Beating The SEO Titans? Not sure it's necessary

[Bulldozer]

Alright, pretty often you will be facing strong competition for a keyword. I mean, gigantic authority sites that are pinned forever to Google's Top 5 list for that keyword, mostly because of their magnitude and the huge amount of backlinks that they have.

Obviously, you can't beat them, no matter how hard you try.
You can spend your entire life trying to beat these guys and never succeed at that.
But the important question here is: do you HAVE to beat them?

I can only speak from my own experience and I can tell you that every time I am doing a Google search and there are huge authority sites on top of the results, I just skip them, and move down the results to smaller sites that are more focused on the search term that interests me. I believe that many other people do that too.

So, is it 100% important to have the #1 spot on Google when the sites above you are the giants in that niche?
Do you know of any cases where not being in the Top 5 on Google didn't play a huge role in terms of getting the traffic you expected because people skipped the big ones and scrolled down to he more focused results?

[MikeFriedman]

I'm sure there is some truth to that, but the problem with basing your business off that theory is how do you identify a niche where people will skip "the big guys" and drop down to your site? I don't know of any way, and my business is too important to me to waste my time on a hunch.

Now if you find a way to identify situations where this would ring true with some measure of certainty, then you are on to something.

[scott g]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

Alright, pretty often you will be facing strong competition for a keyword. I mean, gigantic authority sites that are pinned forever to Google's Top 5 list for that keyword, mostly because of their magnitude and the huge amount of backlinks that they have.

Obviously, you can't beat them, no matter how hard you try.

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

You can spend your entire life trying to beat these guys and never succeed at that.
But the important question here is: do you HAVE to beat them?

I can only speak from my own experience and I can tell you that every time I am doing a Google search and there are huge authority sites on top of the results, I just skip them, and move down the results to smaller sites that are more focused on the search term that interests me. I believe that many other people do that too.

So, is it 100% important to have the #1 spot on Google when the sites above you are the giants in that niche?
Do you know of any cases where not being in the Top 5 on Google didn't play a huge role in terms of getting the traffic you expected because people skipped the big ones and scrolled down to he more focused results?

Going into SEO with this attitude is a sure FAIL! Anyone and anything is BEATABLE... Regardless of their PR or "authority." Is beating Wikipedia hard?! Yes... But it's very doable...

Google changes Algorithms all the time... We "guess" at what Google likes and wants from websites from OUR experiences... Everyone's experience will be unique. I see PR0 almost non-existent backlinked sites outranking "authority" high PR heavily backlinked sites all the time.

Use a clean code - Find that magical keyword density and internally link properly. Make sure your backlinks aren't coming from sh*t sites/servers and have the correct anchor text. Images/meta/robots/titles/headers... The list goes on and on and on...

You think defeated you will be... The 5-spot... NO... the 3-spot is where the money is. And it's very doable for ANY keyword/phrase/term/niche... How hard do you want to work?! Target target target research research research reverse engineer reverse engineer reverse engineer competition...

That was basically a crash course in proper ON and OFF-Site SEO...

Good Luck... How bout some optimism?!?!

CHEERS!

[Bulldozer]

Originally Posted by scott g

Good Luck... How bout some optimism?!?!

Well, I guess trying to beat Amazon.com is pretty optimistic. Because this is exactly what I am trying to do right now, lol.
I was just wondering: do I have to?

[brianboyer]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

Well, I guess trying to beat Amazon.com is pretty optimistic. Because this is exactly what I am trying to do right now, lol.
I was just wondering: do I have to?

Trying to beat Amazon.com?? Lol let me know when that happens

You don't HAVE to be on the top and beat everyone to have a successful website but it sure doesn't hurt. I have a few sites that do not rank that high but still receive a decent amount of traffic and income.

What is your niche and website?

[Brendan Mace]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

Well, I guess trying to beat Amazon.com is pretty optimistic. Because this is exactly what I am trying to do right now, lol.
I was just wondering: do I have to?

I'll take the other side of the fence and say that " You do not need to beat amazon.com, or be number 1"

It's not a defeat to settle for less than the number 1 spot. It's about making efficient decisions. You need to measure the effort/ reward ratio. It's quite easy for a website to be profitable anywhere on the first page. <---- You'll pick up a lot of long tail traffic.

So you need to decide whether it's more worth your time to bump the site up to the top of the first page or focus on another site. If your time is better spent elsewhere, then it would be a mistake to focus on a site that takes more than a reasonable amount of effort.

... sure every site is beatable. But that does not mean that you have to beat every site. Spend your time wisely and take action. That's the real key to success.

[scott g]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

Well, I guess trying to beat Amazon.com is pretty optimistic. Because this is exactly what I am trying to do right now, lol.
I was just wondering: do I have to?

You want optimisim... Amazon is pretty easy to beat...

When you see things like Amazon and other online stores... You think AUTHORITY!!! But... They are EXTREMELY beatable.

I've beaten Wikipedia, Amazon, whatever BIG store... It's really not that hard... MASTER you ON-SITE SEO and you will WIN!

No joke...

CHEERS!

[Bulldozer]

Originally Posted by scott g

I've beaten Wikipedia, Amazon, whatever BIG store... It's really not that hard... MASTER you ON-SITE SEO and you will WIN!

No joke...

CHEERS!

On-page SEO is important, but it will get you Nowhere, if you are competing with an Wikipedia article that has a PR9 ranking and 1,386,453 backlinks.

[DPM70]

It's always possible to elbow in on a niche or even market with long-tail traffic and be highly profitable. I also agree that the mentality that says that you can never beat an authority site is not a great outlook to have. If you start building now you could take out the biggest, most authoritative sites within a year or two if you really know your onions.

But why do what they do anyway. They are them. Who's to say there isn't another, better way to cater for that market or even create your own.

[nicoledeal]

I think there has to be a balance here. If the competition is unmanageable you will likely flounder and your traffic will suffer, if you get any at all. On site seo is good, but if you are competing against the big dogs with much deeper pockets than you, and unlimited ad budgets combined with SEO experts on staff, you will likely not fare well. In my opinion, pick smaller niche markets and take the easy pickings that are overlooked by the internet giants.

[smoreyjinza]

I think if you are further down the page then your description might be able to get people to click on your site. Maybe you could have a great title.

[scott g]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

On-page SEO is important, but it will get you Nowhere, if you are competing with an Wikipedia article that has a PR9 ranking and 1,386,453 backlinks.

You obviously have no experience in this area Bulldozer...

On-Page Optimization will get you further than any amount of backlinks.

Bet? Bet?! Read more...

CHEERS!

[Anna Howard]

For sure beating the titans of SEO is important in order to break their business along with being able to get the most traffic in order to double and triple your profits....

[DPM70]

People don't (and know they can't) buy from Wikipedia. If you find yourself in a situation where your traffic is buying and you are number 2 behind Wiki, then you have struck a little gold mine. Of course, you can beat them in the long run but is it actually worth it? The sight of Wikipedia at the top puts off many a man or beast from even trying. This position can sometimes be likened to a subtle chess move pre-planned by the Grandmaster to feign weakness in what is actually the strongest position on the board.

[Bulldozer]

Originally Posted by scott g

You obviously have no experience in this area Bulldozer...

On-Page Optimization will get you further than any amount of backlinks.

Bet? Bet?! Read more...

CHEERS!

I do on-page SEO, just like everybody else.
Titles, headings, everything - you know the drill.
I also like to think that my on-page SEO is pretty smart in terms of hooking people to click on my SER.
My first site is ranking Top 5 with only 8-10 backlinks indeed.
But I am always lagging beind the Big Boys and I believe that my Top 5 ranking will last only a month or so anyway.
Then Google will bust my ass for trying to cheat it and will send me on Page 3 or something...

What are your personal tips for on-page SEO that helped you beat Amazon & Wikipedia without any amount of backlinks?
Anything secret that everybody else is missing?

Most internet marketers are doing heavy on-page SEO.
And most of them are good at that.
Still, they are not getting decent rankings, unless they start spamming their links heavily all over the internet (and never stop doing it).

[yukon]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

On-page SEO is important, but it will get you Nowhere, if you are competing with an Wikipedia article that has a PR9 ranking and 1,386,453 backlinks.

That's when you go into wiki & start planting one way keyword anchor-text backlinks pointing at your sites pages.

When trying to beat wiki, you start your seo from inside wiki.

[Bulldozer]

Originally Posted by yukon

That's when you go into wiki & start planting one way keyword anchor-text backlinks pointing at your sites pages.

When trying to beat wiki, you start your seo from inside wiki.

Wikipedia is not the only big fish in the pool. It was just an example. Plus posting spammy links on Wikipedia is not a good strategy. I'm sure they have filters / bans for that.
Also, what about the other giants? Microsoft.com, etc...

Pretty often your competitors will be sites that are unknown to you. But when you do a research, you will be surprised that they are giants.
And no, they won't allow you to post your "dofollow" link on their pages.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

Wikipedia is not the only big fish in the pool. It was just an example. Plus posting spammy links on Wikipedia is not a good strategy. I'm sure they have filters / bans for that.
Also, what about the other giants? Microsoft.com, etc...

Pretty often your competitors will be sites that are unknown to you. But when you do a research, you will be surprised that they are giants.
And no, they won't allow you to post your "dofollow" link on their pages.

My point is, you have to use your head & be creative with seo.

If I wasn't able to plant links on wiki, I would still have options.

The first thing I would do is target the keyword with multiple internal pages on my site all targeting the same keyword then funnel that down to a single internal page with awesome internal linking. The correct internal linking alone will get you double SERP listings for the target keyword, & most double listings tend to stay at the top of the SERP.

Internal linking is just as powerful as external backlinks when done correctly.

When a keyword is tough to beat, you don't use a single page to try & beat their single page, you use an entire category on your site with however many pages it takes to rank for that keyword.

If the double listings doesn't take the #1 position in the SERPs by itself & a few high PR backlinks, then bulk up the entire category of internal pages with more high PR authority links.

You always have options.

The question you have to ask yourself is, "Is this keyword worth all the work/time it's going to take to get my page to #1 in the SERPs?".

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by Bulldozer

On-page SEO is important, but it will get you Nowhere, if you are competing with an Wikipedia article that has a PR9 ranking and 1,386,453 backlinks.

Come on bulldozer. That's just a silly one liner that may sound good.

Wikipedia gets to the top, not because of backlinks or PR, but on sheer
authority and relevance. Period. The PR of the main page is not
the PR of every article. However, wikipedia is the master of
internal linking.

You beat wikipedia and amazon in a very simple way. You go for search
phrases that real people doing real searches in real time do.

Real people don't normally search for one word. On those one word titles,
items, names, etc., amazon, wikipedia, buy, etc. are very, very hard
to beat.

But the vast majority of people surfing will type a 3-4 word phrase.

There's a very simple way of getting these long tail phrases. Log into
google and plug a word into the search bar. What shows up on instant?
Exactly. Now you know what to go for.

Funny thing. I saw a competitor use a simple phrase that was very
much searched for come up on instant. I changed a few titles, and
boom. Guess which site appears in these results now as well? Bingo!
No, not #1, but just below sure is something. I know I'm getting a ton
of traffic from that. I'd say I'm stealing it! Oops! Just gave away a
secret!

Paul

[John Moore]

The money really is at being #1, not only do you get about 40% of the traffic but the earnings per click (EPC) on that traffic is significantly higher than #2-10 because of the perception that the top result in google is "trusted".

[Bulldozer]

I get it, thanks for your insightful posts.
Will try to do my best to take the #1 spot and beat the Giants.