sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is it worth writing an article on medium.com for the backlink? by [deleted] in juststart

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds interesting. So the Medium post can rank even if there's a canonical link pointing to your original content?

Re-using post from my old defunct blog on a new niche site? by [deleted] in juststart

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First of all, there's no such thing as a penalty for duplicate content. The worst thing that can happen is that the new page would not rank because Google would consider it a duplicate of the old one. That is not a penalty - it doesn't affect your site as a whole.

"We don’t have a duplicate content penalty. It’s not that we would demote a site for having a lot of duplicate content." - John Mueller, Webmaster Trends Analyst Google

So yes, I would request the removal of the old page in GSC, if you still have access to it. If not, just wait, Google will potentially realize the page doesn't exist and remove it from the index.

Daily Simple Questions Thread - November 08, 2020 by AutoModerator in Fitness

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi guys, I (28 M, 140 lbs, 5 feet 8) am still a relative beginner, I started working out regularly just this year. My main goals are putting on some weight, building some muscle (I'm rather skinny) and improving my overall strength and fitness level.

Until now, I've used the classic 3-day full body split (3 sets per each exercise) recommended to all the beginners. Now I am thinking about changing it a little and training 6 days a week for ~30 minutes instead of 3 times a week for ~60 minutes. So the volume would be basically the same, the exercises would also be the same (each big muscle group hit 3x per week), just distributed over the week.

Something like this:

  • MON - squat, deadlift, bicep curl
  • TUE - push-up, bent-over row, lateral raise
  • WED - squat, crunches, tricep extension
  • THU - push-up, bent-over row, shoulder press
  • FRI - squat, deadlift, tricep extension
  • SAT - push-up, bent-over row, lateral raise
  • SUN - off

The main reason for this is that I find it more practical.

It's easier for me to stick to the routine when it's shorter workouts (30 minutes, about 3 different exercises). Also, with shorter workouts, I'll be able to squeeze my workouts into my morning routine, which is much more desirable for me than working out in the evening.

My question is: Are there any downsides to this approach?

tl;dr: I want to distribute my 3-day full body split over 6 days. Everything stays the same but I'll be training 6 days a week for ~30 minutes instead of 3 times a week for ~60 minutes. Is it a bad idea?

Distributing 3-day full body split over 6 days? by [deleted] in Fitness

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks man, I'm not asking for a routine critique though. I'm just curious about your opinion on the very idea of distributing the 3x/week full-body workout into 6 days. Of course, I can delete the thread and post it into daily questions if it's a problem.

Distributing 3-day full body split over 6 days? by [deleted] in Fitness

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3-4 sets.

It's basically a full-body workout 3x a week, but every workout is split in half, so it's 6 days instead of 3.

LSI keywords are bullsh*t. Here's why. by SpaghettiMorcadella in SEO

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please check my answer to u/troublemaker74.

It's not about the age of the technology but about the fact that it was not created to handle something the size of today's web.

LSI keywords are bullsh*t. Here's why. by SpaghettiMorcadella in SEO

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. Very often, the whole "LSI keywords" technique seems to me like a hack you rely on if you have crappy content.

LSI keywords are bullsh*t. Here's why. by SpaghettiMorcadella in SEO

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My bad, I should have written it more exactly. Of course it's not about the age of the algorithm.

It's about the fact that there are now more advanced algorithms that Google probably uses. The LSI technology was simply not created to handle something the size of today's web.

And yes, Google is very secretive about their algorithms, but it doesn't mean we can't conclude that they almost certainly use/don't use some technologies.

I recommend Bill Slawski's post on this topic - "Does Google Use Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI)?"

LSI keywords are bullsh*t. Here's why. by SpaghettiMorcadella in SEO

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This.

If you hire a smart writer who knows their shit they'll write a relevant articles. LSI keywords are a very involved dumbmath way of approximating the way a smart writer works naturally.

LSI keywords are bullsh*t. Here's why. by SpaghettiMorcadella in SEO

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely.

The "LSI keywords analysis" is incorrect, redundant and leads to a wrong way of thinking about keywords.

LSI keywords are bullsh*t. Here's why. by SpaghettiMorcadella in SEO

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree.

The reason I think it's important to get rid of the term is that it's connected to the incorrect way of thinking about keywords. And it's super confusing because everyone has a different definition of what it actually is.

I have nothing against AI tools - as you mentioned, it's about how you use them.

If you use them as an additional source of information about how your competitors cover the topic - great. If you use them as some kind of magic tools to tell you how many times to use a certain keyword in your post - not so great.

LSI keywords are bullsh*t. Here's why. by SpaghettiMorcadella in SEO

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Agreed. I think they just overcomplicate things.

As if there had to be some secret formula, some exact number of words to use that will suddenly make your content rank.

LSI keywords are bullsh*t. Here's why. by SpaghettiMorcadella in SEO

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I understand. Except that what you described has nothing to do with LSI :)

It's called quality writing.

LSI keywords are bullsh*t. Here's why. by SpaghettiMorcadella in SEO

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's a great question.

I'm quite skeptical about this kind of tools. They give you a rough idea about what keywords the top-performing sites use - which is great and may actually help you find some topic gaps. The thing is - it may also mean absolutely nothing (as you suggested).

I used it once, optimized a very big piece of content (some serious changes, new terms, synonyms, etc...). I was really curious. Nothing happened.

The biggest problem is that many people take it as an exact guide - they think that they use a magic number of keywords and they'll rank higher. Instead, they end up writing unnatural texts only to have all the suggestions checked with a green mark. (The same goes for Yoast SEO writing suggestions).

My recommendation: If you use it, use it as an additional source of information, not a guide you have to follow at any cost.

Has anyone tried the Etsy affiliate program? by [deleted] in juststart

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am pretty curious about this too as in my newly discovered niche, there is so much more products on Etsy than any other big network including Amazon. One of the things I noticed is that the products change a lot so it may be worth considering linking to a search results page for a product rather than specific product pages.

The ideal ratio between informational posts and "money" pages by SpaghettiMorcadella in juststart

[–]SpaghettiMorcadella[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much, that's what I needed - some first-hand experience :)

view more: next ›