Ep 064 – Amber is Back for FaceBag

Welcome back to Theory of Content. After our brief hiatus we have some exciting news… Amber Bracegirdle is back and joining Joshua Unseth for this week’s episode! The two have a lot to catch up on both in and outside of the SEO realm. 

Amber tells Joshua all about her pandemic experience, and her worries for the upcoming school year. She fills Joshua in on all her pandemic baking endeavours, and offers him some tips on how to make the best banana bread (basically lots of butter and bananas). The last few non-SEO topics the pair cover are their experiences of getting fire when they were younger, and they take a dive into the different architecture of their homes.

Moving onto some SEO news from the past few months, Amber shares about what new projects Mediavine has on the horizons. She explains how and why the company is moving into WordPress plug-ins and a few roadblocks they have experienced in the process. Amber then goes into detail about Trellis. Joshua mentioned it a bit in the last episode, but Amber shares what Trellis can be used for and what the benefits of utilizing it are. Lastly, before Facebag, Joshua and Amber examine which type of sites are performing particularly well during the pandemic. 

Next up is Facebag! Amber and Joshua start by answering a question about competing with a site that has lots of backlinks. Joshua suggests investigating the backlinks, because having too many backlinks is a tad suspicious and it might be worth looking into their validity. Amber follows up by telling listeners to reach out to the valid backlinks and request the site to link back to your, better content instead. The next question is about whether subheadings should include big keywords or smaller, less popular ones. Joshua points out that the more content on a site the better. With that in mind, if you are able to write a full thousand-word page about each popular keyword, then the big keywords should each be their own page and not a subsection within another post. However, if you can’t go into too much detail about a big keyword, it might be better to include it under a different post. Lastly, the pair take one last question about Google Search Console info not translating to the actual search results. Joshua explains how Search Console averages its results, and Amber offers ways to improve your rankings regardless of what Search Console is telling you. 

Thank you so much for tuning into Theory of Content this week! Stay tuned for future episodes with new co-hosts!




Hi   I’m not sure if anyone will know the answer to this but I thought it was worth asking anyway…

I’m starting a second site and my main competition will be tour agency setting themselves up to look like a blog.  They aren’t mobile first and their content is thin, but since they were the only one addressing the topic up until now, they have tens out thousands of back links. 

So, do you think I have a fighting chance?

  • Elissa Moss


Keyword question (I seem to read differing things)… If post title (H1), SEO title, and the keyword in paragraph 1 are important for ranking, then I should be going after smaller keywords, correct? My blog is mainly focused on gardening, so instead of How to Grow Dill, which would contain sub headings on “how to harvest dill,” “how to prune dill,” “how to save dill seed,” etc. , I should instead make each of these individual posts? They would be interlinked. Any thoughts on this would be welcome! (My site is https://thekitchengarten.com)

–Courtnie Perkins Johnson


Has anyone optimized their category pages before? If so, can I see what it looks like? I’m just struggling to figure out what type of content or blurb to put at the top.

Also – did it help your rankings or traffic anywhere?

Example of a non-optimized one lol:

  • Kalee Sorey Dillard (soreyfitness.com)


I have a question about rankings, as reported in Google search console. I have a post that GSC reports as being in position 6 for a particular KW but when I do a Google search for that KW, my post is on the third page. Can anyone explain that discrepancy?  Note: I’m using the same time period (eg. last 90 days.) Thanks!

  • Dan Zher

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *