Disclaimer: I think ViperChill has an amazing writing talent and some of his posts are magnificent but some of his examples are more or less faked.
Update: ViperChill is now in the comments with his version.
Although I’m a marketing noob, I’m not a SEO noob and I think I have more than average knowledge in this matter. Thus I really get pissed off when someone tries to preach how 3 months old site can receive 1,000,000 unique visits from Google in a month being only white hat (I guess about the last but with 98% probability). I’m watching ViperChill from some time as I really suspect he is just another “get rich by teaching others how to get rich” person.
The basic plot: he claims that in Feb 2010 he hit nearly 1,000,000 unique visits from Google to one of his sites, which was only 3 months old by that time. He even points some of the main keywords that brought that traffic:
- Vancouver 2010: 41,270
- Super bowl 2010: 32,836
- Olympics 2010: 6,216
- Valentines day ideas: 5,688
Problem is that I’m trying to prove only that getting 1,000,000 organic visits with a 3 month brand new site is impossible. Obviously it's possible but not for that young site.
Later he describes his technique (nothing new though, in fact really exploited topic from at least 4-5 years), mentioning that he achieved #1 ranking in Google with one of his sites for $10 paid for directory links. Now this one is possible. Considering the term is some long tail with minor traffic, yes why not although few hundred a day really seem quite impossible for a 5 page site promoted with directory links. For the time being I say this is "plausible".
However, the whole post is written in a way that suggests that following those advice anyone can get 1,000,000 organic visits with a brand new 3 months old website. Now this is a shameless lie. ViperChill is either not telling the whole picture or he is just a fantast. However when looking into the comments below the post I see that he got what he aimed for - people praise him and want to be like him. There's no easy money on the Internet, remember!
Let’s accept that he really got that number of visits and did not fake the Analytics screenshot. In order to achieve any ranking on the cited keywords the site has to be 3 months old but for him only - meaning that he bought an established site, at least few years old with massive amount of content and trust. Judging from the different topics it is probably a content mill that covers immense amounts of topics.
As I really don’t want to talk without proof, I followed his advices and decided to take a quick look at the competition for 3 terms. Remember I’m trying to prove only that getting 1,000,000 organic visits with a 3 month brand new site is impossible. The tools I use in my research are OpenSiteExplorer and SEO Quake. The keywords he cited at the beginning are pretty major ones so I decided my first search term to be London 2012 – this matches all his requirements. You can see the screenshot of the result page below:
Just a fast look is enough to see that there’s no space for amateurs in this topic. Official event pages, Wikipedia, youtube channel, newspapers and some Google News take the majority of the spots. The only result that looked suspicious is spot #11:
Domain authority: 62/100, Linking domains: 53, Yahoo backlinks: 305, Directory backlinks: Yahoo, Domain age: 7 years
Damn, this is nowhere close to a 3 month old site. I was thinking of checking few more results but that would be a waste of time – all are well established and trusted domains. The Google News case is highly unlikely also because there the “query deserve freshness” also comes into play and content changes frequently enough. However I decided to check the Google News domains and you can see the results here.
Ok, as its obvious that ranking with a 3 month old website is impossible for such a major term, I decided to test with 2 more events – chose them on random, looking for something less popular to the general public but still not a family gathering so it has some traffic after all. Thus I ended with roger waters the wall 2011 and Stockholm Beer and Whisky Festival 2010. I don’t want to go into details (you can find them here) but the youngest ranking site was 7 years old, the one with less domain trust 51/100, the one with less linking domains – 9, the one with less Yahoo backlinks – 283.
Damn again! This is not even close to 3 months old site and we tested for a local beer fest in Stockholm while he claims ranking and traffic for Vancouver 2010. I think anyone with a head on his shoulders can make his conclusion if Viper Chill is to be believed or not all the time. I made mine long time ago – since he claimed unbelievable results and I was able to find few of his "highly successful" affiliate sites: (what I surprise – when I tried to open Glen’s profile on ezinearticles where he wrote and linked to his affiliate sites, I get an error. The profile is deleted. Smart move, Glen. How can anyone believe you if they saw your old sites…)
Still I was able to find some of his lesser known sites following the link patterns, domain name patterns and whois info. You can also notice those sites are not than old and there was activity on them in May and June 2009 (I'm mentioning this 'cos according to his own resume at that time he had 4 years experience in the online market. Enjoy ;)
He is also somehow related to sixpackhq.com (matches all the patterns and registered in Cape Town)... short research revealed that this site is operated by his friend Dirk "Diggy" de Bruin that he mentions from time to time. You can see Diggy's twitter profile selling health products http://twitter.com/sixpackhq
Now I think I spent more than enough time on Viper Chill and his affiliate empire. My advice to you - never trust people that boast about their success proudly and claim they just want to share their knowledge for free.
What do you think, who has the right in this situation?