For this week’s webinar, Clint discussed our tests for this week. He discussed if if having a later ‘Date Modified’ in schema has an effect on rank, if embedding images, same as having images on a page can boost rank, and if links in an ordered list boosts the link.
As usual, he answered some questions that came in from other members. Questions this week is about reindexing pages, CTR, and ranking location pages. For this week’s site review, he reviewed the site Anobit.com, which he found through searching “best remote control cars”.
Tests this week
Test 394: Does Having a Later ‘Date Modified’ in Schema Have a Ranking Effect?
Test 395: The Power of Links Within An Ordered List HTML Code
Test 396: Embedding Images
January 24, 2020 Weekly Dossier
Transcription Below:
Hey SIA! How y'all doing today? This is January 24th, our Weekly Webinar. I thank for everyone for joining. Three new tests as always and a site audit and some questions and answers to get through today. I don't expect it to take us all that long, really. With that being said, let's get started.
Again, there's the agenda. Here's a test we're looking at today. 394 is the schema modified date Affect rank. The 395: a link in an ordered list. So, one, two, three, four – that's ordered list and 396: does embedding an image help the original pagerank. So, without further ado let me go ahead and get those started.
I'm clicking around here. Can somebody let me know that they can hear me? That'd be good to know. I should have started that question off from the beginning. Good, all right.
So, 394: does having a later date modified in the schema affect page rank? This is a test from Joe Priests. The idea behind this is it's a freshness play. So, Query Deserves Freshness is the scientific term I guess you want to go for. QDD is what a lot of people refer to it. How do you modify that or how do you apply it and more importantly how do you test?
One way is to update the publish data on your page and the idea is that you update the publish page and then Google sees it as fresh content so then it ranks it higher again versus not doing it and then it's older then it dies out. The idea behind Joe's test is what if I just do it in schema versus doing it in the publish page? Long story short, it actually had no effect whatsoever.
You can see here's the schema code that he used – date published versus date modified versus and same here in checked out. So, there's two different dates there inside of that schema. You can publish and modify, meaning you updated. He tested both of those applications and didn't find that it was a factor.
Here's the problem with freshness tests and I think we've addressed this before. Every query – it's a Query Deserves Diversity or a Query Deserves Freshness (QDF) is the other one you ~ acronyms. So, if Query Deserves Freshness, if that query deserves fresh content then that date play is going to work. If the query does not, if Google doesn't care if it's fresh then I don't think this idea will work.
Joe says just as much here it's really how do you test this concept and get it to apply in a single variable environment and, honestly, I don't think that you can. Obviously, there may be some smarter SEOs out there who could figure it out but I think in the single variable environment, unless you can get a single variable term where Google is expecting or the algorithm is expecting fresh content, then you're not going to be able to test it in that single variable method like this.
However, I think this could be a great let's-do-it-in-the-real-world test but you would need some things in place. Now, I'm thinking probably a site in Google News would do the best and you play around with that but then again if you have a site in Google News you might not want to mess with that too much.
So, look through, find an easy term – and I'm not – I'm just telling you this is about ~ around in my head, is find a term that is using freshness right now that is easy to rank for and then you probably do it with, I would say, maybe even an EMD just to make it easy. Then, see what the content age, see if it drops and then if it drops change the schema modified time, date and see if it comes back up. That would probably be the best way to do it, in my opinion, and I think Jo is kind of on the same lines too.
So, if you read too through his stuff and you can see that that he's going along the same thing than I am is this needs to be addressed more and worked out more. I've seen this concept work. In particular, the published date changing that. Not necessarily tried the schema thing but most of my plugins, like Yoast, I think will do the date updated automatically inside of the schema.
I'm changing both sometimes when I do that so maybe it is a factor or maybe it's just the published date that I'm changing that things around with it. So, certainly something worth checking out, especially in a real world testing environment.
Do we have any questions from the audience on this one? No questions. Good.
Test 395 is a power of links from within an ordered list in the html code. I will do a caveat. Last week, we talked about the unordered list and I have the layout of the test done wrong in my head. Maybe I just read the diagram or what but in my head and the way I presented in the talk it was incorrect. But in this case, I'll get it right.
So, there's no list right here and this is linking to one of the target pages. Then, this is a list, an ordered list. It has numbers – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is typically an ordered list and that is linking to your target page. Link in the list right here, link in the paragraph. No list. It is linking to those two pages. The results of the test were different from the unordered list. Remember, the unordered list it was... I presented it like vs. there vs. not where the unordered list actually ranked the page.
The ordered list did not which is odd. Like, it's a list and it's a link so what would make it different? The only thing that just shooting around in my own little pea-brain is maybe because resource lists are numbered versus not and maybe Google is somehow devaluing resource lists. You know those pages like there's a top ten resources for x y & z.
Maybe that's what's going on here but that's a pure guess. Hunter did this test. Hunter and Dori and my guess is, just reading the line, is that they plan on revisiting this and do the two tests again and see if they get the same results which would be pretty good. I actually want to try it myself with the testing tool as well just to see because it is odd that one list would be favored over the other.
If that's the case, if the unordered list is favored over the ordered list and that's like some really good knowledge to everyone. Everyone's using the ordered list but with the unordered list we can get a little bit of push out of it. Especially, when you're building links to your own properties. So, that might be something worth – or definitely is something worth checking out and knowing the difference so that if you're doing some link building stuff you can use an unordered list, the ul versus the ol which is the ordered list in your link building efforts. To be continued, definitely.
Do you have any questions on test 395? No questions. We'll move on to the next one. We're rolling right along. We'll get them early today.
396: embedding images. I like this test. So, basically, what we're testing is if you use an image from someone else's website on your page will you get a ranking boost from it? The quick answer is no, you won't get a ranking boost.
As a matter of fact, they moved around and then ~ wash and then as you see eventually everything just get right back to normal. The implications of this is there's an idea out there that if you use other people's images you may or may not get a ranking benefit or you can even get a ranking decrease. The testing has shown that there was no decrease. That might not necessarily be the case if you were using an images from a bad site, for example, or maybe even a more powerful domain.
There could be those two variables in the testing that need to be adjusted a little bit. Also, it's using the image source. There are some ways to use java to iframe. I don't really think that it'd be necessary though. You're not going to get much of a difference, in my opinion, based off of the way the you embed. I was wondering, when I was looking at this test, what if I used an image and then that image was broken and didn't show up will that hurt the page?
It might be another variable worth knowing especially if you're doing content curation stuff. Like, I was doing that for SEO This Week and I always share the featured image but more often than not those featured images just ended up breaking. So, I just quit putting them on the show notes. So, I think, it would be another variation of this test. It would actually look pretty good but at the end of the day it's not going to hurt you and the test results certainly show that and it's not going to help you either. Test results show that.
There are some questions and some things that you could play around with. Does optimizing it – let's say, I have a different domain and it's a Flickr. Flickr doesn't rip the EXIF data off of the images. So, what if I embed a Flickr image up here and Flickr's are pretty good site. Will I get some more power from that especially – let's say, you're doing a local play, for example, and you want to pull in some more local images but you don't have any of your own.
Use the Flickr's because most of those are Creative Common, you're sourcing to it. Then, will that association carry up? That's pretty interesting question. Again, this is why I like doing the testing so much and reading these test results because I get to see some different concepts and then it forces me to ask new questions which is the whole point.
Test 396. You guys have any questions on test 396? All right. Well, no questions on 396. That's great. We're moving right along. Actually, we're way ahead of schedule now. We do have more tests in the pipeline. Some silo tests and stuff so I'm looking forward to those.
Actually, let me revisit one test. You guys remember the test that Bill and I did? The indexing test. Let me bring – here's the latest results from the 22nd. I did the indexing – Bing indexing test. I want to look at again just to keep an eye on things because I'm testing out that new indexing.
Note right here, again, the tool for whatever reason, it just doesn't like that .co.uk but that's actually a hundred percent and the rest of these are sitting right where they're at. I think – like this is the .coms. This is the .xyz, the .club, the .online, the .co. There's a couple other ones down here. They're still doing pretty good. They're stuck in the index and stuff.
One thing that we noticed – and Hunter actually pointed this out is he was doing some test pages and Google didn't like the test pages. Like, he can't get them indexed, I can't get them indexed and maybe the testing domain is burned or the style in which the software was making... I think his was English ipsum and mine were random alphas.
I don't see it in here but I'm pretty sure that's what he did. Mine is alpha and his is a English ipsum and then his English ipsum pages woundn't index. Like, I've submitted into this new indexer. We submitted them in the Search Console and everything. So, it's definitely something to worry about and address.
I'm going to do one more pull on this just to see if the indexing remains the same across the board with all these TLDs. Then, I'll switch to a new set of domains for testing different stuff. All my test dummies are .xyz's I believe or .com. I can't remember. I think they're xyz's but I gotta buy 10 more too and then Hunter and Dori have an access to a whole bunch of them. So, we're going to try to figure that out. That'd be good to know as testers like is Google onto English ipsum?
Haven't done one lorem ipsum either. That's the Latin and we'll test that out and see if they're on to that and then actually puts something in place to keep the indexing down. I don't suspect that it is. Maybe the English ipsum is not indexing for Hunter because of the NLP API but that's a reach really at this point. But this is where that indexing test is sitting right now. It's actually pretty good and I'm glad to see that going on.
Let's get into the new test requests and we didn't have any this week. Remember, there is the form inside of the Slack. If you go to the Slack channel and click on events tip you'll see the form right away versus having a search run in the ~. But if you have any test ideas or requests or you want us to try something else then go ahead and send it to us. We will try to accommodate as long as there's a way to test it. Then, we'll figure a way to do it in the best way. In the way of the way.
Let's see Q&A. These are... Again, I have another form for this. It's Q&A form. If you have any questions drop them in there and I'll address them during the webinar. Obviously, we have the Slack channel to do that if you're in a hurry but the Q&A form is a good way to keep the value going on. So, you use that when and if you can.
The first question is any ideas how to reindex pages or reindex fast a lot of pages with small changes? Google crawling does not want to reindex it. Any way to force it? This was asked in the larger community Skype by Boryslav and it's a really genuine concern. So, Bill says that he doesn't have this issue and he's claiming that it could be there's a technical issue at the site or a trust issue. But I will side on the side of Boryslav is that it could be that just Google not doing it.
Then, there used to be a time where you can do it on pages change, send it through Google's URL submit and then the index would almost instantly reflect the new changes. I update the meta description or update the title or even change based off positions and letting you know you did good or bad and then onpage change. It was never useful for linking.
If I had all forced a whole bunch of links to crawl and I never got – you don't get to see the benefit right away but it was always useful for onpage. Google is seem to change that and now it's not unusual for me to change the onpage, offpage and did not see a result for a week or change it in some way it'll drop not down or all the way out of the index and then come back higher where it should be.
I think some ways to facilitate it a little bit better is 1) to understand that there's going to be a wait period now. Google just wants it that way. My guess is that it was put in place when all those bots came out and they figured out ways to game Google URL submit and then the mobile index or mobile testing tool to get indexing and stuff.
Now, they've slowed down the way the data center is updated. 2) I've seen where I've changed title tags completely and Google won't update for some weeks. I've seen that in a real world. I have changed live like completely deleted pages in 301 and I've seen the old URL stay in there despite resubmitting to search console to trigger that thing. I think it's the new norm now.
There are some indexers out there that are forcing recrawls. Colinkri does the recrawls. The Instant Inject, Indexification and a whole bunch of other ones are still out there. The SEO AutopPilot guys have their new Omega one coming out which is the one that did pretty much all the indexing for our last test there we just showed you.
You could theoretically run those through again but at the end of the day Google is going to take their sweet time and show you the benefits of your work and I think that's the new norm now. So, the idea of forcing it is pretty much gone out the window outside of just sending it to the index there and waiting, unfortunately. That sucks for us as SEO but that's the new game.
Let's see here. This is a CTR question and what they're looking for is they have a whole bunch of impressions but they're not getting the click-through from the search results. I wanted to point this one out because they're looking for a boost from CTR from the search results and their solutions are building similar content, creating new content, scraping social media links... (I don't build external social media links) building external high DA links and looking for other suggestions.
So, options 1 through 4, if you're trying to increase the CTR of your link inside of the search results none of those are going to work.
Maybe 4 because you can use those links to rank higher but if your title tag and your meta description are not enticing enough for that search result either 1) you've optimized for the wrong search result or 2) you just need to improve work on your CTR for your title tagging, your meta description. Doesn't need to work together.
Just doing call to actions inside of the Click here, Check out our website, Discover because people don't want to learn. They want to discover, right? Play with those and add sentimentality words to it, etc. It is really how you're going to address your CTR search results. You're certainly not going to do that by making new content and doing a linking and/or making new skyscraper content and social media.
Social media links will help but at the end of the day it's not helping your CTR from search results. It is just helping maybe increase your rankings or getting more clicks from a new page, from your social media pages. Just be cognizant of what you're looking there and how you – when you're doing your problem solving. Don't get the two ideas mixed up.
SERP 48k impressions giving 117 clicks and 1500 impressions giving 47 clicks. This means you probably – this is probably targeting. When I look at these numbers I'm thinking broad information seekers and this is, "I've already made a decision. I know exactly what I'm looking for and you are the best one." kind of thing.
This is normal for broad – for information seekers. They're doing research. You're going to go in there. They're going to search it a lot. They're going to click around, etc versus here, "I've already pretty much got my idea." Like, "I know that I want to buy this brand new camaro. I just want the green one. You have the green one." So, more longtail searching. That's what those 2 numbers tell me.
Now, I would focus maybe on getting this a little bit more but I'll also look at the user flow. If they're coming in – a 117 people came from 4,800 and my conversion suck but here there are 437 and they're awesome. Well, I'd focus on the 437 right and make a better experience for them versus these people here who are just probably tire kickers.
Let's see. All right, last one. I have landing pages on my website for each area in the UK. I have got all the pages ranking on the first page of Google for each area except the Birmingham and the home page is ranking on the first page instead. Has anyone come across this before where the home page outranks the internal page?
There is no website associated with this so this is going to be a lot of conjecture. 1) I'm willing to bet that the address for the Birmingham office is probably on your home page 2) and/or your mentioning Birmingham a lot on your home page so it's optimized for Birmingham. What you inadvertently do is you say, "We're a Birmingham business." and you also has these other locations which is why all your other pages' ranking is fine. It's a thing that pretty much all of us have done at one point or another.
Like, my agency page used to rank for Olympia, Washington, for SEO and then I changed it to Seattle and then I wanted to expand a whole bunch of other places so I didn't want to be part of Seattle. So, you got to go through completely deoptimize your home page and optimize your internal page and wait for that all ~ wash. At the end of the day, honestly, I don't even think it's worth worrying about.
As long as that homepage is ranking and if it's converting for you, it is converting and there's Birmingham visitors then just leave it alone and work on the bigger problem. I would just leave it alone. Let's just put it at that. You just leave it alone. Don't mess with it. You could focus on worrying about giving that ranking – that internal page ranking and assuming that the CTR and that conversions were higher but more likely I would doubt it would even be minimal effect.
So, yes, just leave it alone. It's a lot harder to make any more intelligent recommendations though without seeing the URL and looking at the page myself.
So, these are the top three questions and my top three answers for this week. Again, if you guys have any questions that you would like answered and hopefully I have them, who knows. Make sure that you fill out the form in the Slack group under the Q&A form. You'll see I share that once a week. That would be useful.
Alright, let's see. Site review. I actually have a domain that I want to use because I want to get into this RC stuff. I think it would be really cool. So, I picked a best remote-control cars as random keyword, 3600 search volume and I really wanted to do another site that I like in this market but I chose anobit.com which is #30. I'll show you the other site that I really wanted to review which is this TopTenReviews. If you click around this guy's – I'm assuming guy just because it's the way I am, if you click around this site there's actually a whole bunch of different cool versions.
You can see versions of these posts and the way he's put these posts together. This is almost a clinic for setting up a review site and the different call to actions and stuff. You saw right there, there's one version of a button, there's another version of a button. I think some of these pages were just formatted differently.
Let me see if I can find some more pages. Yes, look at all of this page. Here's categories. Best blu-ray players. See, changes the way that works. They're doing ok. Honestly, I like this one a lot better. I think they get a little greedy on it and started doing some more stuff.
Let me click another one of these. There you go. Look at this. This is OUR VERDICT for, I guess, etc. I just like the layout. Again, these ads and all the stuff that is on the – since the last time I've been here, I don't like that at all but people got to make money but that's all they did it. They put it on that tableu feed and then you got an AdSense on here now and etc.
This was one of my favorite review site. That's the one I wanted to do but it was taking four hours to crawl it. I just don't want to wait anymore. Let me tell you that I went with this one, anobit. Worse brand name ever but I guess at the end of the day who really cares, right? We used anobit and it's an Amazon site.
Again, they do the same thing reviewing here and they are using the official Amazon buttons which is good. My guess is, it is probably using a plug-in ~ it goes off or the actual code. I didn't really inspect it but the layout's not too bad. The concepts of the post is actually pretty good, etc.
Let's do that and we start off the ever consuming question: What is it? What's it about? What's in it for me? I'm looking for best remote-controlled cars. That's what I want and clearly they have achieved that. Top 8 best remote-control cars for kids. They've met my search intent on what it is about and what's in it for me. I get to see the top 8 cars and I get to buy them. The what's in it for me is there: the reviews and here's the way to buy it.
I like how the coding is done. It is actually pretty clean. Let's kick off in to SERPWorx so you see all the H tags and stuff. There's the cars. The H tags are all clean. These are all clean here and then it gets a little bit crazy right here with all these other H3s and those are from the sidebar. I would recommend changing the coding out of that and putting those out of the H3.
You can match that with the font and size without having to ~ H3. Again, that's probably... Will I see much improvement from that? I doubt it but it's just one of those nitpicky things and they're ranking #30 right now so was not going to hurt to try it out.
Then, H4 is I try and try to pull all this and this is from a lot of content in the bottom as most of that stuff is all in the H4s but I would pull it out and make sure I had related terms tip and maybe even some variations up there. I'm sure there's some variations and stuff.
Title is good. Meta description is a new trend going on right now is keeping the meta description blank. People are saying it doesn't matter so why am I going to fill it out. I let Google to pick the best one. Every time I've done that and then I go and enter the meta description I put keywords in it and my ranking has increased.
I think you're just playing with fire leaving it up to Google's own devices. It may work if you're thinking let's rank for... Like, you built some links for this particular car and then this particular car and you rank for that pages. You rank for that and then maybe it'll change the meta descriptions in here. I don't see this site at all...
My internet is going little bit slow for some reason. I turned everything off. Let's see. It's not even a ranking for the product name which is a missed opportunity, in my opinion, especially since there's not all that many pages trying to rank for. This is a primary keyword and these best keywords bring a lot of traffic and they bring a lot of conversions for affiliates. So, I think they're missing out by not having a meta description in there. Again, they are ranking #30 so it's not going to kill them to try it out.
Then, we look at the backlinks. Today, I'm just going to go to Majestic. I'm going to trust Majestic today. Citation is 35 and that's never really good ratio for me. Again, these numbers are ~ and stuff but that's never really good ratio and that was just for that page. Here's the whole domain altogether. Let's look at just a sample of their backlinks: storagenewsletter.com
.tv. That's a redirect.
storagesearch.com
dontwasteyourmoney.com
Some other review sites
Havebabywilltravel.com
Some PBN stuff in there.
A lot of the trusts. Yes, a lot of that with trust. They don't have any in the 40s and 41s. These are pretty easy to get especially if you're talking about like a bigger domain name. I want to say ~ but they're easier to get them when you have this here. So, this a ~ profiling to me.
Let's look at the anchor texts. Steve, not related whatsoever. A lot for steve. That's silly. No brand. Here's some brand right here. There's no naked URLs until you get down in here so they're missing those a lot. This is probably pretty over optimized. Let's see if they're ranking. There it is, right there.
Here's an example, we'd say that it was over optimized like you just heard. That was my first instinct. It was probably over optimized but it's not. It's right there. It's #3. So, mine is this double short, double featured snippet thing. It's essentially the first organic result.
Obviously, Google just changes the way that those are counted in their eyes but that's the first organic result and so just goes to show you that following those – that concept or that belief that you can over optimize your anchor text. Well, I'm certain that you can. It's just that there's not always a rule in place that says this is the number that would it be.
If I was going for this term it's pointless now in 2020 but if I go in for that term then I look at all these other sites and it says, "Hey, I shouldn't have exact match and I should have 25%." Then, yes, that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to build 25% exact match and that's a good example of seeing that.
The rest of this is just worrying me. It worries me because there's not branding and there's not exact match URL. Then, there's a couple of things. If you want to build a trust in Google for the entire domain and for the brand and you can brand an affiliate site completely.
It also hides other patterns in there not only from a manual reviewer but from the case of the algorithm. 2) You want to have this brand in the URL really high so that if I do over optimize anchor text it's not going to be all that horrible for me and I can get out of it with brand and URL links out of that over optimization by just counteracting and building more links versus having to go back through and clean up 109 referring domains that are all linking to my top fireplaces. Definitely something to consider there.
Where else would I look in this? We can look – it says, it is built with WordPress. It is not too bad. Schema markup is there. Let's see if they use that. Just a standard schema markup. Because it's a review and you're reviewing these I would maybe even put some reviews for these product names in here too but I guess if you're constantly updating that might be a little bit too much work but why not rank for this too.
The product name's here, these are easier to rank for with one or two backlinks. So, add that product, add the review stars to it and try to leverage that a little bit more too. You just fill that structured data stuff and there's nothing wrong with this. This looks like standard Yoast implementation.
I'd have to look at the source code to see what they're using for there. I think it's all minimized which is good. They get Yoast in there. It's standard Yoast implementation but this you can leverage it some more by just playing with the schema a little bit.
We use Surfer this week. I actually try to run Cora again. It locked up on me in some of the renders so we used Surfer. Looking at some of the backlinks and stuff, again, their competition is going to have a lot more quality backlinks. Majestic might not find all of them or might not have seen all of them but certainly a backlink play.
Especially in affiliate, you do have to worry about – in particular, if you're a competitive one usually you don't have to worry about finding some of the PBNs. If they're smart you're not going to know that they're using PBNs. You hide them. You have them on some really high quality domains that they are in their network versus the standard or WayBack rebuild. Or if they got Dori working for them, they're like WayBack rebuilds cloaked out that look awesome and stuff. Just be cognizant of that if you're going to play with this one.
Keyword true density. You just click through that if you like the different variations and what are they doing here and see just like the exact match. It says none but I saw instances of it so you have to take some of these with the grain of salt and stuff. I don't really typically mess with those. The word count is a little bit low compared to what everyone else has.
Maybe the conversions would be a little bit higher as well by putting more thought into the reviews of each one of those cars. If you add one more paragraph to it it will probably easily kick into that. Increase that word count a little bit. Then, yes, he is not finding the exact match keywords in the body.
I may have just – because I saw them in the H tag I just assume that it's there. If it's not there you need to throw that in ~. I would look at a different way to do this and Carol Holtzman, she's got me looking at H2s, looking at exact match and looking at the variations in the counts and see how they compare and contrast to everyone else's stuff.
That's a keyword density thingy at the same time. So, you can start looking at that as well and seeing and picking the magic number and choosing the right one. The exact match in the H1 and the only add one exact keyword title, I would have to look at that title again. I thought it had the exact match.
Remote-control car for kids
Best remote-control cars
That's the term that I searched in here. I choose cars and I searched car so that's my bad. That's why those are not kicking in. The meta description has kicked off as ~.
Let's see how ~ Surfer. It's not too bad. Again, it's at #30. You can probably go in here and do all this stuff. I would actually add the words. I'm going to add... This stuff is all correct. I just messed up my fat finger the thing. I would add that meta description and then you can go through and probably think about looking at the entity if you want to using the content editor. I have not had an opportunity to use it yet.
Looking at the response codes you guys know I like looking at this and just flipping this around and see what's going on. Some of my... The Amazon links are broken and that could be... There's a conversion thing and it might be losing some money on that. It has much pages that need to be fixed.
You see, there's a lot of 302s. So, I would look at these and make sure that they're working all right. The 302s is not necessarily broken. I misstated that. It could be – it's just the way that you click on the button and 302 to somewhere else which I think is how that's handled properly anyway. I would look at those and then there was no 500s or anything like that. So, that's really good.
Then, you look at the page titles and stuff that's alright and then the meta descriptions you'd see is the standard practice for this website is keeping a blank. I think I'm missing an opportunity there especially if they're not going to work on ranking on those car names, the product names themselves which is silly because it's an easy win for me to rank for those product names especially in an e-commerce/affiliate thing. Rank for the product names. You're not going to get a lot of search traffic, etc. but it builds the trust up of the rest of the sites at the same time.
Then, we look at the canonicals and those all seem to be sets properly. You just do a quick scan to make sure that they're set to the right pages. Quick scan says I don't see too much of an issue there so that's good. Then, this is one of the rare sites for SiteBulb that actually came up with SEO score that is actually really good. So, I think it's all content and how are you going to fix your content and get that page up from 30 to the top 3.
Alright. That is it for this site audit. Are there any questions about the site audit. I don't think there are. You guys have any other random questions you want to ask? Got me 10 more minutes.
I wanted to look at different types of sites. So, affiliate, e-commerce, local. I don't want to get bored. I don't know about you guys but I get bored with looking at local all the time. So, it would be cool to be able to look at some adult sites but be careful with those graphic images may not apply. But if you guys get the chance to look at some of the adult market too and look at how they're doing, their linking and look how they're doing their page building and how they've embraced progressive web apps and directories.
Directories are the new big deal over an adult so... and that stuff all translates and carries over into your model. Gambling. That'd be a good one, Dori. That's another good market to look at. When you see this and you look at reviews that ranking pages you look to yourself. Everything that the safe SEO crowd has told you not to do these and you look at those and say, "Why is it working?". Because it does.
There's a scale and I think there's a tipping points and etc. Lots of money in those markets and a lot of knowledge to be gained. We're going to look at those and we're going to look at maybe even some payday stuff. We'll get some your-money-your-life to just keep it different and mix it up so you guys aren't always looking at the same plumbers and roofers and lawyers and all the other madness.
No more questions. So, thank you all for coming to SIA Weekly Webinar, 24 January. As always, we'll see you in the Slack group and thank you for coming.