SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 127
  1. #51
    SitePoint Guru clink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    896
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I do think that you should write for your visitors not for search engines. However, if you have limited competition in the search engines I've found good keyword density in your H1/H2 tags and initially page text can really help your ranking.

  2. #52
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Keyword density is overrated.
    What matters the most is what keywords you have your title, and how many links with your keywords as anchor text refer back to your site.
    If you have your keyword once or twice on your website content, that should be enough.

  3. #53
    Web developer chrisranjana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    chennai , tamil nadu , India
    Posts
    710
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have to agree with most of the posts here. Ok you have done brilliant SEO and people are landing onto your website in droves. Now what ?

    Only an enticing copy could get those visitors to take out their credit card
    Chris, Programmer/Developer,
    Laravel Php Developers, Ruby on Rails programmers,
    Moodle, Opencart, Magento, Geodesic Classifieds/Auctions,
    www.chrisranjana.com

  4. #54
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It contributes to the serp but not that much

  5. #55
    Error 404: Life not found silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK Nr Manchester
    Posts
    3,460
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon Mackie View Post

    Regarding the keyword density issue, IIRC, the SEM Kit says that it's not keyword density, per se, that you should be targetting (and measures like KEI) - you should write natural content that works for your visitors, while making sure that you make effective use of keywords that you are targeting (though an understanding of how search engines view the page).
    I'm very pleased with the SEM kit and consider it money well spent. It does explain quite clearly how you should write content and stresses many times that content should be written for the user and not for search engines.

    It also mentions at least 3 times (Pages 75, 252 & 262) that 3.5% is the 'optimal' keyword density, but that is a figure that may change over time. The result though is that I was left with the impression that there is an 'optimal' keyword density.

    If that's not the case perhaps you should edit that out of the kit.

  6. #56
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm with JJ on this one.

    What's with the common "write quality" and you will get recognition routine? If anyone has been developing on the web for an extended period of time, they will know that just because you build it, does not mean they will come.

    Web design can be a business, and one needs to think of it that way. To say "write quality content" is vague and pointless. How does a robotic bot know the difference between quality and non-quality? It has been given instructions as to things to look for (often statistical values deciphered from analyzing the pages) ... some of you act like Google employees are scouting the web and individually ranking sites based on some vague 'quality'.

    No search engine is perfect. Just because you have the best content on the web for your niche does not mean you will get ranked high. Once you accept that, and understand the reasoning behind why this is the case, then you will likely stop with the "write quality content" and ending it there.

    On that note, why pretend like a page that is optimized for Google, has to be one that is spammy? One can write a "quality" page, and at the same time use keywords to a certain % if they think this is a factor involved in getting listed.

    Essentially what I am saying is, keyword density may or may not be a big issue when it comes to rankings. Seeing it is a robot that is analyzing your page, it is understandable why the frequency of keywords would play SOME role, if even a minor one. Opinions are likely to vary.

    But these posts about "just write quality content" without going any further, are pointless. Assume the individual is already making reputable sites, is not looking to spam, and just wants to optimize his page. Saying "write quality" and leaving it to that, is the same as saying, "keep doing what you're doing and hope you randomly hit it big".

    The whole idea of SEO goes against this concept. SEO should allow someone who is writing quality content, optimize their pages so that the bots visiting his/her site can understand that their content is great (afterall, these bots are not human and are working within pre-programmed set limits) and give the site the high ranking it hopefully deserves.

  7. #57
    Error 404: Life not found silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK Nr Manchester
    Posts
    3,460
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    I'm with JJ on this one.

    What's with the common "write quality" and you will get recognition routine? If anyone has been developing on the web for an extended period of time, they will know that just because you build it, does not mean they will come.

    Web design can be a business, and one needs to think of it that way. To say "write quality content" is vague and pointless. How does a robotic bot know the difference between quality and non-quality? It has been given instructions as to things to look for (often statistical values deciphered from analyzing the pages) ... some of you act like Google employees are scouting the web and individually ranking sites based on some vague 'quality'.

    No search engine is perfect. Just because you have the best content on the web for your niche does not mean you will get ranked high. Once you accept that, and understand the reasoning behind why this is the case, then you will likely stop with the "write quality content" and ending it there.

    On that note, why pretend like a page that is optimized for Google, has to be one that is spammy? One can write a "quality" page, and at the same time use keywords to a certain % if they think this is a factor involved in getting listed.

    Essentially what I am saying is, keyword density may or may not be a big issue when it comes to rankings. Seeing it is a robot that is analyzing your page, it is understandable why the frequency of keywords would play SOME role, if even a minor one. Opinions are likely to vary.

    But these posts about "just write quality content" without going any further, are pointless. Assume the individual is already making reputable sites, is not looking to spam, and just wants to optimize his page. Saying "write quality" and leaving it to that, is the same as saying, "keep doing what you're doing and hope you randomly hit it big".

    The whole idea of SEO goes against this concept. SEO should allow someone who is writing quality content, optimize their pages so that the bots visiting his/her site can understand that their content is great (afterall, these bots are not human and are working within pre-programmed set limits) and give the site the high ranking it hopefully deserves.
    Great post, and I'm not at all influenced in saying that by the fact that you agree with me....

    That's what I've been trying to say. Plus the only reason I thought that there was an optimal keyword density is because it says it so much in the Sitepoint SEM kit and then one of their employees makes a deliberately vague post about it... not terribly creditable.


    "the SEM Kit says that it's not keyword density, per se, ", well why does it mention 3.5% so much (as well as the need to write copy for humans) ?

  8. #58
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Totally! I write keyword optimized articles every day and none of them are spam. You just work the proper keyphrases into the articles, I never do keyword stuffing. I write quality articles that are also optimized.

    You can't just write quality and expect people to find you. Search engines don't know a good and smart article from a dumb one. You can to write quality articles while paying attention to keywords.

  9. #59
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,424
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    I'm with JJ on this one.

    What's with the common "write quality" and you will get recognition routine? If anyone has been developing on the web for an extended period of time, they will know that just because you build it, does not mean they will come.

    Web design can be a business, and one needs to think of it that way. To say "write quality content" is vague and pointless. How does a robotic bot know the difference between quality and non-quality? It has been given instructions as to things to look for (often statistical values deciphered from analyzing the pages) ... some of you act like Google employees are scouting the web and individually ranking sites based on some vague 'quality'.

    No search engine is perfect. Just because you have the best content on the web for your niche does not mean you will get ranked high. Once you accept that, and understand the reasoning behind why this is the case, then you will likely stop with the "write quality content" and ending it there.

    On that note, why pretend like a page that is optimized for Google, has to be one that is spammy? One can write a "quality" page, and at the same time use keywords to a certain % if they think this is a factor involved in getting listed.

    Essentially what I am saying is, keyword density may or may not be a big issue when it comes to rankings. Seeing it is a robot that is analyzing your page, it is understandable why the frequency of keywords would play SOME role, if even a minor one. Opinions are likely to vary.

    But these posts about "just write quality content" without going any further, are pointless. Assume the individual is already making reputable sites, is not looking to spam, and just wants to optimize his page. Saying "write quality" and leaving it to that, is the same as saying, "keep doing what you're doing and hope you randomly hit it big".

    The whole idea of SEO goes against this concept. SEO should allow someone who is writing quality content, optimize their pages so that the bots visiting his/her site can understand that their content is great (afterall, these bots are not human and are working within pre-programmed set limits) and give the site the high ranking it hopefully deserves.
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Great post, and I'm not at all influenced in saying that by the fact that you agree with me....

    That's what I've been trying to say. Plus the only reason I thought that there was an optimal keyword density is because it says it so much in the Sitepoint SEM kit and then one of their employees makes a deliberately vague post about it... not terribly creditable.


    "the SEM Kit says that it's not keyword density, per se, ", well why does it mention 3.5% so much (as well as the need to write copy for humans) ?
    Quote Originally Posted by talia0803 View Post
    Totally! I write keyword optimized articles every day and none of them are spam. You just work the proper keyphrases into the articles, I never do keyword stuffing. I write quality articles that are also optimized.

    You can't just write quality and expect people to find you. Search engines don't know a good and smart article from a dumb one. You can to write quality articles while paying attention to keywords.
    You all are confusing marketing with SEO. Naturally content that isn't marketed will be hard to find and worthless. Assuming both pages are marketed equally, the page with content written for human beings and written well will beat out the stuff written for search engines. That because human beings make links, search engines don't.

    It's a shame that people are missing the main point about how to write content. It seems to be a pervasive theme that the search engines will use those on page factors and it will make a tremendous difference in your rankings. You are mistaken. If you want your page to rank well then you need people to link to them. If you write content for the search engines you won't get those links, or as many of them or high quality ones, and you'll lose out to someone who wrote their article to appeal to human beings. Those same human beings who can give you one link that may have more influence on your rankings then all of your on page SEO ever can.

    Think about that.

  10. #60
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    You all are confusing marketing with SEO. Naturally content that isn't marketed will be hard to find and worthless. Assuming both pages are marketed equally, the page with content written for human beings and written well will beat out the stuff written for search engines. That because human beings make links, search engines don't.

    It's a shame that people are missing the main point about how to write content. It seems to be a pervasive theme that the search engines will use those on page factors and it will make a tremendous difference in your rankings. You are mistaken. If you want your page to rank well then you need people to link to them. If you write content for the search engines you won't get those links, or as many of them or high quality ones, and you'll lose out to someone who wrote their article to appeal to human beings. Those same human beings who can give you one link that may have more influence on your rankings then all of your on page SEO ever can.

    Think about that.
    Again, you are generalizing.

    My point is this: you feel that writing for people is the better approach? That's fine. But life is not black and white.

    I can write an article on exercise, and ensure I mention ''abdominal exercises'' as opposed to "ab exercises" throughout my article because my research shows that more people search for abdominal exercises versus ab exercises on Google.

    This in no way effects the "'quality'' of my writing, but helps re: keyword density lets say. The same can be said for other types of SEO that involve the wording of your text. Why make it a black and white issue: you can have both great content, and content that is geared to bot optimization as well.

    If you wish to tell people ''don't keyword stuff'' a page, that's fully understandable. But for those that are able to write well, I say, consider both quality of the content AND optimizing your page. If keyword density is only 5% of your search engine ranking, maybe its the 5% that puts you ahead of your competition.

    Just writing quality content frankly, is lazy SEO I feel. It may be the first and most important step, but with competitive terms, there is more to the game.

  11. #61
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,424
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    I can write an article on exercise, and ensure I mention ''abdominal exercises'' as opposed to "ab exercises" throughout my article because my research shows that more people search for abdominal exercises versus ab exercises on Google.
    No one said you can't choose your words wisely. In fact, I said to choose your words wisely previously in this thread. Write for humans and then optimize that content for SEO (e.g. use the right words/phrase where appropriate). Very simple and straight forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    If keyword density is only 5% of your search engine ranking, maybe its the 5% that puts you ahead of your competition.
    This might make more sense if:

    1) We actually knew what the percentage to aim for (which we don't if it even exists)

    2) It had any real value. What do you think helps more? A link from a related website or keyword density? Which one should you aim for?

    3) There weren't countless factors affecting a page's rank. The odds that one factor will put you over the top, especially when links are so important, isn't realistic. Sounds good in theory, but just like when people say "all things being equal, well, all things are never equal.

    You also mention competition. Which will help you more for competitive terms? Keyword density? Or quality backlinks?

  12. #62
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    No one said you can't choose your words wisely. In fact, I said to choose your words wisely previously in this thread. Write for humans and then optimize that content for SEO (e.g. use the right words/phrase where appropriate). Very simple and straight forward.
    Then essentially, we agree upon the same thing. Our difference arises below:

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    This might make more sense if:

    1) We actually knew what the percentage to aim for (which we don't if it even exists)

    2) It had any real value. What do you think helps more? A link from a related website or keyword density? Which one should you aim for?

    3) There weren't countless factors affecting a page's rank. The odds that one factor will put you over the top, especially when links are so important, isn't realistic. Sounds good in theory, but just like when people say "all things being equal, well, all things are never equal.

    You also mention competition. Which will help you more for competitive terms? Keyword density? Or quality backlinks?
    1) Many of the things in SEO we don't know to be true or not. What makes other things true? When some SEO gurus declare them to be? Just because its not agreed upon by everyone, doens't make it not worth considering.

    2) Again, this goes back to my arguement. It's not about which is MORE helpful. The person who made this post wasn't asking for the MOST important factor. He/she just wanted to know if keyword density made a difference, period. I think it does. You clearly think it doens't. But you can have good keyword density AND get a link from a related website. They aren't mutually exclusive of one another. Thus, I aim for both.

    3) True, not all things are equal, but when you want to go from position 2 in a list, to position 1, the small things make the difference .. again, depending on the search term. That has been my experience.

    Your first statement was something we both agreed on, so I'm going to leave it at that. I made this post, because I got tired of everyone just posting "make good content" on these boards. Someone asks about PR importance, and I guarnantee there will be 3-4 posts afterwards telling the person to just focus on making good content. Same apparently goes for keyword density, etc. I chose to post because I wanted to clear up the fact that writing good content is the start, and getting links are the most important factors, but I personally don't feel the game ends there.

  13. #63
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My point was that it is smarter to cover all your bases. Cover the page rank things, get people to link to you, write quality content and use keywords effectively.

    It doesn't need to be an either or scenario, you can do it all easily and effectively and when you do you get the best results.

  14. #64
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,424
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    1) Many of the things in SEO we don't know to be true or not. What makes other things true? When some SEO gurus declare them to be? Just because its not agreed upon by everyone, doens't make it not worth considering.
    But we know lots of things to be true that were never announced by the search engines. How do we know? Experiments and observations. A common argument made by a lot of newbies (not saying you are one) is that "you never saw the Google algorithm so you don't really know". Honestly, that's a weak argument that holds no water. We know a lot about SEO and we don't need the search engines to tell us for us to know.

    As far as keyword density there is no evidence it a factor (although I would be surprised if it didn't exist on some level). But even if it did exist you can be sure it is a fairly complex formula (not a flat percentage for every page because that would be retarded) that you nor I can figure out so we can't give anyone a percentage to aim for because it would be total crap. So when someone says keyword density matters, well, it doesn't matter because you can't optimize for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    2) Again, this goes back to my arguement. It's not about which is MORE helpful. The person who made this post wasn't asking for the MOST important factor. He/she just wanted to know if keyword density made a difference, period. I think it does. You clearly think it doens't. But you can have good keyword density AND get a link from a related website. They aren't mutually exclusive of one another. Thus, I aim for both.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    3) True, not all things are equal, but when you want to go from position 2 in a list, to position 1, the small things make the difference .. again, depending on the search term. That has been my experience.
    Maybe for (very) long tail keywords. But not in competitive search. You definitely have to do all of the small things but don't expect them to make the difference between #1 and #2. The only thing that does that is quality links. Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    Your first statement was something we both agreed on, so I'm going to leave it at that. I made this post, because I got tired of everyone just posting "make good content" on these boards. Someone asks about PR importance, and I guarnantee there will be 3-4 posts afterwards telling the person to just focus on making good content. Same apparently goes for keyword density, etc. I chose to post because I wanted to clear up the fact that writing good content is the start, and getting links are the most important factors, but I personally don't feel the game ends there.
    It starts there and almost everything else follows it. That's why we keep harping on it. Want quality links? Need good content. Want to rank well for search terms that deliver good traffic? Need good content? Want to rank well long term? Need good content. Want higher PR? Need good content. Most roads in SEO lead to good content.

  15. #65
    Error 404: Life not found silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK Nr Manchester
    Posts
    3,460
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    As far as keyword density there is no evidence it a factor (although I would be surprised if it didn't exist on some level). But even if it did exist you can be sure it is a fairly complex formula (not a flat percentage for every page because that would be retarded) that you nor I can figure out so we can't give anyone a percentage to aim for because it would be total crap. So when someone says keyword density matters, well, it doesn't matter because you can't optimize for it.
    However, at some point keyword density becomes keyword stuffing. I can take a perfectly fine page and simply add more instances of the keyword to over-optimise it and cause a keyword stuffing penalty. For me, that supports the argument that even if the percentage isn't the only factor, it's certainly a big one and allows me to optimise for it by making sure I don't over optimise.

    I recently dropped the keyword density on a site that wasn't getting indexed from 10% to 3.5%. I didn't change anything else, two days later it was indexed. Not conclusive evidence by any means but somewhat suggestive wouldn't you say.

    You can't have too many context relevant IBLs, but you can have too many instances of your keyword phrase on the page. From that perspective, it doesn't hurt to have a rule of thumb max percentage to work by.

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    Most roads in SEO lead to good content.
    Of course they do, that's the whole point of Google introducing all these criteria for us web site designers to meet as best we can if we want to rank well in their index. It's the only way they can influence the content of their index and they've had a massive influence on how websites are designed, much greater than the other search engines.

    Even sites that aren't designed specifically for ranking well in the se's unconsciously follow the site structures that have become common place since Google's inception.

  16. #66
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    It starts there and almost everything else follows it. That's why we keep harping on it. Want quality links? Need good content. Want to rank well for search terms that deliver good traffic? Need good content? Want to rank well long term? Need good content. Want higher PR? Need good content. Most roads in SEO lead to good content.
    Without rehashing everything over and over again, I will make this final point. One of my sites is a fitness site, and consists of graphical illustrations of various exercises you can perform at the gym. The content has not changed since 2005 when I launched it. There is no need for that, because I made a fairly comprehensive site on the topic to begin with.

    For a year, even though my content for that niche was one of the best, the site went no where on Google rankings. Once I started tweaking things, I am now listed as #1-3 for many search terms.

    Good content ensures I stay there. Good SEO got me there. This is a forum about SEO. To leave it at "make good content" makes this forum useless. If someone wants to discuss minor things (mind you, I don't think keyword density is minor), I think there should be open discussion .. as opposed to simply ending it at "make good content".

    For the record, my site doesn't have the best content anymore. Certain corporate sites can afford to film the various exercise routines and post them on their site. I rely on illustrations ... BUT, I am ranked higher. So good content is not the final determining factor, hence my arguement that small changes can make the difference between being listed #1 or #3. If it was the case, I wouldn't be ranked higher.

  17. #67
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,424
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    However, at some point keyword density becomes keyword stuffing. I can take a perfectly fine page and simply add more instances of the keyword to over-optimise it and cause a keyword stuffing penalty. For me, that supports the argument that even if the percentage isn't the only factor, it's certainly a big one and allows me to optimise for it by making sure I don't over optimise.
    1) How do you optimize when you have no idea what to optimize for? Every keyword density number out there is made up.

    2) There are no penalties for keyword stuffing nor does there need to be. Stuffed keywords make for crappy content which gets less links and as a result ranks lower. It's such a simple yet effective system .

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    I recently dropped the keyword density on a site that wasn't getting indexed from 10% to 3.5%. I didn't change anything else, two days later it was indexed. Not conclusive evidence by any means but somewhat suggestive wouldn't you say.
    No, I wouldn't say because:

    1) There are so many factors affecting your page both directly and indirectly that you can't isolate it as being a keyword density issue at all.

    2) Unless your site is a prominent site that Google pays much attention to the odds of anything happening that fast is slim.

    3) Indexing is done on a page-by-page basis. A page that Google may not like won't cause another page not to be indexed. Each page is judged by its own merit. So a whole site won't be affected by a single page's error.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    You can't have too many context relevant IBLs, but you can have too many instances of your keyword phrase on the page. From that perspective, it doesn't hurt to have a rule of thumb max percentage to work by.
    Can you really have too many? Are you sure about that? (You can but not froma penalty point of view. Only a human point of view. Funny how it always comes back to that). And how do you get a number to work with? Make it up? Every number out there is made up and I think making up a number to work with is worse then not having a number at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Of course they do, that's the whole point of Google introducing all these criteria for us web site designers to meet as best we can if we want to rank well in their index. It's the only way they can influence the content of their index and they've had a massive influence on how websites are designed, much greater than the other search engines.

    Even sites that aren't designed specifically for ranking well in the se's unconsciously follow the site structures that have become common place since Google's inception.
    That's not so much because they're trying to influence how sites are built but rather they raised people's awareness of how they should be designed and built. SEO is 99.99% good content, usability, and accessibility. And that's how a good website should be built regardless of whether search engines exist or not.

  18. #68
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,424
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    For a year, even though my content for that niche was one of the best, the site went no where on Google rankings. Once I started tweaking things, I am now listed as #1-3 for many search terms.
    A year you say? Funny how many sites seems to do better after a year. Might have more to do with Google's policies about when to rank page's well then SEO tweaking. And a "tweak" won't have you shotting up the rankings as much as a major revision will. Changing keyword density is a tweak. Changing your site's navigational structure is a major revision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    Good content ensures I stay there. Good SEO got me there. This is a forum about SEO. To leave it at "make good content" makes this forum useless. If someone wants to discuss minor things (mind you, I don't think keyword density is minor), I think there should be open discussion .. as opposed to simply ending it at "make good content".
    We only mention content when someone chases something that will serve them little to no purpose. Keyword density falls under that umbrella. The biggest mistake in SEO is not understanding that content is king. Most people don't get that. We're here to help them get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canuk View Post
    For the record, my site doesn't have the best content anymore. Certain corporate sites can afford to film the various exercise routines and post them on their site. I rely on illustrations ... BUT, I am ranked higher. So good content is not the final determining factor, hence my arguement that small changes can make the difference between being listed #1 or #3. If it was the case, I wouldn't be ranked higher.
    Who says a film is better content then an illustration? Also, if their content is newer then yours then it will take time for them to outrank you. It's not an instantaneous process but it does work. If people really do believe that videos are better then illustrations then they will start getting links that you would have gotten before and they'll eventually outrank you. Internet Darnwinism at its best.

  19. #69
    Error 404: Life not found silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UK Nr Manchester
    Posts
    3,460
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    1) How do you optimize when you have no idea what to optimize for?
    You're looking at it from the wrong direction. It's a case of not over-optimising.

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    2) There are no penalties for keyword stuff nor does there need to be. Stuffed keywords make for crappy content which gets less links which ranks lower. It's such a simple yet effective system system.
    Not true, I over-optimised the pages using image file names & alt descs mostly. None of that was visible to the human visitors and had zero effect on their experience. This site is brand new and has NO IBLs and I'm not talking about ranking, I'm talking about getting indexed, period.

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    1) There are so many factors affecting your page both directly and indirectly that you can't isolate it as being a keyword density issue at all.
    Nothing else changed Stymiee. There isn't anything else TO change.

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    2) Unless your site is a prominent site that Google pays much attention to the odds of anything happening that fast is slim.
    But not impossible and it did get indexed within two days of me reducing the keyword density after 2.5 months of getting ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    3) Indexing is done on a page-by-page basis. A page that Google may not like won't cause another page not to be indexed. Each page is judged by its own merit. So a whole site won't be affected by a single page's error.
    Every page was over-optimised and I reduced the keyword density on every page. You're jumping to conclusions in order to make your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    Can you really have too many? Are you sure about that? (You can but not froma penalty point of view. Only a human point of view. Funny how it always comes back to that). And how do you get a number to work with? Make it up? Every number out there is made up and I think making up a number to work with is worse then not having a number at all.
    I said that you can't have too many context relevant IBLs. If you misread that, the rest wouldn't make much sense really.

    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    That's not so much because they're trying to influence how sites are built but rather they raised people's awareness of how they should be designed and built. SEO is 99.99% good content, usability, and accessibility. And that's how a good website should be built regardless of whether search engines exist or not.
    For all your experience and knowledge this is one issue on which I think you've completely missed the point. Google introduced their algorithms because it was the only way to influence the content of their index. The result, whether it was intentional or not, is that they changed the way website's are built. Yes SEO is "99.99% good content, usability, and accessibility", thanks to Google. You're putting the SEO cart before the horse.

  20. #70
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    1) How do you optimize when you have no idea what to optimize for? Every keyword density number out there is made up.
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    But we know lots of things to be true that were never announced by the search engines. How do we know? Experiments and observations. A common argument made by a lot of newbies (not saying you are one) is that "you never saw the Google algorithm so you don't really know". Honestly, that's a weak argument that holds no water. We know a lot about SEO and we don't need the search engines to tell us for us to know.
    Covers it well.

  21. #71
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,424
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    You're looking at it from the wrong direction. It's a case of not over-optimising.
    There is no such thing as over optimizing. That's just another way of saying writing for the search engines and not for humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Nothing else changed Stymiee.
    Are you sure about that? Can you say for sure that new links weren't found to your site? Or finally factored in? Or that competitors lost links? Or changed their content and hurt their rankings? Or that spam was removed ahead you? etc..etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    But not impossible and it did get indexed within two days of me reducing the keyword density after 2.5 months of getting ignored.
    As mentioned above, there are too many factors to say for sure that's what happened. There's a lot of coincidence in watching rankings. Unless you can duplicate it often or show that nothing else anywhere affected your page then you can keep it in mind for future reference but don't make it a 1-to-1 association or you may find yourself chasing your tail.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    I said that you can't have too many context relevant IBLs. If you misread that, the rest wouldn't make much sense really.
    You sure about that?:
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    You can't have too many context relevant IBLs, but you can have too many instances of your keyword phrase on the page. From that perspective, it doesn't hurt to have a rule of thumb max percentage to work by.
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    For all your experience and knowledge this is one issue on which I think you've completely missed the point. Google introduced their algorithms because it was the only way to influence the content of their index. The result, whether it was intentional or not, is that they changed the way website's are built. Yes SEO is "99.99% good content, usability, and accessibility", thanks to Google. You're putting the SEO cart before the horse.
    Google does not try to influence content. They only try to organize it by relevance. Nothing more.

    And if Google, whether directly or indirectly, encouraged webmasters to build usable and accessible websites with quality unique content wouldn't you say that is a good thing?

  22. #72
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    64
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Shyflower View Post
    I know your post is about keyword density, but overall you are missing the mark on your sales copy for both conversion and SEO.

    You are telling the features, but not selling the benefits.

    Put the product in an h2 (SE0). Put the first sentence in an h3 (SEO). Then start the paragraph-

    "The Stephen Joseph Quilted Backpack puts your child in the driver's seat!"

    "The Stephen Joseph quilted backpack is a dream carrier for any young NASCAR hopeful. His friends will envy the backpack's embroidered race car design and the quilted backpack gives him extra padding for extra comfort as he races down the street.

    "Measuring 9.5 X 12, the Stephen Joseph Quilted Backpack is the right fit for your child. The backpack's zippered pocket adds extra space for pencils, collector cards or his latest model car treasure. Finally, the handy keychain is a safety precaution for you and an added bonus for your child! Free Personalization enables your child to grab and go and gives the Stephen Joseph Quilted Backpack pole position, in every child's eyes."

    Anyway... that's one way I'd write it. Think of who will buy it, who will use it and how its features will benefit both.
    Thank you so much for your post your have shown me what I was missing.

  23. #73
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My suggestion would be to structure your copy around certain terms and phrases by write freely without concern for hitting on ever obviously related phrase...

  24. #74
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So the general consensus is to not worry about it then?

  25. #75
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy hooperman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    4,301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes. If you read your copy, you'll know whether you are pushing certain words/phrases too much. I think the best method is to you focus on delivering your message to your readers in a clear way.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •