Questions about ‘6 Best No Monthly Fee Dog Trackers In 2023’

'6 Best No Monthly Fee Dog Trackers In 2023' is the highest ranking article after a Google search for related keywords ‘best dog tracker with no monthly fee’.

However, we still have a lot of questions about the content that got such a high Google search priority, and we even think it's an irresponsible nonsense article that only got such a high search ranking may due to the high weight backlinks from tractive.

 In response to these questions, we tried to leave the comment and send email to the author, both without getting any response. We are also seeing other people on the author's social media trying to reach out with no feedback. So we can only elaborate these queries here and welcome the author to communicate and discuss with us; we hope the author will see it and revise it ASAP.

Firstly, the title of the article was changed from 2022 to 2023, and the page is showing that the update was made in May. Therefore, we are not discussing an outdated post or content.

The author gets right to the point and mentions that the most recommended product is the Fi.

In the follow-up, the author reviews the Garmin a200i, Marco Polo, Petfon, Garmin Astro 430, Lynq and the big-name Apple AirTags.

In the conclusion section, the author clearly expresses that the Fi he recommends actually requires a subscription at the moment; furthermore, the author believes that if you are against the subscription fee, then the Lynq is recommended for purchase.

Question 1: Within an article that introduces 6 Best No Monthly Fee Dog Trackers In 2023, why is a tracker that requires a monthly subscription being recommended?

Does the author know that the fundamental reason for choosing a tracker without a monthly fee is the need to address the need for reliable tracking when there is no cellular signal in rural or suburban areas; and the reduced cost of use is just a side benefit.

From Fi's official website: Fi is the first tracking collar to use the LTE-M low-power, long-distance cellular network.

Also, from the purchase page, I see that a subscription fee is required.

The LTE-M technology used from Fi3 is based on the 4G cellular network; in terms of cost of use, Fi3 simply combines the monthly subscription fee of SIM with the price of its own product in a combined package. This business model can be said to be an innovation of Fi, and I think it is good as long as users recognize it.

So why do author repeatedly recommend Fi3 but fail to address the need to use trackers in rural and suburban areas where cellular signals are poor. This does not address the reader's question.

How can the author stand up to the user and give a sound recommendation if he doesn't even have a good idea of the user's original intent in purchasing a tracker that doesn't require a subscription?

Within an article that introduces 6 Best No Monthly Fee Dog Trackers In 2023, why is a tracker that requires a monthly subscription being recommended at the beginning and at the conclusion? Is this a mistake or  not professional?

Let's look specifically at the fact that the author gives a quick conclusion at the beginning of the article recommending the Fi; then recommends the Fi again when describing Marco Polo's system as a cost-effective product; and still recommends the Fi in the next section on Petfon.

Is it merely wrong or unprofessional for the author to ignore the fact that a large part of the user's need to purchase a monthly free tracker is the need to solve the problem of no signal?

Question 2: In the article and at the end the author focuses on the Lynq.  However, the author may not know that the Lynq he recommends is a product that was retired long ago and is nowhere to be purchased.

A Google search reveals the following information from Lynq's official website: https://smartcompass.co/

Using the web time machine, we can see that this product has been discontinued until at least March 2023. And the author was still recommending this product when the June content update was released.

In fact, it's not just Lynq, but the author's information on Petfon is disconcertingly unprofessional, and Petfon is basically off the market at the moment on Amazon and other outlets as well. We tried to contact Petfon's US sales company to confirm this, but have yet to hear back. And the blogger doesn't care or concern himself with the validity and accuracy of his content.

This is the content of our top-ranked blog. We can't understand what the author's motivation is, but such content does lack responsibility. It wastes every visitor's time and may even create bigger problems and risks by misleading information.

Question 3: Why is this article, which is full of holes in the content, the best-ranked article in Google search?

I can't answer this question with as much evidence as the previous answer, as I and my team are more product-level developers, and we're not experts in SEO and Google rankings. Therefore, the answer to question 3 can only be some inferences and guesses on my part.

What is known is that tractive is an absolutely strong presence in the SIM-based (or 4G/LTE/monthlyfee based) pet tracker segment. High enough market share, strong marketing investment, etc. And, since Tractive's website is one that users need to log into frequently, the interaction and activity performance is outstanding. Therefore, in Google's result, Tractive's website weight is very high.

And it is intriguing that such a dominant site would have a link to a key piece of technobark's article. (For those who are not familiar with Google traffic and search engine optimization may not be anything special; but a very high weight site link, for Technobark, is absolutely very important, very valuable).Tractive is not always put on the other site's link, Technobark counts for a very small number and extremely lucky.

However, it may be understandable why such a flawed article is given very high weight and ranking by Google search; perhaps on second thought, it may be why the author, in an article about trackers that do not require monthly fees and subscription fees, is recommending a tracker product that does require a monthly fee from start to finish (albeit Fi, bearing in mind that Fi may be weaker than Tractive in terms of market share, overall price/performance ratio for the tariffs, and technology differentiation may be weaker than Tractive) ......