Dilemma about SEO cannibalization

Hey man, how are things? Maybe on the next update?

Had to start working again. Damn, it was great to be in "pension" for a few years I guess.

I am just investigating the current situation so this is one of the issues while I am analyzing everything

Dropped in SERPs that you need to work again?

exactly

No, it won't matter.

Just focus on creating quality content pages that will naturally attract links.

Yes. Be organic. Write for the reader, and resist keyword stuffing or over-emphasis.

G can figure out from it's own library of popular search phrases which ones may apply to your pages.

Exact match is good, but overrated.

I was doing that for years and it worked well. Still, links seem more important.

huh..who will naturally link to adult content website?

True. You can create legitimate feeder sites (your own domains), but don't hide that fact. G will consider backlink value from your own different domains, IF they have something original to stand on their own with. All my sites are openly listed as my assets in G Control Panel, and G shows them as BLs.

Not the same as getting a BL from an authoritative site, but they add up.

I always find it odd when folks say to just make a good site and don't worry about SEO. I truly wish it worked that way. It is probably better to make a good site than to do really bad SEO, but I think it is painfully accurate that SEO makes a crucial difference.

I find if you have a high-quality site, the backlinks come naturally, I always get backlinks from people mentioning my website in their articles

The requirements of a "good site" twenty years ago, versus one today, are very different.

In the old days of keyword stuffing, explicit term reinforcement, and obsessive linking topologies - which actually worked - search engines did not have the high (AI) level of content/structure analysis they do now.

A "good site" design today presumes:

• Proper use of meta tags (TITLE, H1, H2).
  
• Clear page dominant subject/context, appropriate explicit terms rippling from top tags down (but not repeated ad nauseum, neurotically ordered, nor clustered with every permutation/combination of a key phrase).
  
• Proof of interest from outside the site, authoritative value (backlinks, visitation behaviour (time spent on page, returns to page, bookmarking of page, following internal links on page, reposting/linking to page)).
  
• Technical compatibility (mobile and smaller screen friendliness).
  
• Absence of nefarious history or practices (black hat tricks, acquired domains with "ghosts in the closet", violating basic design rules). Sandboxing sucks.

All of the aforementioned, and more, constitute (necessary) "good site" design, which is also "good SEO".

In the non-adult world, getting collegial backlinks and authentic meaningful (substantive original text with reasonable linking), is much easier than in adult.

That's not to say that a porn site won't promise, or even appear, to provide a decent backlink, but trust levels in this world, on a high volume level, are disappointing. There are some really good players in this biz, but they are a rarity.

Site scrapers and brute forcers have choked out a significant portion of daily web traffic.

All that to say, rather than "SEO", "SEC" (search engine compatibility) which embodies basic SEO, is required for any page intended to be practically seen by others through various searches.