Ammon
Tool estimates of traffic are just made up figures based on keywords and rankings multiplied by estimated traffic from the Pay-Per-Click (PPC) tools. They are often hilariously far off, like reporting 100 times too much traffic, or a 100 times too little.
If you want to know what traffic a site is actually getting, run an ad on the site that uses a graphic on your server that you can track impressions of. Anything else is just a fancy form of pure guess.
👍🏽14

Shubham
721 articles in 30 days? Can't assure if the site will be alive a year from now. That's pure abuse of automation. Anybody can fool the system but only once 🙂 Don't let such sites demoralize yourself.

Ammon
There's quite a lot to unravel here but I'll try to make it all as simple as possible.
First, to all the many not properly reading the OP, the use of the words "they' and 'their', plus all the things that Talha tells you he doesn't know about the site tell you this is not his site. It's a competitor site in his niche he's examined as a rising competitor. Pay more attention.
Talha, when you say it is doing it without backlinks, it isn't. Google still use PageRank, and links still mean everything. NOTHING succeeds without backlinks other than in Local Search (where PageRank isn't used). Nothing even gets indexed without backlinks. That fact tells you something a lot more interesting and useful to you than that it did something impossible.
It tells you that whatever tool is telling you it has only worthless backlinks is completely wrong. Which means the same tool will be wrong elsewhere too.
There are two main ways that backlink analysis tools get it wrong. The first is that they are not using the same database as Google. While they do all attempt to crawl and index links for themselves their list and Google's list are never likely to be identical. Because of that absolute and unavoidable fact, their scores even at the basic level are always going to be a little different to Google's.
I've talked with a lot of the guys that make various backlink analysis tools. Most of them suddenly start mumbling or get a little cagey when you ask what surfer model they use. You see, several of the tools just use the basic and original 'Random Surfer' model that Google began with way back in the 90s. That model simply treats all the links the same, splitting the weighting value evenly between them all. The trouble is that Google haven't used that model for decades.
Google use something much more akin to their patented "Reasonable Surfer" model ( https://www.seobythesea.com/2016/04/googles-reasonable-surfer-patent-updated/ ) and that model varies the weight that each link gets by where on the page it is, how prominent it is, etc. That's why rendering pages is so important to Google, as before they render the page, they cannot fully assign values to the links.
Just using a different surfer model will skew the link weightings by a few percentile at every single link in the chain of all links across the entire database of known links.
Next is the fact that nobody but Google knows which links have been disavowed and pass no value at all. Again, magnify this factor across the entire link graph and you can end up with a huge amount of error. There's absolutely no way around this.
For all of those reasons, ANY link analysis is at best a rough estimate. Based on partial data.
And all of that is just the FIRST way the tools can get it wrong.
The second is that quite a number of folks block the IPs of link crawlers that are only there to help competitors. If you can get the commonly used IP addresses, user agents, etc of bots, even ones that don't obey the robots exclusion protocols, you can stop them being able to access your pages and analyze your links.
Blocking those bots isn't common, but it is far from unknown, and like all the stuff in the first exception, it only takes a small amount of error for it to result in a huge discrepancy when it is multiplied across the entire link graph.
The fact remains that you know, absolutely and without question, that Google use PageRank in multiple ways, and one of those ways is that it contributes to Crawl Priority as an 'importance' metric for indexing content.
The fact that the site got over 700 articles indexed in a single month already tells you that Google are regarding the site as 'important' at some level, and that it therefore MUST have some valuable links. They just haven't been indexed by your tools yet. But Google have them.
Google's Reasonable Surfer Model Updated
SEOBYTHESEA.COM
Google's Reasonable Surfer Model Updated
Google's Reasonable Surfer Model Updated
💟👍🏽12

Zano
When I first started out in Search Engine Optimization (SEO), in the early 2000's way before there was YouTube videos, my ranking process was creating a site and posting 1 article per day for 2 weeks and then 1 per week after that. In service areas that were harder to rank for, 1 a day for 4 weeks and then 2 per week. Back when you could take over an entire page of Search Engine Result Pages (SERPs), this strategy/ velocity was enough to consistently get me the top 4+ spots. Back then I didn't know anything about link building so I didn't get to experience the good old days of spamming sites for easy rankings. I wrote content by hand and just stayed consistent and it never failed me. Now, I don't use this at all in my client SOP's but I'd have to think it still carries weight to some affect.
Mehran
It is clear that more pages will lead to more keywords ranking, but here I think it has invoked the content freshness factor.
I think in the coming months, the traffic will decrease up to 70% if they just posted those articles without interlinking correctly. Otherwise, it has become a new topical authority in your niche.
Please let us updated, it is very interesting.

📰👈

🔗🏹