LSI & Theming: Why does one web page rank #1 while another one gets buried at #783? 4


NOTE: This is a long article.  You can download it (and others) on my LSI & Themeing page.


Back on 21st August 2005, I started a mini-series in my newsletter, which developed, over a period of several months, into an eBook; I called it “Creating Fat Affiliate Sites”.


I began that mini-series because of a report that was allegedly leaked from Google at the time, about “thin affiliates”. Without going into too many details (you can read details in my free “Creating Fat Affiliate Sites” eBook, where I analyse this “Google Report”, and highlight the parts that webmasters needed to take on board), the report basically said that Google was hiring people to actively search out low quality affiliate sites, sites that did not offer unique, valuable information, and were merely portals for selling affiliate products, or Adsense ads without much else substance.


This report was to change the way Internet marketers worked.


Affiliate Marketing in the Past


In the past, affiliate/adsense marketing for many, was relatively simple:

  1. Decide on a niche
  2. Carry out keyword research
  3. Use a template for the site, optimised for Adsense
  4. Use a site generator, to create a page for each main phrase
  5. Upload site
  6. Start next site

The only real deviations from this were steps 3 and 4.


Some Internet Marketers preferred to promote affiliate programs, as the potential rewards per action far exceeded those from Adsense. In this case, many would use products (with product descriptions) copied and pasted from Commission Junction, or even merchant datafeeds to churn out hundreds or thousands of pages.


Those who followed this plan were the lazy affiliates. You know, the ones who wanted to be rich without any work. The idea for them was to churn out as many pages as they could, in as little time as possible. Infoproduct creators made hay while the sun was shinning. They created “get rich quick” eBooks and software, teaching these methods.


Many of the techniques were black hat, and as one technique stopped working, another new eBook or tool was being released, teaching the next great method for getting rich. It was a vicious circle.


However, not everyone followed that path, and some successful marketers were busy keeping their heads down, building long-term businesses that would resist the continuous Google slaps the “get rich quick” mindset were getting.


While these smart marketers were silently dominating their niches. They were largely immune to the changes happening at Google.



So how did Google combat the “spammers”?


Black hat techniques caused a tidal wave of spam. As spam in the search engines rose, Google began finding ways to remove sites that didn’t offer unique, quality content, with real value to a visitor.


Software algorithms were probably the starting point. These piece of code did their best to find the quality pages, but many flew under the radar, as black hatters continued to find new ways to get into Google through the back door.


The solution? Use real human evaluators.


Now, no matter how well your site flies under the “code” rader, it wont be able to fly under the “human” radar.


If you build a site that becomes successful in a niche, it probably will get reviewed. If it is found to use black hat techniques, wave bye-bye to it.


The idea that spammy sites would be penalised, and simply not rank well, or at all, meant Internet marketers began to change the way they built their sites.


No longer could you put up software-generated sites, with useless content (like those sites I am sure many will remember that often had thousands of pages, with nothing more than search engine results on every page) and expect them to make you money.


The “Google Report” suggested that these sites would be marked as “thin”, and treated accordingly.


In the months before this report was “leaked”, spammers had begun to see their spammy empires crumble. Some went from 4 or 5 figure incomes every month, down to $100 or less.



Latent Semantic Indexing


As if human reviewers were not enough, Google bought/developed technology that meant their computers could make intelligent decisions on whether a piece of content was good or not. This technology is called Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI). A lot has been written about LSI in recent months, as webmasters everywhere are beginning to realise that LSI is the way forward. If you can make your pages score highly with an LSI algorithm, you are half way to winning the battle.

So what exactly is LSI? Here is a simplified explanation, taken from my “Creating Fat Content Course”:


Simply put, LSI is a technique that analyses a text document so that the document can be categorized. To do this, the LSI algorithm will look at the words that make up the document, and try to group them into related phrases. By analysing these groups, the topic of the document can be identified.


e.g. If a page contains the word “cream”, could you tell me what the page is about?


When Google Adsense was born, Google needed to supply relevant ads to pages on the Internet. If all Google had to go by was the word “cream”, what ads would it serve?


Well, it could be about the cream that comes from animals, or it might be about a cream that is applied to the body, or even the colour cream.


What you need to do (and what LSI does) is to find other words that can be grouped together with cream so that the topic of the document can be identified.


OK, what if the page also contains:

“cow”, “goat”, “milk”, “fat”


We can be fairly certain that this page is talking about the cream from animals. However, what if the page also contained these words:

“cheese”, “low-fat”, “Brie”, “Camembert”


We could then further identify this page as one that talks about cheeses.


If the page also contains these words:

“factory”, “manufacture”, “process”, “aging”, “mould”


We could probably assume that the page is about cheese making.


This is basically what LSI does. It looks for groups of related words, so it can determine the theme (incidentally, throughout this course we won’t use the phrase “latent semantic indexing”, we will call it themeing).


The better the LSI algorithm, the better able it is to identify the page topic.


So why am I telling you this?


Well, search engines are now using LSI to determine page relevancy, so you need to be aware of how this works, so that your own pages can be recognised and categorised correctly by the search engines.

Example – Take two web pages.

Page #1 contains: "French, "cheese", "high-fat", "Brie", "Camembert"

Page #2 contains: "cow", “cream”, "fat", "cheese", "blue", “Danish”, "manufacture" "aging", "mould"


If someone went to the search engines and searched for:

“how blue cheese is made”

Which page would rank better?

If someone searched for:

“French cheeses”


Which page would rank better?


Your answers above are based purely on a few keywords that appear in the document, and with these, you can make quite accurate decisions. The more words you have to base your decision on, the more accurate your decision will be.


Your thinking process is along the same lines as LSI, and this is what you must bear in mind as you build content.


So, if search engines are using LSI to determine which page ranks best for a given term, what should you do to make sure your content has the best chance of ranking well?


Easy! Create content that is themed.


The present and the future of affiliate marketing

Internet Marketing has been changing. Evolving if you like, where only the fittest will survive.

The purpose of my original “Creating Fat Affiliate Sites” eBook was to show how to build websites that took the search engines own Webmaster guidelines, and the leaked “Google Report” into account, allowing you to create sites that rolled with the changes, and flourished.


To ensure that as many people had access to this information as possible, I made the eBook free.


“Creating Fat Affiliate Sites” got rave reviews from those who read it (you can read some of the comments I received here).


Roll on two years since that eBook was released, and today, the situation is still the same.


To do well in Google, a site needs to be “fat”.

However, Google doesn’t rank sites, it ranks pages.


Don’t believe me? Well, do any search on Google, and see what results are returned. Google doesn’t return the top 10 sites for your search. It returns the top 10 pages! In some cases, there may even be two pages from the same site that rank for any given search.


Since pages are analysed and ranked on an individual basis**, webmasters should be looking to improve their site on a page-by-page level, and not an overall site level.


E.g. concentrate on making every page the best you can, not on adding more and more mediocre content to the site. It is more important to grow the quality of your individual pages, than it is to grow the quantity of pages on your site.


**

Inbound links to a page are extremely important in ranking, and by saying that pages are ranked on an individual basis does not contradict this. For any given page on a site, inbound link count, and link quality, are both properties of that page, and not the pages that are doing the linking. It is the page properties that you need to work on if you want it to rank well. That includes on-page content, as well as the off-page factors.


This report was written to explore some of the issues relating to content, and to show you how well written, unique, and valuable content is the way forward, and how clever marketers are dominating their niches today, and will continue to dominate those niches tomorrow.

This report, attempts to show you how some marketers are immune to the Google slaps.


1. Quality Is #1


Let’s look at an example.


If I type in the phrase quit smoking tips at Google, I get a bunch pf pages returned. The #1 article in Google at the time of writing this report was this homepage:

http://www.stop-smoking-tips.com/


If you look at this site, you’ll find that it offers valuable information on all aspects of stopping smoking. I copied the text of this page, and pasted it into my article editor. I got the software to create a map of smoking related words, and here is the result:


clip_image002


You’ll see smoking related words throughout the entire page. On top of that, the quality of the content is very high. The author hasn’t tried to write a page of content around the phrase “quit smoking tips”. What they have done is to describe the main sections of the website.

Headings on this page, refers to one of the main sections on the site. This is a great technique to use for a homepage of a site, as it helps the reader find the information they want (thereby helping the reader), but also allows the webmaster to get in key words throughout the page.

After all, a quality page on stopping smoking would cover a wide range of words relating to this topic.


To back up this page, the pages it links to on-site, have relevant, quality content that really is written to help the visitor.


Let’s look a little deeper into this page.

If I run the “theme report” of my article editor on this article (this checks the article against the words I have identified as relevant to the subject), here is the screenshot of the results:

clip_image004


So, what does this tell us?


Well, some of the words I would have expected to find in an article about stopping smoking are not there. The way I find out which words to expect to see is by looking at the words Google thinks are relevant to the search phrase, and also by looking at the top searched phrases on this topic, and seeing what people type into the search engines. The process of finding this information takes about 5 minutes per article, and is invaluable when I come to write my own content.

In total, this article contains 15 out of 24 words I identified as relevant. That’s not bad. If you look at the stats at the end of the article, the 674 words on the page contain 123 “theme words”. That means there is a relevant “theme” word for every 5.5 words on the page.


To me, this page is very relevant to the search phrase, quit smoking tips, and what’s more, it is unique content. Searching Google for complete sentences on this web page, do not result in any matches.


It’s no surprise to me that Google thinks this page is relevant!


OK, let’s look at another search result for this term.


Here is the keyword map of an article I found in Google:


clip_image006


Notice that there are far fewer relevant words found in this article.


Let’s look at the theme report:


clip_image008


Looking at the theme stats, there are only 33 “theme” words per 570 words on the page. That equates to just one theme words per 17.3 words on the page.


What is more worrying is that the page only uses 6 of the 24 words I would have expected to see on a well-themed page.


That means the 5.8% themed statistic in the theme report is based on only a few related phrases. This content has obviously been written around a primary phrase, with the sole intent of ranking well for that one phrase. Here are the “theme” words the article has used:

Cigarette

Cigarettes

Quit

Stop

Stops

Smoking


These stats quickly show that this article is not great. In fact, it is ranked #783 in Google for the term quit smoking tips.


Doing another quick check on this page shows that 10 other pages in Google’s index contain this exact paragraph:

“Before you begin, decide what you are going to do when you have a craving. Keep a diary for a week or so and learn what times and situations tempt you to want to have a cigarette. Decide what you are going to do instead of reaching for a cigarette”.


4 pages in Google also contain this sentence:

” If stress is a factor then find an exercise program. Joining a nearby health club will be less expensive than the cigarettes.”


8 pages in Google contain this exact paragraph:

“Once you have decided that you really want to stop smoking it can be a real challenge. Here are some tips to help you break the habit quicker.”

This page is low quality, and not unique in any way.

It is no surprise to me that this page ranks so badly, and will probably never get traffic, unless someone is deliberately looking for bad pages.

This page brings up an interesting point of debate – duplicate content.

Is the duplicate content causing this page to rank badly?


This is the subject of the next section in this report.


2. Is Duplicate Content A Problem?


To many webmasters, the idea of duplicate content is where two or more sites publish the exact same article.


You’ll find that this definition of duplicate content is a popular one, yet I don’t agree.

To me, duplicate content is not that simple, and there are degrees of duplication.


Duplicate content can be:

  1. The same article posted on two different pages of the same site.
  2. The same article posted on two different websites.
  3. One or more sentences from one web page being reprinted on another web page of the same site.
  4. One or more sentences from one web page being reprinted on another web site.
  5. The same article being “spun” into several articles, simply by swapping out keywords, an then posting the different versions to either the same website, or different websites.

All of these represent degrees of duplication to me.


Let’s look at an example.

I took the following paragraph out of a PLR eBook, and searched Google for it. I wanted to see how many people had published content by ripping this book apart, and publishing as web pages. I would expect a few, but how many of them changed the information into their own words?


Here is the paragraph:

“No doubt the Boxer breed makes for great utility dog but the greatest advantage to owning one is that a Boxer can be your most outstanding companion on four legs and a great source of personal fulfillment.”


There were 5 pages in Google that had this paragraph. I saved the text of these pages as five text documents called boxer dog 1, boxer dog 2, boxer dog 3, boxer dog 4 and boxer dog 5, and ran them through my duplication checker tool, which reports which sentences are found in two or more articles. Here is the entire report I got back (I have edited it to remove the exact sentences that were duplicated, and just indicated the number of duplications found).


*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 1" v "boxer dog 2"

80 duplicate phrases found

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 1" v "boxer dog 3"

21 Duplicate phrases found

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 1" v "boxer dog 4"

78 Duplicate phrases found

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 1" v "boxer dog 5"

80 duplicate phrases found

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 2" v "boxer dog 3"

4 duplicate phrases found

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 2" v "boxer dog 4"

14 duplicate phrases found

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 2" v "boxer dog 5"

9 duplicate phrases found

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 3" v "boxer dog 4"

22 Duplicate phrases found

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 3" v "boxer dog 5"

21 Duplicate phrases found

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "boxer dog 4" v "boxer dog 5"

77 Duplicate phrases found


Basically, despite each of the five web pages looking different, and having some extra text on them, my simple duplicate checking software (incorporated in my Content Publisher software tool), found large chunks of text on all of the five pages, duplicated. There does not even appear to be any effort to change some of the words in the article.


If my simple software can find this level of duplication, so can Google.


OK, so what about more subtle duplication?

Well, let’s take another example.


2.1. Word changes in articles is not enough


One of the popular ways of spinning articles is to make changes to specific words as you go through the article. To mimic this technique, I took an article on boxer dogs, and saved it as spun article 1.


I then used search & replace to change the following words in the article.

Canine to dog (3 changes)

Boxers to boxer dogs (5 changes)

Police to military (1 change)

And to & (39 changes)


That’s a total of 48 changes to a 777-word article. I then ran these two through my duplicated content checker. Remember, these two articles are now, not duplicate in the eyes of many webmasters. Here is the duplicate checker report:


*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "Spun Article 1" v "Spun article 2"

80 duplicate phrases found


That’s a lot of duplicated content for two articles that are not identical.


I could have replaced a lot more words, but my simple duplicate checker would still have found duplicate content. It’s not as easy to avoid detection, as some would have you believe, is it?


2.2. Does a sophisticated article spinning software help?


As a final check, I used some popular article spinning software (that costs a few hundred dollars to buy) to recreate 5 unique articles from a single article (named spun1 through spun5). This software is about as sophisticated as spinning software gets, so surely it should do a better job. I used the example files that came with the software.


To keep this tool anonymous, I have modified the duplicate report, to show you how many “parts of sentences” were duplicated between the 5 articles. Here is the report:


*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun1" v "spun2"

81 duplicate text segments found.

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun2" v "spun3"

28 duplicate text segments found.

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun2" v "spun4"

26 duplicate text segments found.

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun2" v "spun5"

34 duplicate text segments found.

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun3" v "spun1"

25 duplicate text segments found.

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun3" v "spun4"

28 duplicate text segments found.

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun3" v "spun5"

29 duplicate text segments found.

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun4" v "spun1"

29 duplicate text segments found.

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun4" v "spun5"

28 duplicate text segments found.

*** DUPLICATE TEXT FOUND *** in "spun5" v "spun1"

30 duplicate text segments found.


As you see, all 5 articles that were spun were caught for varying degrees of duplication. Again, if my simple checker can find this in a few seconds, so can the search engines.


Would you publish these five articles on your site?


What if you had five sites on this topic? Would you publish one on each, believing that to be below Google’s radar and impossible to catch?


Well, the bad news is Google are pretty good at finding out who owns a site, and they could quickly determine if this duplicate content belonged to the same Webmaster. If you don’t believe me, read this blog post by Google engineer, Matt Cutts.


The result? Well I can’t say what will happen to your site if you are caught doing this, but I certainly wouldn’t tell Google if I was using that strategy, would you?

3.1. There are Disadvantages to Creating Quality Content


This section is quite short. I simply want to point out the advantages and disadvantages I see with creating quality content.


Advantages of creating quality content:

clip_image009 Search engines love the content.

clip_image009[1] Visitors love the content.

clip_image009[2] Visitors are likely to come back.

clip_image009[3] The content sticks around in the search engines for a very long time.

clip_image009[4] It’s likely to be linked to from other sites.

clip_image009[5] You start to brand yourself and your site as an authority, and someone to trust.

clip_image009[6] As trust develops, you are more likely to get people to sign up for your newsletter, or take your call to action (whatever that might be).

clip_image009[7] Ads like Adsense are more targeted.

clip_image009[8] More likely to get accepted into affiliate programs that look at your site before approving.

Disadvantages of Creating Quality Content:

clip_image009[9] It takes more time.


Obviously the one disadvantage to creating quality content is that it takes longer to do so. While I am spending an hour or 2 getting a couple of articles written for one of my sites, I am sure a content spinner is producing hundreds, or even thousands or articles form a single seed article.


Does this worry me?


Not in the slightest. You see, I am fairly confident that my article will rank well, and be found on a regular basis for a variety of keyword phrases. I am also confident that my article will continue to be found for months and years.


What about the spinners articles? Well, I would bet that even if they did initially get traffic (and that was a big IF), that wouldn’t last long. I would expect to see that traffic die off within weeks, the spun content would then be getting near zero traffic.


In the long run, I would have all the benefits of a quality article. My one or two hours invested will ultimately work out a better investment than one or two hours spinning articles.


This scenario can only get worse as search engines improve their duplicate content filters and Latent Semantic Indexing technology.



4. Optimising around a primary phrase no longer works


While it is possible for a page to get found for a term that is not on the page itself, it does require a number of links to achieve this. In general, for a page to be found for a phrase, that phrase, or at least the words that make up the phrase, must be on the web page.


Let’s continue with the examples we have seen so far relating to quitting smoking. Here are some of the top phrases that people actually search for, relating to this topic:

stop smoking

quit smoking

how to quit smoking

stop smoking pill

stop smoking aids

ways to quit smoking

stop smoking hypnosis

stop smoking shot

how to stop smoking

hypnotherapy stop smoking

stop smoking treatment

help quit smoking

quit smoking aids


No, going back to the first example of the site that came first for quit smoking tips, how many of those phrases could it possibly rank for?


Well, of the words that make up those phrases, the first article contains

aids: 3

help: 21

how: 5

hypnosis: 1

pill: 4

quit: 41

smoking: 92

stop: 33

to: 107

treatment: 3

ways: 1


The only two words that this article does not contain are:

hypnotherapy

shot

In other words, out of these phrases:

stop smoking

quit smoking

how to quit smoking

stop smoking pill

stop smoking aids

ways to quit smoking

stop smoking hypnosis

stop smoking shot

how to stop smoking

hypnotherapy stop smoking

stop smoking treatment

help quit smoking

quit smoking aids


The article could potentially rank for 11 out of 13 phrases. The only ones it couldn’t, or would struggle to rank for are:

hypnotherapy stop smoking

stop smoking shot


Also, the fact that Google will link the words hypnosis and hypnotherapy means this article could possibly rank for the first of those two phrases.


Not bad for a single article.


What about the article that was buried in Google?


Well, here are the words from that list that are found in the article:

help: 1

how: 2

quit: 1

smoking: 3

stop: 3

to: 19


These are the top theme words that were not on that page:

aids

hypnosis

hypnotherapy

pill

shot

treatment

ways


That means, from our list of 13 most popular phrases, these 5 are the only ones that it could potentially rank for:

stop smoking

quit smoking

how to quit smoking

how to stop smoking

help quit smoking


.. and these 8 are the ones that it would struggle to rank for, as it doesn’t contain the words that make up the phrases:

stop smoking aids

quit smoking aids

stop smoking hypnosis

hypnotherapy stop smoking

stop smoking pill

stop smoking shot

stop smoking treatment

ways to quit smoking


When you see an article that cannot even potentially rank for most of the top phrases in the niche, then you know you have a dud.



5. Real figures from real sites


I have a couple of sites that I like to compare. One is an article site I have built up to over 3000 articles. All 3000 of these pages are likely to be posted on several other article sites, so this site represents one with no unique content.


The other site I like to use for a comparison, is a 13 page site, with articles I have hand-written, to ensure quality.


The large article site is a PR 3, and was first uploaded in September 2005.


Here are the log stats from a few weeks ago:


clip_image010


Not exactly what would expect from a 3000 page PR 3 site.


So, what about the small 13-page quality site?


Well, that is a PR 2, and was first created in May 2006. Traffic for the month of August 2007 was between 70 – 120 visitors per day.


This site is out-performing the large article site in every way, despite being nearly 300 times smaller.


I will grow this site (and all of my other smaller quality sites) over time. I add more relevant quality content, and fully expect these sites to still be around in 5 years, continuing to make me money. As I add more content, I get more traffic, for a diverse range of search phrases.


This snapshot of statistics is only the tip of the iceberg. Because of the way I build my pages, and theme my content, my pages get found for a huge number of keyword phrases.


Forget the 14 phrases I showed you above with the smoking example.


In the last few weeks, my 13-page site has been found for 1429 different phrases typed in at the search engines. Here is a screenshot of my stats program for this site.


clip_image011


Where is this traffic coming from?


Well, here is a screenshot of the top referrers to the site:


clip_image012


This is a small site that will continue to grow. At the moment, the traffic is modest, with between 70 – 120 unique visitors a day. In a couple of years, I would expect the number of pages to be 50 or more, and the traffic multiplied several times. You see, the beauty of these quality sites, is that as they grow with more quality content, they become more capable of ranking for more and more competitive terms. It is quite possible to suddenly find yourself ranking in the top 3 for terms that get hundreds of searches a day. When that happens, you’ll know that all of the hard work was worth it.



6. Latent Semantic indexing (LSI) is nothing to be afraid of.


Back in the introduction of this report, I talked a bit about Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI). This component of Google’s ranking algorithm has changed the way content is ranked, and so forces marketers to change their habits.


While many people have seen their sites nose-dive, and disappear, successful marketers have thrived. They have listened to the search engines, and evolved the way they create their content.

Back in Chapter one of this report, I showed you two sites. One ranked very well. In fact it was #1 on Google for a competitive phrase.


By analysing the keywords on the page, I was able to show that the page contained most of the words I would have expected to be on a page about that topic.


Now, I don’t for one minute think that the author of this site sat down, created a list of words (like I did), and created a page around the keyword list. They might have done of course, but my guess is, the person who created the content on that site, knew the niche very well. The articles were probably created based on actual knowledge that the author had. By writing the content naturally, many of the words and phrases that I (and Google’s LSI algorithm) think should be there, are.

This is the beauty of LSI. It looks for the words that would appear naturally, if someone who knows the subject well wrote the page.


I have done a few experiments on this with my own sites. I have written articles around topics I know well, and then gone back, created a keyword list, and checked for those words in my article. In most cases, 80% of the words I would expect to appear, do.


What this means is, if you know a topic well, you have an advantage. You have a better change of hitting the right words in your content, and being rewarded with higher rankings.


This is the way it should be.


After all, if I were looking for information to cure athletes foot, I would prefer to read an article written by someone who knows what they are talking about.


Google would also like to serve me articles that gave me the most relevant & accurate information on my search, so everyone is happy.


This is what LSI does.


The big problem with all of this from an Internet Marketers point of view is that we often write on topics that we know very little about.


An example of this is the second page I showed you in chapter 1. Remember the one that ranked at #783 in Google?

The search term was quit smoking tips.

The only “theme” words on that page were:

Cigarette

Cigarettes

Quit

Stop

Stops

Smoking


Compared to the list of 15 theme words contained in the #1 ranking page, this is pretty poor. You might think 6 is a good number of words to include, buy look at the words. There are really only four words there, with different versions:


Cigarette, quit, stop, smoking.


These are the obvious words that anyone would think of. My guess is that this page was created by someone with little knowledge of how to quit smoking, and was trying to write an article around the keyword phrase “stop smoking”.


Just by looking at the words on the page, we can quickly see that the top-ranking page is much better than the one at #783. As well as the more obvious words, it contains words like hypnosis, nicotine and tobacco. That can only be done with a good knowledge of the subject, OR, great keyword research and knowledge of LSI and themeing.


As I began developing my own portfolio of sites, I came up against topics that I new nothing about. I needed a way to consistently create excellent content that would work with the LSI algorithms, to give me better rankings. It took several months of hard work and experiments, but what I came up with was definitely worth it.


I have decided to share these methods with you!



7. Do you want to learn how to create well-themed, quality content on any topic?


The "Creating Fat Content Course" will teach you how to write high quality content. The kind of unique, valuable content that search engines prize, and people like to share with their friends.

Here is what the course contains:


1. 225 Page Training manual.

clip_image013The training manual is packed with screenshots, diagrams, and easy to follow instructions.

It takes you through real examples of researching and writing content, and explores how you can make your content unique, valuable, and add value to the Internet.

Throughout, you will be shown how to use the included software to research, write, and check the theme your content, the same way I write all of the content for my own web sites.


2. Fat Content Creator Software.

clip_image014

This software is the article editor.

The editor has various tools built in to help you check the quality of your content. You can see the "Keyword Map" feature in the screenshot.

You'll also have access the theme report, which checks your article to make sure it is well themed, and contains the keywords that the search engines will expect to find.




3. Dr. Andy's Internet Search Browser.

clip_image015

This research tool is very powerful, allowing you to quickly and easily find facts, figures, videos, images, etc, for your content.








4. Special version of KRA, including the Keyword Research for one entire niche (the one we use in this course).

clip_image016

The course manual describes how to use this tool, to get at the right keywords for each piece of content you create.


5. Additional Files.

Contains several files mentioned during the course. Also includes a Server Side Include (SSI) primer, for those who want to learn this powerful tool.


Read more about the "Creating Fat Content Course".


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 thoughts on “LSI & Theming: Why does one web page rank #1 while another one gets buried at #783?

  • JerJer

    Regarding “LSI and Content”…

    All I can say is WOW!

    Not only have you thoroughly discussed “Theming” and writing quality content but “you’ve done it.”

    Dr. Andy, you have turned my head around and caused me to rethink my approach to writing good, themed content!

    I’m amazed at the depth of research and your willingness to share your methods FREE!

    I’ve made a ton of money over the years selling information and dominated my niche. I think innately I performed a lot of the work you so thoroughly describe here but you’ve managed to describe your process and really crystallize your thought process.

    I’ll need to reread this a few times and pass it on to those friends that I know are willing to do the work in order to “get rich quick.”

    Following that, expect to see my name shortly as a client of your “Creating Fat Content Course.”

    JerJer