the paradox of great content

Rand Fishkin, Wizard of Moz | @randfish | rand@moz.com

The Paradox of “Great Content”Why Some Pieces Make the Leap While Others Languish in Obscurity

A Tale of Two“10X” Content Investments

Source

Yikes. #10. Behind many far lower-quality, less-investment-heavy results

Source

#1 for this and dozens of other keywords

For 2.5 years, I’ve maintained a list of remarkable content from across the web…

Analysis of 99 10X Pieces

Links, Shares, & Ranking KWs Analyzed

Avg. Linking RDs:

Avg. Ranking KWs:

Avg. Facebook Shares:

919

2,834

77,990

Correlation Shares->KWs:

Correlation Shares->Links:

Correlation Links->KWs:

-0.014

0.069

0.386

What Separates 10X Pieces That Perform vs. Those That

Don’t?

Keyword Research& Targeting#1

Google made an immense investment in this resource.

If only they’d done any SEO at all…

Not blocking your own crawler might be a start

This piece may not look like much…

But, sweet Christmas, does it rank…

A Strong Investment in KW Research Clearly Paid Off

IFixIt knows what searchers want, and delivers

What You Call Your 10X Content Matters A LOT!

Sadly, Polygraph titled their excellent analysis unwisely, & missed out on lots of extra search traffic

Failure to Optimize for SERP CTR#2

The Economist’s college rankings (which are, IMO, vastly better & more scientific than others) can’t compete in featured snippets b/c of the chart embed

FiveThirtyEight made the same type of mistake w/ their piece on gun deaths.

Domain/URL Segmentation#3

Many folks shoot themselves in the foot, creating unique domains or subdomains for their 10X content

Building on Another’s Platform#4

Why Put a Phenomenal, Traffic & Link-Generating Article on Medium & Not Your Own Site Too?!

Github seems like an even more peculiar choice as one’s only publishing platform…

Some folks use 3rd-party platforms wisely – for distribution, not the primary home

Accessibility#5

1,540 linking RDs

60K+ FB Shares

Ranks for only 24 keywords

No, Frinkiac, you really don’t deserve this shabby lack of an internal link structure.

Delightful,But Not Useful#6

It’s hard to justify 10X investments that don’t provide ongoing value… unless you’re an ad agency

Ignores the Searcher’s Intent#7

Content that fails to answer searchers’ goals can have a brief ranking “pop,” but usually falls thereafter

We observe this w/ time-sensitive content, too. E.g. This amazing NYTimes graphic was a snapshot in Curry’s 3-point history, and thus, didn’t rank for long.

Creates No Incentive to Link#8

Made Reddit’s Front Page w/ 6568 upvotes

600+ Facebook Shares in a Week 42 Links

IcelandAir made a big investment w/ this piece on the Northern Lights, but got only 5 links…

A Few AdditionalPatterns & Observations

There’s Subtle Evidence that Social Visits Are Connected to Google’s Rankings

Source

I Observed This Same Phenomenon:

Source

In 10X Content,Data > Almost Everything Else

Source

Interactivity is Also Powerful

Source

Media Companies Dominate

FiveThirtyEight

New York Times

Bloomberg

Other Media

7

7

7

19

Brand ROI Can Be Outstanding, & Isn’t Just About Links or Rankings

Source

515 Linking RDs

Ranks for 92 KWs

Worth it just for the positioning

Source

248 Linking RDs

Ranks for 47 KWs

Shows off the UVP brilliantly

Source

225 Linking RDs

Ranks for 465 KWs

Worth it for the brand awareness

The Three MostSuccessful* Pieces

*from an SEO perspective

#3: Timelines of Geeky Fiction

Source

96 Linking RDs

Ranks for 9,616 KWs!

585 FB Shares

#2: US Election Odds

Source

7,180 Linking RDs

Ranks for 22,723 KWs!

344 FB Shares

#1: Zillow’s “Digs”

Source

834 Linking RDs

Ranks for 2,630 Insanely High Value KWs

8570 FB Shares

Rand Fishkin, Wizard of Moz | @randfish | rand@moz.com

bit.ly/contentparadox