page 1 for a term that doesn’t sell… it’s a bunch of wasted time right there. That’s where the balance is, where SEO stops and conversion optimization starts. But get your facts straight: first traffic, then conversion. SEO cannot be overlooked.

  37. “SEO copywriting is the worst invention since the vuvuzela.”
    Yes, unfortunately creative writers have chosen to disappear or give in to the SEO-mania. It’s not what it used to be at the dawn of blogging.
    And yes, the headline was good as it could be! The main thing is that it is keyword-optimized.

  38. Can you post what keyword searches brought you the most traffic to this post?

  39. Yep! You got me with your catchy title! even though it was a bit confusing ;)

    But I see it more as a means to an end – where ever there is a need (people wanting to be found in search engines) there will be people who create solutions and then proceed to make money from it. It’s thw eay business works

  40. Dermott says: 09/22/2011 at 11:30 pm

    Amusing that many of the harshest critics, who are here in the comments thread telling us all how they write ‘quality content’ which is ‘sprinkled’ with keywords (is ‘sprinkled’ the latest buzzword for how to do it right?) have written comments which fail the rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation.
    Yeah, sure, this is the interwebs, and noone deserves to be hassled for their lack of literacy, but maybe if you’re arguing how you write quality content, they might like to show us some?

  41. Thanks a lot for the tips. I am sure that this is really going to be highly beneficial for a blogger like me. Though I started blogging two years back, I did not know much about promotion. However, I manage to get around $100 from AdSense. But still, more traffic will do me much favour!

  42. It’s definitely tough to balance keyword density and natural writing. For longer tail keywords it can be effective to end and start sentences with keyword phrases. Sometimes it reads better and actually works with SERP’s.

A Practical Podcast… to Help You Build a Better Blog

The ProBlogger Podcast

A Practical Podcast…