The Story of How I Rewrote a "Nobody's Article" into "My Article" | I Realized It Had Reached #1 on Google Search

I started using note in earnest in May.

Every morning, while my son is still asleep, I open other people's notes. I've been constantly thinking about "what makes the articles that get read different." Day after day, the time comes to wake my son up before I've found an answer.

At times like that, I saw someone else write that their note had reached #1 on Google search. While thinking "I'm jealous," I suddenly decided to check the search ranking of my own article.

When I searched for "Nihon Sangoku quotes," my note appeared at #1.

Without scrolling, my article was right at the top. It was a strange feeling.

Just to be sure, I checked in an incognito window and on my wife's device as well. Both showed it at #1.

I am an IT salesperson in my 13th month of parental leave (no programming experience, 7 years of sales experience, and about 150 game commentary videos on YouTube as a side job).

With just this one note, my current numbers are as follows.

• Views: 4,300

• Likes: 52

• Comments: 4

• Google search "Nihon Sangoku quotes": #1

Whether this is a lot or a little depends on the person. However, looking back at myself when I first started writing, it has clearly become something else entirely.

This article is here to preserve the story of that "rewrite." I would be happy if it could serve as a reference for others who are writing "nobody's articles" just like I was.

The first article was a mass-produced piece that could have been written by AI.

The structure of the first version was like this.

• 9 Famous Quotes from the Anime "Nihon Sangoku"

• About each quote: Source / Scene / Meaning / Tips for daily life

I thought I had written it quite carefully.

But looking back now, it was an article where the writer's face was nowhere to be seen. The "tips for daily life" were also generic theories that could be found in 500 self-help books. If someone said it could be written by ChatGPT, I couldn't argue.

I could see it in the numbers, too. The views were growing slowly. However, there was always a temperature gap between the number of people who read it and the number of people who clicked on it. It was being read, but no emotions were being stirred.

I probably only changed these three things when I rewrote it.

Since then, I have rewritten it more than 10 times. I probably only changed these three things.

1. I stopped writing an explanatory article and turned it into a "personal essay."

I added a new section called "In My Case" for each quote and wrote about my own failures for every single one.

• Sun Tzu's "He who arrives at the battlefield first and waits is at ease" -> A story about how I had a habit of arriving at the office earlier than anyone else during my sales days.

• Wang Yangming's "Unity of Knowledge and Action" -> A story about how I repeatedly failed by trying to take shortcuts in sales, social media, and YouTube.

• Lao Tzu's "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" -> A story about how I couldn't take action until the very last minute with a major client and caused a huge amount of trouble for my senior colleague.

For readers who came to read an "explanation of famous quotes," this is an unexpected detour. But by inserting my own story here, it changed into an article where you know who wrote it.

I cut out every single line of generic theory and filled it back in with my own failures. This was the most effective part.

As I was writing, I gradually began to see why it works.

Generic theories pass through the reader's brain without catching. The moment they think, "That's a good point," the words just flow by and disappear. They are quickly judged as "irrelevant to me."

On the other hand, failure stories cause the reader's brain to automatically enter verification mode, asking, "Does this apply to me, too?" Even though they are reading someone else's story, they start pulling out their own past to compare.

The moment that happens, it's no longer someone else's business. In the reader's mind, the same thing is happening as if they were reading their own story. That's why it stays in their memory, and why their finger moves to hit the 'like' button.

(2) Clearly separated quotes from my own interpretations

In "Nihon Sangoku," there are phrases where the original text of Sun Tzu or Laozi appears exactly as is, and there are also lines that the author rewrote for the anime based on the original sources.

In the first version, I didn't distinguish between these and treated them all with the same citation style, like "Source: 'Laozi'."

When I rewrote it, I added two types of labels to the source section:

• [Original text citation]

• [*Unique expression in the anime script]

.

It's a subtle change, but doing this changes the trust from readers who are knowledgeable about the classics. They feel, "This is an article written by someone who understands." Conversely, if you leave them mixed, those with knowledge will see through it immediately and leave.

The writer properly showing the difference between facts, their own interpretations, and the source of the quotes. I think this is a subtle but major element that supports the credibility of an article.

This isn't just about the classics.

When writers fail to distinguish between facts and interpretations, they can inadvertently use the authority of citations to make their own opinions appear stronger.

"Laozi says...", "Experts say...", "The bestseller writes that..."

In this flow of citations, even if you secretly mix in your own interpretation toward the end, readers will accept both as words from the original source.

If you separate them with labels, this deception no longer works. The moment you write "From here on is my interpretation," your own words stand naked before the reader.

What is being tested is not the weight of the citations, but the quality of your own opinion.

Separating facts from interpretation is a scary task for a writer. However, without crossing this threshold, you probably won't reach the point where your articles are read as your own words.

(3) I add updates every week in line with the broadcast

At first, I wrote it as an article covering up to episode 5.

After that, every time the broadcast progressed to episodes 6 and 7, I added new famous quotes. I update the title, lead, character introductions, and chapter numbers in the main text.

I feel like this is also effective for Google.It is judged as a "fresh article".

At the same time, it creates repeat visitors.

People who read it once come back once a week, wondering, "Has the next famous quote been added?" I feel like it has become a bookmarked page.

There is the effort of updating. But since I feel like I am growing one article ten times over, it is definitely more cost-effective than mass-producing new articles.

Rather than writing five new articles that only get 100 PV each, it is easier for Google's evaluation to be concentrated on one article and grow it by updating it five times to reach 500 PV.

For readers, one article that receives updates is a motivation to return. For the writer, it is easier than the effort of writing five articles.

The idea of "growing one article rather than mass-producing" is, I think, a bit of a back-door route for operating on note.

When showing it in before / after

For example, the third quote, "Unity of Knowledge and Action." The first version of the "Tips for Daily Life" section went like this.

It's a safe, generic sentence that anyone could write.

After rewriting, I added a "In My Case" section here.

Even though both passages deal with the same quote, "Unity of Knowledge and Action," what happens in the reader's mind is completely different.

After reading the former, the reader closes the article thinking, "That's a good point."
After reading the latter, the reader recalls their own past, thinking, "I've done something similar."

I believe this "distance between the article and the reader" is the subtle but greatest difference that changes the number of likes.

Reflection: If you want to replicate this, this is all you need.

I listed three things, but it's possible that only the first one was truly effective.

The second and third points are reinforcements for credibility and freshness. On their own, they just result in a "serious but unmemorable article." The "personal narrative" in the first point is what transformed the content of the article into something else entirely.

Conversely, that one move of turning it into a "personal narrative" is enough to escape the trap of mass-produced articles.

This has nothing to do with the writer's career length, writing ability, or follower count. It's just about "writing your own story at the level of specific nouns."

I am an IT salesperson with 7 years of experience, 13 months of childcare leave, and no prior programming experience. That's it. Even so, I was able to write "my article" and reach #1 in search results.

You don't need special skills. I think all you need is the resolve to put your own embarrassing past moments into words without hiding them.

I've written a lot, but the point can be summed up in one line.

Rewrite an "article anyone can write" into an "article only I can write." That's all.

Specifically,

• Rewrite generic parts like "tips for daily life" into your own personal failure stories

• Guarantee the accuracy of cited information with labels

• Maintain freshness through ongoing updates

These are the three points.

However, rewriting is more exhausting than you might think. It is the process of destroying the template you originally wrote. You have to overcome the feeling of "this is good enough" over and over again.

In my case, after writing, I had Claude read it and mercilessly point out, "I don't know what you're trying to say here" or "This phrasing sounds like something I've read somewhere else." That helped me realize the weaknesses I hadn't noticed.

If you don't have an opportunity to rewrite, you can start byhaving someone else read your articleAsk yourself, "Can you tell who wrote this article?" If you can't, you're at the starting line for rewriting.

Bonus: Evidence I discovered later

After the rewriting settled down, I happened to read an article titled "About note's recommendation algorithm" written by Takayuki Fukatsu (CXO of note).

It said the following:

Listed below that were the characteristics of articles they want to promote:

• Real-life experiences, reports

• Lessons learned from failure

• Concrete case studies

• Sharing the author's unique observations, expressions, and experiences

This was almost the same story as what I did: "1. Stop writing explanatory articles and turn them into personal narratives."

Furthermore, regarding elements that are easily recommended due to their structure, it also said this:

This is saying the same thing as what I did: "2. Clearly separate citations from my own interpretations."

In other words, the rewriting I did was, without knowing it, the process of aligning with the "format that note wants to promote."

For those who are going to write from now on, it's faster to read this article first.

Conclusion

Just because I reached #1 in search results doesn't mean anything has changed drastically.

Views increased. Likes didn't increase as much as I thought. I received comments from strangers for the first time. The feeling of reaching #1 was smaller than I expected.

However, compared to when I was writing "generic articles," what remains after I finish writing is definitely different.

For the next article I write, I will also ask myself, "Can you tell who wrote this article?" while I write it.

Thank you for reading until the end. You can find the article on "Nihon Sangoku Famous Quotes" here.

*Updated May 27, 2026
I have summarized the minor corrections and specific details here.

If you found this helpful, please let me know by clicking the 'Like' button; it will encourage me for my next post.

▼Gadget Introductions

▼Witch Hat Atelier