About our static SEO method for US niche sites
Mission and scope
Our mission is to publish clear, verifiable guidance on keyword research, content strategy, and on-page optimization for niche websites targeting United States audiences. We believe that effective search optimization does not require complex JavaScript frameworks, tracking scripts, or heavy media assets. Instead, we demonstrate that semantic HTML, thoughtful content structure, and authoritative sourcing create websites that serve both users and search engines effectively.
This project operates under deliberate technical constraints: no JavaScript execution, no external images, and strict adherence to semantic HTML5 markup. These constraints are not limitations but rather design principles that ensure our content remains accessible to all users regardless of their device capabilities, network conditions, or assistive technology requirements. By eliminating JavaScript dependencies, we create pages that load instantly, function identically across all browsers, and present no barriers to search engine crawling.
Our editorial principles prioritize accuracy over speed, citations over assertions, and accessibility over visual complexity. Every claim we make is supported by reference to authoritative sources—government agencies, academic institutions, established standards organizations, and recognized industry documentation. We do not publish speculation or unverified techniques. When best practices evolve or our understanding improves, we update our content and note the revision date.
The scope of this project focuses specifically on US niche sites: websites that target specific topics, industries, or audiences within the United States market. This geographic focus allows us to address US-specific considerations including regulatory compliance, cultural expectations, and the particular trust signals that resonate with American audiences. Resources like the U.S. Census Bureau provide demographic and geographic data that informs our understanding of US audience segments.
Editorial and quality assurance responsibilities
Maintaining content quality across a niche site requires clear role definitions and consistent processes. The following table outlines the responsibilities, quality checks, and evidence standards for each role in our editorial workflow.
Editorial and QA responsibilities
| Role |
Primary responsibility |
Quality checks |
Evidence standard |
| Research lead |
Identify topics, gather sources, create content briefs |
Source verification, keyword validation, competitor analysis |
Primary sources preferred; secondary sources from recognized authorities |
| Content writer |
Draft content following brief specifications |
Adherence to brief, keyword integration, readability |
All claims must cite brief-approved sources |
| Technical editor |
Validate HTML markup, accessibility, and SEO elements |
W3C validation, heading hierarchy, link integrity |
Automated validation plus manual review |
| Accessibility reviewer |
Test with assistive technologies, verify WCAG compliance |
Screen reader testing, keyboard navigation, color contrast |
WCAG 2.1 AA as minimum standard |
| Fact checker |
Verify claims against cited sources |
Source accuracy, quote verification, data currency |
Direct verification from primary source documents |
| Publishing coordinator |
Final review, deployment, post-publish validation |
Cross-browser testing, canonical verification, sitemap update |
Documented deployment checklist completion |
This structured approach ensures that every piece of content passes through multiple quality gates before publication. The separation of responsibilities prevents individual blind spots from affecting published content and creates accountability at each stage of the workflow.
For detailed guidance on implementing these principles in your own content workflow, visit our homepage for the complete keyword research methodology, or consult the FAQ for answers to specific implementation questions.
Transparency: sources, updates, and limitations
Transparency in sourcing and methodology builds trust with readers and establishes credibility with search engines. This section explains how we select sources, integrate authority links, document updates, and acknowledge the limitations of our no-JavaScript approach.
How sources are chosen
We prioritize primary sources whenever possible: original research, official documentation, government publications, and standards specifications. When primary sources are unavailable or insufficiently accessible, we turn to reputable secondary sources including established news organizations with editorial standards, academic publications, and recognized industry authorities. The NIH News in Health resource provides an excellent model for evaluating health information quality that we apply across all topic areas.
Sources must meet several criteria for inclusion: identifiable authorship or institutional responsibility, clear publication or update dates, absence of obvious commercial bias, and relevance to US audiences. We avoid sources that lack editorial oversight, contain primarily user-generated content without verification, or exist primarily to sell products or services.
How authority links are used
Authority links appear as contextual citations within our content rather than as isolated link lists. When we make a claim that benefits from external verification, we link directly to the supporting source using descriptive anchor text. This approach serves readers who want to verify our claims or explore topics in greater depth while providing search engines with clear signals about our content's relationship to authoritative resources.
We do not engage in link schemes, reciprocal linking arrangements, or paid link placements. Our outbound links represent genuine editorial citations chosen solely for their value to readers. The concept of editorial independence guides our linking decisions—commercial relationships never influence which sources we cite or recommend.
How updates are logged
Content accuracy requires ongoing maintenance. When we update published content, we note the revision in the page footer or a dedicated aside element, including the date and a brief description of what changed. Significant updates—those that change recommendations, correct errors, or reflect major developments—receive prominent notation. Minor updates such as typo corrections or link repairs may be logged without prominent display.
We review all published content on a regular schedule, with frequency determined by topic volatility. Evergreen content receives annual review, while content addressing rapidly evolving topics receives quarterly attention. This update cadence ensures that our guidance remains current without creating unnecessary churn.
Limitations of the no-JavaScript approach
Our commitment to JavaScript-free publishing creates certain limitations that we acknowledge openly. Client-side analytics are not possible without JavaScript, so we rely on server-side log analysis for traffic insights. Interactive features like real-time search, dynamic filtering, or personalization cannot be implemented. Forms require server-side processing rather than client-side validation.
These limitations are acceptable tradeoffs for the benefits we prioritize: universal accessibility, instant loading, complete search engine crawlability, and independence from JavaScript framework vulnerabilities or deprecation. For sites where these tradeoffs are not acceptable, our methodology can be adapted to include progressive enhancement with JavaScript while maintaining the semantic HTML foundation.
Source quality rubric
| Source type |
When we use it |
Strength |
Caution |
| Government (.gov) |
Official data, regulations, compliance guidance |
Authoritative, regularly updated, legally binding |
May lag behind emerging practices |
| Academic (.edu) |
Research findings, theoretical frameworks |
Peer-reviewed, methodologically rigorous |
May not address practical implementation |
| Standards organizations |
Technical specifications, best practices |
Consensus-based, widely adopted |
Can be slow to update |
| Wikipedia |
General reference, terminology, background |
Comprehensive, well-cited, frequently updated |
Quality varies by article; verify citations |
| Major news organizations |
Current events, industry developments |
Editorial oversight, fact-checking processes |
May contain errors in technical details |
| Industry documentation |
Platform-specific guidance, tool usage |
Directly applicable, current |
May reflect vendor interests |
| Non-profit organizations (.org) |
Advocacy positions, specialized expertise |
Deep domain knowledge, mission-driven |
May have advocacy bias; verify independence |
Transparency is not merely an ethical obligation—it is a competitive advantage. Sites that clearly document their sources, methods, and limitations build deeper trust with audiences who increasingly demand accountability from online information sources.