SEO
What Is Latent Semantic Indexing and Why It Doesn’t Matter for SEO via @martinibuster
Many claims are made for Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) and “LSI Keywords” for SEO.
Some even say that Google relies on “LSI keywords” for understanding webpages.
This has been discussed for nearly twenty years and the evidence-based facts have been there the entire time.
This Is Latent Semantic Indexing
Latent semantic indexing (also referred to as Latent Semantic Analysis) is a method of analyzing a set of documents in order to discover statistical co-occurrences of words that appear together which then give insights into the topics of those words and documents.
Two of the problems (among several) that LSI sets out to solve are the issues of synonymy and polysemy.
Synonymy is a reference to how many words can describe the same thing.
A person searching for “flapjack recipes” is equal to a search for “pancake recipes” (outside of the UK) because flapjacks and pancakes are synonymous.
Advertisement
Continue Reading Below
Polysemy refers to words and phrases that have more than one meaning. The word jaguar can mean an animal, automobile, or an American football team.
LSI is able to statistically predict which meaning of a word represents by statistically analyzing the words that co-occur with it in a document.
If the word “jaguar” is accompanied in a document by the word “Jacksonville,” it is statistically probable that the word “jaguar” is a reference to an American football team.
By understanding how words occur together, a computer is better able to answer a query by correctly associating the right keywords to the search query.
The patent for LSI was filed on September 15, 1988. It’s an old technology that came years before the internet as we know it existed.
LSI is not new nor is it cutting edge.
It is important to understand that in 1988, LSI was advancing the state of the art of simple text matching.
LSI preceded the internet and was created during a time when Apple computers looked like this:
LSI was created when a popular business computer (IBM AS/400) looked like this:
LSI is a technology that goes way back.
Advertisement
Continue Reading Below
Just like computers from 1988, the state of the art in Information Retrieval has come a long way over the past 30+ years.
LSI is Not Practical for the Web
A major shortcoming of using Latent Semantic Indexing for the entire web is that the calculations done to create the statistical analysis have to be recalculated every time a new webpage is published and indexed.
This shortcoming is mentioned in a 2003 (non-Google) research paper about using LSI for detecting email spam (Using Latent Semantic Indexing to Filter Spam PDF).
The research paper notes:
“One issue with LSI is that it does not support the ad-hoc addition of new documents once the semantic set has been generated. Any update to any cell value will change the coefficient in every other word vector, as SVD uses all linear relations in its assigned dimensionality to induce vectors that will predict every text samples in which the word occurs…”
I asked Bill Slawski about the unsuitability of LSI for search engine information retrieval and he agreed, saying:
“LSI is an older indexing approach developed for smaller static databases. There are similarities with newer technologies such as the use of word vectors or word2Vec.
One of the limitations of LSI is that if new content is added to a corpus that indexing for the entire corpus is required, which makes it of limited usefulness for a quickly changing corpus such as the Web.”
Is There a Google LSI Keywords Research Paper?
Some in the search community believe Google uses “LSI Keywords” in their search algorithm as if LSI is still a cutting-edge technology.
To prove it, some refer to a 2016 research paper called, Improving Semantic Topic Clustering for Search Queries with Word Co-occurrence and Bigraph Co-clustering (PDF).
That research paper is absolutely not an example of Latent Semantic Indexing. It’s a completely different technology.
In fact, that research paper is so not about LSI (a.k.a. Latent Semantic Analysis) that it cites a 1999 LSI research paper ([5] T. Hofmann. Probabilistic latent semantic indexing. …1999) as part of an explanation of why LSI is not useful for the problem the authors are trying to solve.
Advertisement
Continue Reading Below
Here’s what it says:
“Latent dirichlet allocation (LDA) and probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA) are widely used techniques to unveil latent themes in text data. …These models learn the hidden topics by implicitly taking advantage of document level word co-occurrence patterns.
Short texts however – such as search queries, tweets or instant messages – suffer from data sparsity, which causes problems for traditional topic modeling techniques.”
It’s a mistake to use the above research paper as proof that Google uses LSI as an important ranking factor. The paper is not about LSI and it’s not even about analyzing webpages.
It’s an interesting research paper from 2016 about data mining short search queries in order to understand what they mean.
That research paper aside, we know that Google uses BERT and neural matching technologies to understand search queries in the real world.
Long story short: the use of that research paper to make a definitive statement about Google’s ranking algorithm is sketchy all around.
Advertisement
Continue Reading Below
Does Google Use LSI Keywords?
In search marketing, there are two kinds of trustworthy and authoritative data:
- Factual ideas that are based on public documents like research papers and patents.
- SEO ideas that are based on what Googlers have revealed.
Everything else is mere opinion.
It’s important to know the difference.
Google’s John Mueller has been straightforward about debunking the concept of LSI Keywords.
There’s no such thing as LSI keywords — anyone who’s telling you otherwise is mistaken, sorry.
— 🍌 John 🍌 (@JohnMu) July 30, 2019
Noted search patent expert Bill Slawski has also been outspoken about the notion of Latent Semantic Indexing and SEO.
Bill’s statements on LSI are based on a deep knowledge of Google’s algorithms, which he has shared in fact-based articles (like here and here).
Advertisement
Continue Reading Below
Bill Slawski Tweets His Informed Opinion on Latent Semantic Indexing
Latent Semantic Indexing has nothing to do with SEO:https://t.co/X6KcEt9vSm
1/3
— Bill Slawski ⚓ (@bill_slawski) August 18, 2020
Those terms have their own technology and processes behind how they are determined, and do not use LSI. There is nothing “latent” about them. 3/3
— Bill Slawski ⚓ (@bill_slawski) August 18, 2020
Why Google Is Associated with Latent Semantic Analysis
Despite there not being any proof in terms of patents and research papers that LSI/LSA are important ranking-related factors, Google is still associated with Latent Semantic Indexing.
One reason for this is Google’s 2003 acquisition of a company called Applied Semantics.
Applied Semantics had created a technology called Circa. Circa was a semantic analysis algorithm that was used in AdSense and also in Google AdWords.
Advertisement
Continue Reading Below
According to Google’s press release:
“Applied Semantics is a proven innovator in semantic text processing and online advertising,” said Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder and president of Technology. “This acquisition will enable Google to create new technologies that make online advertising more useful to users, publishers, and advertisers alike.
Applied Semantics’ products are based on its patented CIRCA technology, which understands, organizes, and extracts knowledge from websites and information repositories in a way that mimics human thought and enables more effective information retrieval. A key application of the CIRCA technology is Applied Semantics’ AdSense product that enables web publishers to understand the key themes on web pages to deliver highly relevant and targeted advertisements.”
Semantic Analysis & SEO
The phrase “Semantic Analysis” was a hot buzzword in the early 2000s, perhaps partially driven by Ask Jeeves’ semantic search technology.
Google’s purchase of Applied Semantics accelerated the trend of associating Google with Latent Semantic Indexing, despite there being no credible evidence.
Advertisement
Continue Reading Below
Thus, by 2005 the search marketing community was making unsubstantiated statements such as this:
“For several months I’ve noticed changes in website rankings on Google and it was clear something had changed in their algorithm.
One of the most important changes is the likelihood that Google is now giving more weight to Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI).
This should come as no surprise considering Google purchased Applied Semantics in April 2003 and has reportedly been serving up their AdSense ads using latent semantic indexing.”
The SEO myth that Google uses LSI Keywords quite possibly originated from the popularity of phrases like “Semantic Analysis,” “Semantic Indexing” and “Semantic Search” having become SEO buzzwords, given life by Ask Jeeves’ semantic search technology and Google’s purchase of semantic analysis company Applied Semantics.
The Facts About Latent Semantic Indexing
LSI is a very old method of understanding what a document is about.
It was patented in 1988, well before the internet as we know it existed.
Advertisement
Continue Reading Below
The nature of LSI makes it unsuitable for applying across the entire internet for purposes of information retrieval.
There are no research papers that explicitly show that latent semantic indexing is an important feature of Google search ranking.
The facts presented in this article show that this has been the case since the early 2000s.
Rumors of Google’s use of LSI and LSA surfaced in 2003 after Google acquired Applied Semantics, the company that produced the contextual advertising product AdSense.
Yet Googlers have affirmed multiple times that Google uses no such thing as LSI Keywords.
Let me say it again louder for those at the back: There is no such thing as LSI Keywords.
Considering the overwhelming amount of evidence, it is reasonable to assert that it is a fact that the concept of LSI Keywords is false.
The facts also indicate that LSI is not an important part of Google’s ranking algorithms.
Regarded in the light of recent advancements in AI, natural language processing, and BERT, the idea that Google would prominently use LSI as a ranking feature is literally beyond belief and ridiculous.
Advertisement
Continue Reading Below
More Resources:
Featured image by the author
SEO
How To Drive Pipeline With A Silo-Free Strategy
When it comes to B2B strategy, a holistic approach is the only approach.
Revenue organizations usually operate with siloed teams, and often expect a one-size-fits-all solution (usually buying clicks with paid media).
However, without cohesive brand, infrastructure, and pipeline generation efforts, they’re pretty much doomed to fail.
It’s just like rowing crew, where each member of the team must synchronize their movements to propel the boat forward – successful B2B marketing requires an integrated strategy.
So if you’re ready to ditch your disjointed marketing efforts and try a holistic approach, we’ve got you covered.
Join us on May 15, for an insightful live session with Digital Reach Agency on how to craft a compelling brand and PMF.
We’ll walk through the critical infrastructure you need, and the reliances and dependences of the core digital marketing disciplines.
Key takeaways from this webinar:
- Thinking Beyond Traditional Silos: Learn why traditional marketing silos are no longer viable and how they spell doom for modern revenue organizations.
- How To Identify and Fix Silos: Discover actionable strategies for pinpointing and sealing the gaps in your marketing silos.
- The Power of Integration: Uncover the secrets to successfully integrating brand strategy, digital infrastructure, and pipeline generation efforts.
Ben Childs, President and Founder of Digital Reach Agency, and Jordan Gibson, Head of Growth at Digital Reach Agency, will show you how to seamlessly integrate various elements of your marketing strategy for optimal results.
Don’t make the common mistake of using traditional marketing silos – sign up now and learn what it takes to transform your B2B go-to-market.
You’ll also get the opportunity to ask Ben and Jordan your most pressing questions, following the presentation.
And if you can’t make it to the live event, register anyway and we’ll send you a recording shortly after the webinar.
SEO
Why Big Companies Make Bad Content
It’s like death and taxes: inevitable. The bigger a company gets, the worse its content marketing becomes.
HubSpot teaching you how to type the shrug emoji or buy bitcoin stock. Salesforce sharing inspiring business quotes. GoDaddy helping you use Bing AI, or Zendesk sharing catchy sales slogans.
Judged by content marketing best practice, these articles are bad.
They won’t resonate with decision-makers. Nobody will buy a HubSpot license after Googling “how to buy bitcoin stock.” It’s the very definition of vanity traffic: tons of visits with no obvious impact on the business.
So why does this happen?
There’s an obvious (but flawed) answer to this question: big companies are inefficient.
As companies grow, they become more complicated, and writing good, relevant content becomes harder. I’ve experienced this firsthand:
- extra rounds of legal review and stakeholder approval creeping into processes.
- content watered down to serve an ever-more generic “brand voice”.
- growing misalignment between search and content teams.
- a lack of content leadership within the company as early employees leave.
Similarly, funded companies have to grow, even when they’re already huge. Content has to feed the machine, continually increasing traffic… even if that traffic never contributes to the bottom line.
There’s an element of truth here, but I’ve come to think that both these arguments are naive, and certainly not the whole story.
It is wrong to assume that the same people that grew the company suddenly forgot everything they once knew about content, and wrong to assume that companies willfully target useless keywords just to game their OKRs.
Instead, let’s assume that this strategy is deliberate, and not oversight. I think bad content—and the vanity traffic it generates—is actually good for business.
There are benefits to driving tons of traffic, even if that traffic never directly converts. Or put in meme format:
Programmatic SEO is a good example. Why does Dialpad create landing pages for local phone numbers?
Why does Wise target exchange rate keywords?
Why do we have a list of most popular websites pages?
As this Twitter user points out, these articles will never convert…
…but they don’t need to.
Every published URL and targeted keyword is a new doorway from the backwaters of the internet into your website. It’s a chance to acquire backlinks that wouldn’t otherwise exist, and an opportunity to get your brand in front of thousands of new, otherwise unfamiliar people.
These benefits might not directly translate into revenue, but over time, in aggregate, they can have a huge indirect impact on revenue. They can:
- Strengthen domain authority and the search performance of every other page on the website.
- Boost brand awareness, and encourage serendipitous interactions that land your brand in front of the right person at the right time.
- Deny your competitors traffic and dilute their share of voice.
These small benefits become more worthwhile when multiplied across many hundreds or thousands of pages. If you can minimize the cost of the content, there is relatively little downside.
What about topical authority?
“But what about topical authority?!” I hear you cry. “If you stray too far from your area of expertise, won’t rankings suffer for it?”
I reply simply with this screenshot of Forbes’ “health” subfolder, generating almost 4 million estimated monthly organic pageviews:
And big companies can minimize cost. For large, established brands, the marginal cost of content creation is relatively low.
Many companies scale their output through networks of freelancer writers, avoiding the cost of fully loaded employees. They have established, efficient processes for research, briefing, editorial review, publication and maintenance. The cost of an additional “unit” of content—or ten, or a hundred—is not that great, especially relative to other marketing channels.
There is also relatively little opportunity cost to consider: the fact that energy spent on “vanity” traffic could be better spent elsewhere, on more business-relevant topics.
In reality, many of the companies engaging in this strategy have already plucked the low-hanging fruit and written almost every product-relevant topic. There are a finite number of high traffic, high relevance topics; blog consistently for a decade and you too will reach these limits.
On top of that, the HubSpots and Salesforces of the world have very established, very efficient sales processes. Content gating, lead capture and scoring, and retargeting allow them to put very small conversion rates to relatively good use.
Even HubSpot’s article on Bitcoin stock has its own relevant call-to-action—and for HubSpot, building a database of aspiring investors is more valuable than it sounds, because…
The bigger a company grows, the bigger its audience needs to be to continue sustaining that growth rate.
Companies generally expand their total addressable market (TAM) as they grow, like HubSpot broadening from marketing to sales and customer success, launching new product lines for new—much bigger—audiences. This means the target audience for their content marketing grows alongside.
As Peep Laja put its:
But for the biggest companies, this principle is taken to an extreme. When a company gears up to IPO, its target audience expands to… pretty much everyone.
This was something Janessa Lantz (ex-HubSpot and dbt Labs) helped me understand: the target audience for a post-IPO company is not just end users, but institutional investors, market analysts, journalists, even regular Jane investors.
These are people who can influence the company’s worth in ways beyond simply buying a subscription: they can invest or encourage others to invest and dramatically influence the share price. These people are influenced by billboards, OOH advertising and, you guessed it, seemingly “bad” content showing up whenever they Google something.
You can think of this as a second, additional marketing funnel for post-IPO companies:
These visitors might not purchase a software subscription when they see your article in the SERP, but they will notice your brand, and maybe listen more attentively the next time your stock ticker appears on the news.
They won’t become power users, but they might download your eBook and add an extra unit to the email subscribers reported in your S1.
They might not contribute revenue now, but they will in the future: in the form of stock appreciation, or becoming the target audience for a future product line.
Vanity traffic does create value, but in a form most content marketers are not used to measuring.
If any of these benefits apply, then it makes sense to acquire them for your company—but also to deny them to your competitors.
SEO is an arms race: there are a finite number of keywords and topics, and leaving a rival to claim hundreds, even thousands of SERPs uncontested could very quickly create a headache for your company.
SEO can quickly create a moat of backlinks and brand awareness that can be virtually impossible to challenge; left unchecked, the gap between your company and your rival can accelerate at an accelerating pace.
Pumping out “bad” content and chasing vanity traffic is a chance to deny your rivals unchallenged share of voice, and make sure your brand always has a seat at the table.
Final thoughts
These types of articles are miscategorized—instead of thinking of them as bad content, it’s better to think of them as cheap digital billboards with surprisingly great attribution.
Big companies chasing “vanity traffic” isn’t an accident or oversight—there are good reasons to invest energy into content that will never convert. There is benefit, just not in the format most content marketers are used to.
This is not an argument to suggest that every company should invest in hyper-broad, high-traffic keywords. But if you’ve been blogging for a decade, or you’re gearing up for an IPO, then “bad content” and the vanity traffic it creates might not be so bad.
SEO
Is It Alternatives You’re Looking For?
Whatever the reason, in this article, I’ll share some alternatives to HARO and a few extra ways to get expert quotes and backlinks for your website.
Disclaimer: I am not a PR expert. I did a bit of outreach a few years ago, but I have only been an occasional user of HARO in the past year or so.
So, rather than providing my opinion on the best alternatives to HARO, I thought it would be fun to ask users of the “new HARO” what they thought were the best alternatives.
I wanted to give the “new HARO”—Connectively—the benefit of the doubt.
Still, a few minutes after my pitch was accepted, I got two responses that appeared to be AI-generated from two “visionary directors,” both with “extensive experience.”
My experience of Connectively so far mirrored Josh’s experience of old HARO: The responses were most likely automated.
Although I was off to a bad start, looking through most of the responses afterward, these two were the only blatant automated pitches I could spot.
These responses weren’t included in my survey, and anyone who saw my pitch would have to copy and paste the survey link to complete it—increasing the chance of genuine human responses—hopefully.
So, without further ado, here are the results of the survey.
Sidenote.
The survey on Connectively ran for a week and received 101 votes. Respondents could vote for their top three HARO alternatives.
Price: Free.
Help a B2B Writer was the #1 alternative platform respondents recommended. In my survey it got 22% of the vote.
Help a B2B Writer is a platform run by Superpath that is similar to HARO but focused on connecting business-to-business (B2B) journalists with industry experts and sources for their stories.
Price: Free and paid plans. Paid plans start at $99 per month.
Coming in joint second place, Featured was popular, scoring 18% of the vote.
Featured connects journalists with experts and thought leaders. It allows experts to create profiles showcasing their expertise and helps journalists find suitable sources for their stories.
Price: Free and paid plans. Paid plans start at $99 per month.
Qwoted is another platform that I’ve heard talked about a lot. It came in joint second place, scoring 18% of the vote.
Qwoted matches journalists with expert sources, allowing them to collaborate on creating high-quality content. It streamlines the process of finding and connecting with relevant sources.
Price: Free for ten pitches per month
Despite being the “new HARO,” Connectively came 4th on my list, scoring 12% of the vote—surprisingly, it wasn’t even the top choice for most users on its own platform.
Connectively connects journalists with sources and experts. It helps journalists find relevant sources for their stories and allows experts to gain media exposure.
Price: Free and paid plans. Paid plans start at $5.95 per month.
SourceBottle is an online platform that connects journalists, bloggers, and media professionals with expert sources. It allows experts to pitch their ideas and insights to journalists looking for story sources. It scored 9% of the vote in my survey.
Price: Free.
JournoRequest is an X account that shares journalist requests for sources. UK-based journalists and experts often use it, but it can sometimes have international reach. It scored 7% of the vote in my survey.
Price: Paid. Plans start at $1,150 per year.
ProfNet connects journalists to expert sources. It helps journalists find knowledgeable sources for their articles, interviews, and other media content. It helps subject matter experts gain media exposure and share their expertise. It scored 5% of the vote in my survey.
Price: 7-day free trial and paid plans. Paid plans start at $147 per month.
JustReachOut is a PR and influencer outreach platform that helps businesses find and connect with relevant journalists and influencers. It provides tools for personalized outreach and relationship management. It scored 3% of the vote in my survey.
Price: 14-day free trial and paid plans. Paid plans start at $50 per month.
OnePitch is a platform that simplifies the process of pitching story ideas to journalists. Businesses and PR professionals can create and send targeted pitches to relevant media outlets. It scored 3% of the vote in my survey.
Price: Free.
PitchRate is a free PR tool that connects journalists and highly rated experts. Useful for subject matter experts looking for free PR leads, media coverage, or publicity. Or journalists looking for credible sources. It scored 1% of the vote in my survey.
Price: Free and paid plans. Paid plans start at ~$105 per month.
A UK service that connects media professionals with expert sources, press releases, and PR contacts. It scored 1% of the vote in my survey.
Price: Invitation-only platform.
Forbes Councils is an invitation-only community for executives and entrepreneurs. Members can contribute expert insights and thought leadership content to Forbes.com and gain media exposure. It scored 1% of the vote in my survey.
Price: Free.
Yes, you read that right.
HERO was created by Peter Shankman, the original creator of HARO, who said the platform will always be free. It scored 1% of the vote in my survey.
Peter set up the platform after receiving over 2,000 emails asking him to build a new version of HARO.
Price: Paid. Sign up for details.
Meltwater received no votes in my survey, but I included it because I’d seen it shared on social media as a paid alternative to HARO.
It’s a media intelligence and social media monitoring platform. It provides tools for tracking media coverage, analyzing sentiment, and identifying influencers and journalists for outreach.
Price: Free.
Expertise Finder also received no votes in my survey, but it was included as I saw it had been recommended as an HARO alternative on LinkedIn. It’s a platform that helps journalists find and connect with expert sources from universities.
HARO had a dual purpose for SEOs: it was a place to acquire links, but it also was a place to get expert quotes on topics for your next article.
Here are a few more free methods outside the platforms we’ve covered that can help you get expert quotes and links.
We’ve already seen that JournoRequest is a popular X account that shares journalist requests for sources.
But you can also follow hashtags on X to access even more opportunities.
Here are my favorite hashtags to follow:
I used to track the #journorequest hashtag to find opportunities for my clients when I worked agency-side, so I know it can work well for quotes and link acquisition.
Here are two opportunities I found just checking the #journorequest hashtag:
Here’s another example from the Telegraph—a DR 92 website:
Certain types of content are more likely to be shared by journalists and PRs than others.
One of these types of content is statistics-based content. The reason? Journalists often use statistics to support their points.
Once they have included your statistic in their post, they often add a backlink back to your post.
We tested this with our SEO statistics post, and as you can see, it still ranks number one in Google.
Another method is to use the Linking authors report in Ahrefs’ Site Explorer. This report shows the authors’ names who link to any website you enter.
You can see which authors link to their site by entering your competitor’s domain. Some of these authors may represent outreach opportunities for your website as well.
- Head to Site Explorer, click on Linking authors
- Type in your competitor’s URL
- Contact any authors that you think may be interested in your website and its content
Tip
If you download your website’s linking authors and your competitors into a spreadsheet and put them into separate tabs, you can compare the lists to see which authors are only linking to your competitor’s website.
When I was about to wrap up this article, I was contacted by Greg Heilers of Jolly SEO on LinkedIn.
He said he’d sent 200,000+ pitches over the years and wanted to share the results with me.
These are his top three platforms over the last 1,000 pitches he sent. Interestingly, we can see that it’s similar to my much smaller-scale survey.
Hopefully, the data here speaks for itself. The high-quality links and traffic from HARO alternatives is considerable.
This research shows that Featured gained the most link placements in this campaign.
We have compiled some helpful content related to link building that you can get your teeth into. These hand-picked guides will take you from beginner to expert in no time.
Here are my favorite resources on this topic:
Final thoughts
There are many options for sourcing expert quotes and getting links for your next marketing campaigns. HARO may be dead, but its legacy lives on.
My highly unscientific survey suggests that most “new HARO” users liked Help a B2B Writer the most, but for HARO purists, there really is only one choice—HERO.
Give your favorites from this list a whirl, and let me know if you have any success. Got more questions? Ping me on X. 🙂
Effective Communication in Business as a Crisis Management Strategy
brightonSEO Live Blog
Google March 2024 Core Update Officially Completed A Week Ago
Daily Search Forum Recap: April 25, 2024
9 Best WooCommerce Multi Vendor Plugins (Compared)
Navigating the Video Marketing Maze: Short-Form vs. Long-Form
Your New Favorite Way to Develop WordPress Locally – WordPress.com News
The Current State of Google’s Search Generative Experience [What It Means for SEO in 2024]
Google March 2024 Core Update Finished April 19, 2024
Google Declares It The “Gemini Era” As Revenue Grows 15%
-
MARKETING7 days agoEffective Communication in Business as a Crisis Management Strategy
-
SEO7 days agobrightonSEO Live Blog
-
SEO5 days agoGoogle March 2024 Core Update Officially Completed A Week Ago
-
SEARCHENGINES6 days ago
Daily Search Forum Recap: April 25, 2024
-
WORDPRESS5 days ago9 Best WooCommerce Multi Vendor Plugins (Compared)
-
MARKETING4 days agoNavigating the Video Marketing Maze: Short-Form vs. Long-Form
-
WORDPRESS7 days agoYour New Favorite Way to Develop WordPress Locally – WordPress.com News
-
MARKETING5 days agoThe Current State of Google’s Search Generative Experience [What It Means for SEO in 2024]
