Dumb keyword questio

Selected answers from the Dumb SEO Questions Facebook & G+ community.

• 
  Christine Hansen: You definitely would not use irrelevant keywords, unless you want a lot of bouncers = jump in-jump out in milliseconds. You can`t use bouncers for anything other than a lot of lousy stats that tell you nothing. Will Google love you? No!
  
  
• 
  Sakib Shadman: Christine Hansen yes ofc. The other keywords aren`t irrelevant. Let me examplify:
  
  I am writing on therapies for animals in 1 roundup content.
  
  The keyword: therapy for dogs is greater in SV than the keyword: therapy for pets/animals.
  
  Hence the confusion.
  
  From my experience, categorizing one KW as primary or secondary is not necessary here as the article contains it all w no chance of canonicalization.
  
  So whatever my choice of KW is for this, it should all add to the ranking effort.
  
  Am I wrong in thinking this, Chief?
  
  
• 
  Christine Hansen: Sakib Shadman I would go with a wide variety of low-competition words, thinking it is great to be the "first mover" on most of them. Time and time again, I see big-company agencies, targeting the same keywords after a couple of weeks. Why, because it is collectively worth it. But you are already ahead of the game, snatching up all possibilities and they, ... they are late to the game. _What if_... one or two of these low keywords actually gives you conversion-ready clients - clients that might even be steady clients? Can you afford not to, is the actual question. And will Google love you? Yes!
  
  
• 
  Sakib Shadman: Omg yesss. That`s literally how I have been doing keyword research. Because my job is to rank fkr a particular type of conversion and no matter how low the SV is for that particular KW, the qualifed organic traffic can only help.
  
  Plus this will set up a stage for us to use higher KD keywords as we will have more authorative figure in the product/niche.
  
  So I will target it naturally and wherever the shoe fits and forget about the SV, right, ChristineHansen
  
  
• 
  Christine Hansen: How will you pinpoint low hanging fruit without search volume? Also check GSC for what clients actually find them on (this is the most important thing to check). 3rdly I am not a mr.
  
  
• 
  Sakib Shadman: Christine Hansen My bad. Thank you for correcting me. Will never happen again.
  
  As for the low ha gibg fruits of search net; It`s ass you said. Get a collection of low KD keywords. There are a few high SV ones as well that aligns w the intent.
  
  And I am an avid GSC tweaker. I do and will continue to track the queries and clicks and pages.
  
  As always, merci mademoiselle.
  
  
• 
  Michael Martinez: If you`re writing blog posts for keywords and not for people, you need to think about what useful purpose the blog posts actually serve. Why would people want to find them in their search results anyway?
  
  Well-written, informative, helpful, useful content often ranks for many different queries. Don`t focus on a single query`s potential traffic volume. You don`t know if or when interest in that query space will grow.
  
  
• 
  Sakib Shadman: Michael Martinez That ks for your input. Appreciate it.
  
  So we are covering some unique, research-conducted blog posts. They are getting traction.
  
  However it takes us time to produce unique quality, content.
  
  So between the wait period, we wanted to hit up all the low competition keywords.
  
  
• 
  Michael Martinez: Sakib Shadman If you`re doing a long-tail strategy, then I would not worry too much about which keywords get low volume. Build up the site`s reputation for expertise while providing useful information that people search for.
  
  One low-volume query could lead a very influential person to find the site, and if they recommend it to their readers, the query might take on a whole new life - or at least the content might.
  
  That happens more often than people realize.
  
  Try not to be too formulaic. Being useful is much more productive in the long run. If the content is needed and useful, then the query volume doesn`t matter so much.
  
  
• 
  Sakib Shadman: Omg omg yessss. I didn`t know it had a name. This is more or less exactly what I`m aiming for. Getting the whole EAT set.
  
  This makes me happy. Thank you.
  
  
• 
  Michael Martinez: Sakib Shadman The less said about EAT the better. It`s not really something you should worry about if you`re still learning the basic concepts. There`s no EAT algorithm and no EAT signal.
  
  
• 
  Sakib Shadman: Michael Martinez true but if I cover everything around that sub-topic and then some more and am linked back, that should take care of the E and A parts, w T to follow.
  
  
• 
  Michael Martinez: Sakib Shadman It doesn`t really work that way. Many expert Websites are ignored or even punished by Google`s algorithms. They aren`t very good at identifying expert, authoritative Websites.
  
  Google relies on what I call the "Wikipedia Principle" - they show results that satisfy their searchers, not necessarily the best results they could possibly find. At some point, the algorithms must compromise between what is acceptable (to a user who knows no better) and what is achievable (at a reasonable cost).
  
  
• 
  Sakib Shadman: Michael Martinez true true. Google does exist for the searchers.
  
  From your vast experience, what do you think ppl look for. Is it an A-Z guide? Or like the meta title addressing a pain point? Would appreciate your insight.
  
  
• 
  Michael Martinez: Sakib Shadman "It depends."