SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 49 of 49
  1. #26
    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

    You're confusing semantic markup with text location. Two very different things.
    No I'm not but since you bring it up perhaps the semantic mark-up concept is what Google uses to judge the importance of links. The ones at the bottom can't be as important as the ones at the top.

    Makes sense to me. I find it hard to believe that all locations on the page are treated with equal importance by Google.

  2. #27
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,426
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    No I'm not but since you bring it up perhaps the semantic mark-up concept is what Google uses to judge the importance of links.
    That's part of it. Other factors apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    The ones at the bottom can't be as important as the ones at the top.

    Makes sense to me. I find it hard to believe that all locations on the page are treated with equal importance by Google.
    But why? Does the location of text on a page determine anything besides, well, the location of the text on the page? Is something really less important if it is on the bottom of the page? No. That makes no logical sense.

    Answers come after questions. Does that make an answer less important then the question?

    A recipe lists ingredients and then how to do it. Are the cooking instructions less important then the ingredients?

    In some reviews the overall opinion of the reviewer is reserved for the last paragraph. Is that summary and opinion worth less then the bullet points they used to get there?

    Location of text != relevance or importance.

  3. #28
    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
    Does the location of text on a page determine anything besides, well, the location of the text on the page?
    I believe that it does. The top of the page naturally contains more references to the content than the bottom of the page. Eye tracking has shown that to be the way websites are interpreted by users.

    It would make sense for Google to place more importance on the semantic markup because it's a naturally evolved reflection of the way we structure information.

    Because semantic markup essentially has a a tiered structure, I think that search engines take that into account when they spider a page.

  4. #29
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,426
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    I believe that it does. The top of the page naturally contains more references to the content than the bottom of the page. Eye tracking has shown that to be the way websites are interpreted by users.

    It would make sense for Google to place more importance on the semantic markup because it's a naturally evolved reflection of the way we structure information.

    Because semantic markup essentially has a a tiered structure, I think that search engines take that into account when they spider a page.
    If the semantic markup has a tiered structure already why give more weight to the content at the top of the page then the bottom of the page? Doesn't the markup do that already? Also, should a <h2> tag at the bottom of a page be worth less then a <h2> at the top of the page even though the author has said to give them the same weight?

    Also, advertisements tend to be at the top of a page often times because it is prime ad space. Should advertisements have more weight the actual page content?

  5. #30
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy DaveWoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Derbyshire - UK
    Posts
    2,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The only time I'd probably consider the position of the content (from a purely seo perspective) would be if I was dealing with a page with a lot of content or a huge amount of links in which case items at the end of the page may not get indexed and links may not be followed.

    Obviously this is only from an seo perspective and once you factor back in users, you'd probably have bigger concerns from a usability perspective that would need to be considered.

  6. #31
    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 csswiz View Post
    The only time I'd probably consider the position of the content (from a purely seo perspective) would be if I was dealing with a page with a lot of content or a huge amount of links in which case items at the end of the page may not get indexed and links may not be followed.
    Why not? Are you suggesting that search engines wouldn't index the bottom text because it's not important?

    What you seem to be saying is that if you have important content, you should make sure it's at the top of the page or it might not get indexed.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy DaveWoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Derbyshire - UK
    Posts
    2,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Why not? Are you suggesting that search engines wouldn't index the bottom text because it's not important?
    Nope, I'm saying that Google has a limit to the amount of content it can index and the amount of links... I think it's well documented that for a normal page Google will index 100 links per page (for more important pages this may be more). It therefore goes to reason that if you have 100 links on a page then it's important that any you want indexing come within the first 100 although I'd say there are bigger usability concerns if you have this many links on a single page (apart from maybe a sitemap).

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    What you seem to be saying is that if you have important content, you should make sure it's at the top of the page or it might not get indexed.
    Yes but this has no link to importance of content or that Google will give more weight to things positioned higher up in the content... what I'm referring to is black and white, i.e. it will either be indexed or it won't.

    I touched on it in my previous post with the reference to usability though as it would obviously be worth considering some form of pagination or breaking the page up into separate pages for the different sections if you ever found yourself in this position.

    Hope that makes more sense?

  8. #33
    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
    If the semantic markup has a tiered structure already why give more weight to the content at the top of the page then the bottom of the page? Doesn't the markup do that already?
    Exactly. To take advantage of the semantic markup structure importance all you have to do is careful (logical, natural) keyword placement.

    Suppose you had a new page where the term 'wildebeest' was used in all the titles, headings, anchor text, alt descs, top paragraphs etc etc, you know the places, and no links yet cos it's new, then made the page 2000 words long and started talking about 'crocodiles' for the rest of the page, to the point where 'crocodile' is mentioned more than wildebeest but only in the text. With nothing else to go on, because the page is so new, how would Google interpret the page content for ranking?

    Would it rank equally well for 'wildebeest' as 'crocodile'?

    Or would Google place more importance on the keyword placements as an indicator of content importance?

    Would your page outrank someone else's new page about crocodiles even though they have that word in all their headings etc? Or would Google assume that their page is more relevant than yours because they obviously think that crocodile is important enough to use in the headings?

    (If you're thinking 'but all things are never equal so this is academic' then save yourself the trouble of answering. I'm trying to isolate and examine but if you don't think that can be done we're never going to get anywhere here)


    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    Also, advertisements tend to be at the top of a page often times because it is prime ad space. Should advertisements have more weight the actual page content?
    Why are most advertisements at the top of the page? Because it's the most important real estate on the page. You think Google doesn't know that?

    Google doesn't judge the content on your page for what it is, I've heard you say that enough times. You won't get penalised because you think this advert is important enough to put it at the very top, they simply take into account when spidering the page that it was the most important page item to you and as long as the rest of the page content supports that (very important), you're good to go. The advert will just get included in the analysis of what the page content is.

    If the advert is completely unrelated to page content, it would be unlikely to convert and would be poor usability. I'm sure Google know that too. If it's an image without an Alt desc, it could say anything and since it's at the top of the page, indicating that you definitely want your visitors to see it, Google would probably treat that with a fair degree of mistrust if it was an external link. An image used as a header would most likely not have a link or link to the index page.

  9. #34
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy DaveWoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Derbyshire - UK
    Posts
    2,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Would it rank equally well for 'wildebeest' as 'crocodile'?
    I think wildebeest would rank better. Title, headings and anchor text are going to have much more impact than text placed in <p>aragraphs and is also probably a good example for the keyword density thread.

    Using keywords/phrases with good semantic markup for the word wildebeest is going to be much more effective than hitting the 3.5&#37; threshold for the word crocodile and will also be much more effective than placing the word crocodile higher in the page.

  10. #35
    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 csswiz View Post
    I think wildebeest would rank better. Title, headings and anchor text are going to have much more impact than text placed in <p>aragraphs and is also probably a good example for the keyword density thread.

    Using keywords/phrases with good semantic markup for the word wildebeest is going to be much more effective than hitting the 3.5% threshold for the word crocodile and will also be much more effective than placing the word crocodile higher in the page.
    Exactly what I think. Google most likely weights those locations more than others, simply because it reflects a natural structure for information.

    Except..... that I would do it without going over 3.5% in total on the page because you have to draw the line somewhere. There's no doubt that keyword stuffing gets you penalised, so somewhere between making sure that Google knows what your keyword phrase is, and keyword stuffing, is a density factor. I'll go with my 3.5% max (I'm not aiming for that) because I've seen enough evidence to support that number and I don't have anything better right now.

  11. #36
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Google most likely weights those locations more than others, simply because it reflects a natural structure for information.
    I'm not sure I understand you when you say 'locations'. It's not the location on the page that gets the weight, it's the property (e.g. <h1>, <em> etc) of the element.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    I'll go with my 3.5% max (I'm not aiming for that) because I've seen enough evidence to support that number and I don't have anything better right now.
    Can you point us to some of this evidence?

  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy DaveWoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Derbyshire - UK
    Posts
    2,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think that you'd ever naturally exceed 3.5&#37; anyway. If you take the example above, then you'd have to use the word Wildebeest at least once in every thirty or so words which Google may or may not penalize you for but would certainly look spammy and wouldn't be easy to read.

    I don't even consider the density and instead ensure that headings, titles and anchors are descriptive of the content.

  13. #38
    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 hooperman View Post
    I'm not sure I understand you when you say 'locations'. It's not the location on the page that gets the weight, it's the property (e.g. <h1>, <em> etc) of the element
    We're talking about the same thing essentially except that I'm linking properties to locations. Title goes at the top etc etc

    <em> is not a physical page location but it's a great location to put your keyword phrase.

    Quote Originally Posted by hooperman View Post
    Can you point us to some of this evidence?
    Sure, it's in the Sitepoint SEM kit at least three times, I've listed the page numbers on another thread. I've also seen it mentioned (and I've already provided links to this on another thread - http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=520596) by Dave Taylor.
    It's 530 people, but do you really get it?
    ImgWebDesign - Web design in Buxton, High Peak, Derbyshire UK.

  14. #39
    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)
    Mentions in articles and posts don't constitute evidence. That's just opinion.

  15. #40
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,426
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Exactly. To take advantage of the semantic markup structure importance all you have to do is careful (logical, natural) keyword placement.
    I don't you think you understand the concept of semantic markup. It doesn't matter where on the page the content exists. What matters is the <html> used to present that content.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Suppose you had a new page where the term 'wildebeest' was used in all the titles, headings, anchor text, alt descs, top paragraphs etc etc, you know the places, and no links yet cos it's new, then made the page 2000 words long and started talking about 'crocodiles' for the rest of the page, to the point where 'crocodile' is mentioned more than wildebeest but only in the text. With nothing else to go on, because the page is so new, how would Google interpret the page content for ranking?

    Would it rank equally well for 'wildebeest' as 'crocodile'?
    wildebeest would rank higher because it has on page factors that give it more weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Or would Google place more importance on the keyword placements as an indicator of content importance?
    Like I said, you are confusing keyword placement with semantic markup. It's the <html> that is giving wildebeast the bump. Not where it is located on the page.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Would your page outrank someone else's new page about crocodiles even though they have that word in all their headings etc? Or would Google assume that their page is more relevant than yours because they obviously think that crocodile is important enough to use in the headings?
    Their page would out rank yours for crocodiles since their page indicates that what the main purpose of that page's content is.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Why are most advertisements at the top of the page? Because it's the most important real estate on the page. You think Google doesn't know that?
    Most important in catching an eye for advertising. Not the most important in displaying content. They are two very different beasts.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Google doesn't judge the content on your page for what it is, I've heard you say that enough times. You won't get penalised because you think this advert is important enough to put it at the very top, they simply take into account when spidering the page that it was the most important page item to you and as long as the rest of the page content supports that (very important), you're good to go. The advert will just get included in the analysis of what the page content is.

    If the advert is completely unrelated to page content, it would be unlikely to convert and would be poor usability. I'm sure Google know that too. If it's an image without an Alt desc, it could say anything and since it's at the top of the page, indicating that you definitely want your visitors to see it, Google would probably treat that with a fair degree of mistrust if it was an external link. An image used as a header would most likely not have a link or link to the index page.
    Not sure what you;re getting at with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by hooperman View Post
    Mentions in articles and posts don't constitute evidence. That's just opinion.
    Exactly. There are hundreds of websites that say how important meta tags are for ranking well in Google. Yet this hasn't been true in years, if ever, and Google even flat out says it isn't true. Based on the logic that is someone prints it then it must be true then meta tags must be an important factor for ranking well in Google. (Doesn't that concept not seem so good anymore?)

  16. #41
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,426
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    Sure, it's in the Sitepoint SEM kit at least three times, I've listed the page numbers on another thread. I've also seen it mentioned (and I've already provided links to this on another thread - http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=520596) by Dave Taylor.
    I'd like to hear why 3.5% is a good number besides the fact it is printed in a book. How did someone come up with that number?

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy DaveWoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Derbyshire - UK
    Posts
    2,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    I've also seen it mentioned (and I've already provided links to this on another thread - http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=520596) by Dave Taylor.
    I've just had a read of that link...

    http://www.askdavetaylor.com/can_you...d_density.html

    Dave Taylor mentions...

    For example, this page is quite relevant to the word 'keyword' and the phrase 'keyword density' because both occur many times.
    Yet after running this page through an analyzer...

    Keyword = 1.70%
    Keyword Density = 2.20%

  18. #43
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,426
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    For example, this page is quite relevant to the word 'keyword' and the phrase 'keyword density' because both occur many times.
    Sounds like he thinks Alta Vista is still the most popular search engine!!

  19. #44
    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)
    Thanks Stymiee, despite what you think I do and don't understand (and to be frank, what I think you do and don't understand both about what there is to understand and what I understand of it, understand?), your answer actually cemented my understanding.

    This sentence - "Their page would out rank yours for crocodiles since their page indicates that what the main purpose of that page's content is." basically tallies with my understanding.

    The 3.5&#37;, as I understand it, as well as being recommended several times in the SEM kit (have you actually read it?) came from a study of the keyword density of a number of top ranking sites in some niche, I don't know which one nor do I care to repeat the experiment, too time consuming.

    Logically, there is a density that is acceptable somewhere between 0% and keyword stuffing. I don't attempt to hit 3.5%, I just avoid exceeding it, roughly. Logically, keywords placed in the locations that semantic markup would indicate are important are going to be paid attention to by search engines.

    That's all there is to that really.

    This sentence - "Most important in catching an eye for advertising. Not the most important in displaying content. They are two very different beasts." I couldn't disagree with more. Every eye tracking experiment I've ever seen disagrees with this. Ignore metrics at your peril, I'm quite sure Google don't.
    It's 530 people, but do you really get it?
    ImgWebDesign - Web design in Buxton, High Peak, Derbyshire UK.

  20. #45
    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 csswiz View Post
    I've just had a read of that link...

    http://www.askdavetaylor.com/can_you...d_density.html

    Dave Taylor mentions...

    Yet after running this page through an analyzer...

    Keyword = 1.70%
    Keyword Density = 2.20%
    You are so missing the point mate.

    By the way, I like your site, very nice.
    It's 530 people, but do you really get it?
    ImgWebDesign - Web design in Buxton, High Peak, Derbyshire UK.

  21. #46
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy DaveWoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Derbyshire - UK
    Posts
    2,651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    You are so missing the point mate.
    I understand what you're getting at but I feel there's no point even thinking about keyword density... in that article he mentions 2-3%, SEM mention 3.5%, other places will say completely different percentages.

    I aim to use targeted keywords in the title, headings, anchor text pointing to the page and mention it 2 or 3 times in the content itself (presuming it still reads naturally) and then just forget about keyword density.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    By the way, I like your site, very nice.
    Thanks

  22. #47
    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 csswiz View Post
    I understand what you're getting at but I feel there's no point even thinking about keyword density... in that article he mentions 2-3%, SEM mention 3.5%, other places will say completely different percentages.
    Yeah, my brain hurts from thinking about it so much and I think we've reached an impasse now.

    Quote Originally Posted by csswiz View Post
    I aim to use targeted keywords in the title, headings, anchor text pointing to the page and mention it 2 or 3 times in the content itself (presuming it still reads naturally) and then just forget about keyword density.
    Exactly what I do too.
    It's 530 people, but do you really get it?
    ImgWebDesign - Web design in Buxton, High Peak, Derbyshire UK.

  23. #48
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,426
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    This sentence - "Their page would out rank yours for crocodiles since their page indicates that what the main purpose of that page's content is." basically tallies with my understanding.
    You think its because of keyword density. But it's because of the semantic markup.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    The 3.5%, as I understand it, as well as being recommended several times in the SEM kit (have you actually read it?) came from a study of the keyword density of a number of top ranking sites in some niche, I don't know which one nor do I care to repeat the experiment, too time consuming.
    Yep. They rank #1 because of keyword density. It had nothing to do with their incoming links, or anchor text, or site structure, or semantic markup at all.

    I'm glad they said it several times. That makes it more likely to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMcClure View Post
    This sentence - "Most important in catching an eye for advertising. Not the most important in displaying content. They are two very different beasts." I couldn't disagree with more. Every eye tracking experiment I've ever seen disagrees with this. Ignore metrics at your peril, I'm quite sure Google don't.
    Advertising and content relevance are completely unrelated. Important advertising may go at the top of the page but important content can be anywhere. There is no "important content must be at the top of the page" rule in web page design. There just isn't. You may want there to be but that doesn't make it happen.

  24. #49
    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
    You think its because of keyword density. But it's because of the semantic markup.

    Yep. They rank #1 because of keyword density. It had nothing to do with their incoming links, or anchor text, or site structure, or semantic markup at all.

    I'm glad they said it several times. That makes it more likely to be true.

    Advertising and content relevance are completely unrelated. Important advertising may go at the top of the page but important content can be anywhere. There is no "important content must be at the top of the page" rule in web page design. There just isn't. You may want there to be but that doesn't make it happen.
    Oh my gosh, you are totally NOT getting what I'm saying. I had a feeling that you didn't understand my point and that post proves it beyond any doubt.

    There are so many misunderstandings in that post about my point of view that I wouldn't even know where to start correcting them.

    I give up. And believe me, that's rare.
    It's 530 people, but do you really get it?
    ImgWebDesign - Web design in Buxton, High Peak, Derbyshire UK.


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
  •