Keyword Density And Quality

[joe12joe]

Hi Guys,

Nowadays web content writers need to do optimized writing. We cannot just go on and write in our ways about a subject. We will have to make sure that we are maintaining a certain amount of keyword density in an article plus that article must have a marketing touch as it would be used for SEO. Don't you think, it effects the quality of the content too? It is recommended to maintain 3-4% keyword density in an article. This mean, if my article is having 300 words, I will have to repeat that particular keyword for at least 10-12 times, if my calculations are not wrong. Don't you feel its too much. Don't you feel that optimized writing had a negative effect on content writing. They say, write for people not for bots, don't you feel, nowadays everyone is looking to write for search engine bots? What are your views about it?

[JJMcClure]

Calculating perfect densities is pointless, write naturally for people and you'll get it exactly right without even trying.

[Stevie D]

Nowadays web content writers need to do optimized writing. We cannot just go on and write in our ways about a subject. We will have to make sure that we are maintaining a certain amount of keyword density in an article plus that article must have a marketing touch as it would be used for SEO. Don't you think, it effects the quality of the content too? It is recommended to maintain 3-4% keyword density in an article. This mean, if my article is having 300 words, I will have to repeat that particular keyword for at least 10-12 times, if my calculations are not wrong. Don't you feel its too much. Don't you feel that optimized writing had a negative effect on content writing. They say, write for people not for bots, don't you feel, nowadays everyone is looking to write for search engine bots? What are your views about it?

Far too many people are writing content that is optimised for bots, and reads really badly to a literate human. There have always been snake oil salesmen - once they were selling meta keywords, now they're selling keyword-stuffed text.

Yes, search engines might intrinsically rank pages slightly higher if they use certain words more (although it's pretty unlikely that they are that easily fooled - and there certainly is no "magic number" to aim for), but that ignores the many other factors that come into play. If you write keyword-stuffed text, it's going to be awful to read. If it's awful to read then anyone who does find it is going to give up on it very quickly, and it's going to be near impossible to get good organic links ... and that means that the site will not rank as well as one that is well written for a human audience, that will attract lots of links, tweets and everything else.

This has been discussed a lot on the SEO forum as well...

[DCrux]

mean, if my article is having 300 words, I will have to repeat that particular keyword for at least 10-12 times, if my calculations are not wrong.

Unless you work at Google, and hold a position at a very high level at that company, your calculations are probably off ...by a lot. SEO is largely guesswork.

My prediction is, in time (but time is all it will take) SEO will rank with astrology as a guilty little fixation.

This content is excellently written from a search engine optimization perspective. The carewords (Spain, holiday, rentals, etc.) are prominent and repeated often. However, this content doesn’t seem credible to me. I don’t get a sense of trustworthiness off it. In fact, it reads to me like spam, and that made me quickly hit the Back button.

-- Search optimization, not search engine optimization By Gerry McGovern

Marketing includes SEO. SEO excludes everything and anything else, including marketing. When SEO is anything more than a small, minor, tool in the marketing skill set, people tend towards SEO mania.

SEObsessive-compulsive disorder is a roadblock to taking raw, unfiltered, unqualified traffic and converting it into paying customers. The web's problem has never been rank. Or traffic. The problem is paying customers.

You will constantly hear of huge numbers of traffic, but a failure for a web startup to monetize. Current victim of this is Twitter. Their entire business model revolves around giving their stuff away for nothing, and now it is in the 'genetic code' and brand of their business. Twitter is rapidly discovering they would have to stop being Twitter to survive. Strangely enough, Twitter is discovering that rather than FREE replacing marketing savvy, you need a whole lot more marketing savvy to offer something for free.

Twitter now knows what many don't: Live by traffic, then you die by traffic (and the collateral bandwidth costs that eat a startup alive).

SEObsessive-compulsive disorder cripples the marketing ability to apply human psychology towards making a sale. People think only of traffic. When it becomes a disorder level fixation, you cripple search optimization (how people search) with search engine optimization (jimmying whatever you guess the search algo is, this week).

That's old fashioned hit counter thinking at its worst.

[JJMcClure]

My prediction is, in time (but time is all it will take) SEO will rank with astrology as a guilty little fixation.

All your guilty of here is giving astrology a credibility it doesn't deserve because SEO is real. Search engines have to decide what to rank and where to rank it, therefore there is a methodology involved in achieving that and figuring out that methodology is SEO.

I can see the SERP, I can influence it myself and Google is real with a clearly defined agenda. There simply isn't a comparison with something like Astrology where there's basically no evidence to suggest that the position of X 10k light years away has anything to do with whether or not Y meets a tall dark stranger and comes into some money.

[DCrux]

There simply isn't a comparison with something like Astrology where there's basically no evidence to suggest that the position of X 10k light years away has anything to do with whether or not Y meets a tall dark stranger and comes into some money.

Apparently you are not a believer in astrology.

7 Types of SEO Evidence Interesting for a SEOmoz discussion -- the "A" word does come up in discussion.

So if the SEOmoz crew can compare, I reserve that right as well. Point still being people go overboard with SEO ...a lot. And, for someone not SEObsessive-compulsive, the discussion grates just as much.

The topic is still keyword density and quality. The relationship: Inverse.

Right off the bat, you should know that search engine marketing experts disagree about what is the proper keyword density. Some it should be between 2 and 5% density; others say between 5 and 7%. Some others say up to 9% is okay and then there are others who tout that 15 to 25% is fine.

So how do you discern the correct answer? In truth, only the programmers who write search engine algorithms know. But one thing all search engine marketers agree on is that you should not “keyword stuff” your copy. Not only is it bad writing, it can get a site blacklisted by search engines.
-- SEO Copywriting: SEO Tools & Tips Every Web Writer Should Know About (Part III)

Ever go to five astrologers and get five different readings?





Related:

SEO Astrology: What's Your Sign Baby?

[JJMcClure]

Apparently you are not a believer in astrology.

7 Types of SEO Evidence Interesting for a SEOmoz discussion -- the "A" word does come up in discussion.

So if the SEOmoz crew can compare, I reserve that right as well. Point still being people go overboard with SEO ...a lot. And, for someone not SEObsessive-compulsive, the discussion grates just as much.


Related:

SEO Astrology: What's Your Sign Baby?

Now you're contradicting yourself by saying that Astrology is real when your original point was that like Astrology, SEO will be proven to be fake. The article you linked to actually supports my position that SEO is real but the rules for it change, fine, that's what I said anyway.

What does and doesn't work for SEO is an entirely different argument from whether or not SEO is real, of course it is. Unless my entire point of view is based on a misunderstanding of what you meant by 'guilty little fixation'?

Somewhat related - Your Astrological Sign May Not Be What You Think It Is

[annabelle07]

Hi,

Just wanted to find out how many keywords would result in a 300 word article being referred to as 'keyword stuffed'?

Personally I would feel placing just 1 keyword for every 100 words would be sufficient.Only because you don't want your content not reading well.What do the rest of you think?

[Stevie D]

Just wanted to find out how many keywords would result in a 300 word article being referred to as 'keyword stuffed'?

Personally I would feel placing just 1 keyword for every 100 words would be sufficient.Only because you don't want your content not reading well.What do the rest of you think?

There's no exact answer. You'd probably get away with more than one word in a hundred - for example, in your post there, you used the word 'keyword(s)' three times in 53 words ... and it doesn't look or sound particularly artificial. Of course, you wouldn't keep that up in a longer article, but it does depend on your writing style. In a nutshell, the question you need to ask is "does it read well?" ... if it does, then you'll probably be fine!

[boron]

I ignore keyword density completely and i got several hundred thousands of new readers every month.

I've seen repeating keywords in H2 subtitles helped a lot to some people, though; testing it now myself.

[wardcosbyson]

The debate about keyword density has been a great interest to many. I have heard many different ratios and explanation. In my own personal experience though, I try to keep natural as much as possible. That is to say that for every 300-word article at least only 3 - 5 times a keyword is enough.

[MotionTech]

This is a very interesting subject. I personally like to write naturally. I have a keyword or keyword phrase and article title in mind. I write as a I write. I then go through and count how many times my keyword is found in the article. Like the person above me, I tend to end up with about 5 times in a 300 word article.

I understand that keywords are key to site traffic, but as a reader I can't wait to click away from articles that are keyword stuffed to the point it is hard to understand the article as a reader.

[DCrux]

I understand that keywords are key to site traffic

Funny. But no.

Keyword Density: The SEO Myth that Never Dies The idea is simple, if you use the keyword, you rank higher. And if you hit the magic number, you jimmy results. Search engines care about keywords -- just not in the way you want them to.

The people running search engines are not morons. They know that density is the easiest, most brain dead way people try to rig results -- you figure out how small a "magic" keyword density matters in the larger scheme of SERP rank. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to find a more pointless thing to think about.

If you want something that might matter, think about the keyword within the anchor text of external links to the article.

Now, if you turn the tables to the search engine side, figuring out how obsessed with keywords a site is would really be useful in targeting SE spam. How easy would it be -- do you suppose -- to write a filter for a site with a consistent, constant, (read: unnatural) density? It wouldn't matter what the percentage was but, as someone inside a search engine company, you couldn't find an easier way to target in on suspect sites, now could you?

Barring SE spammers wearing t-shirts emblazoned with "I Spam Search Results, Ban Me," you really couldn't ask for a better self-identification procedure. Search engines should LOVE pages with a uniform keyword density -- just not in the way you think they should.

You may now return to dumping loads of time guessing at the magic keyword density figure in order to more easily identify your sites for scrutiny by people working for the search engines.

[Stomme poes]

Just wanted to find out how many keywords would result in a 300 word article being referred to as 'keyword stuffed'?

When you're sitting there reading it and it sounds like written by Borat disguised as TDM AUTO SALESMAN.

Seriously, how does anyone write anything worthwhile withOUT having the all-important keyword in there?? How does someone write about dinosaurs without having the word "dinosaur" in there anyway? How did Mark Twain write A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court without automagically including the words "Connecticut", "Yankee" and "medieval"? More importantly, would he write it today and then go through and count his keywords? Seriously, this is like a bizarre meta-conversation.



Are we really here?

[DCrux]

More importantly, would he write it today and then go through and count his keywords?

No. He'd be skewering in a sarcastic and vitriolic manner the people who think keyword counting improves their writing. ...And, were he a member here, getting infraction notices from Sitepoint weekly.

Clemens would be banned post haste. And would, depending on how aware of the 'net and web zeitgeist he was, consider it a mark of distinction.

Are we really here?

You have to understand the reason why you get these posts -- where "here" actually is. This writing forum is the public manifestation of all the consideration web development is capable of rendering to the written word. Keywords, SEO, SEO, SEO, and scraper software. That is it. To read the threads on who should write content, writing isn't even part of the development process. Consequently you have exactly what you should expect here.

You can be annoyed about it, but don't be surprised one little bit. For anyone being annoyed rather than changing things within they way they, themselves, do web development, save yourself some time. 'cause it ain't gonna change.

Where "here" is would be precisely what was aimed for. So congratulations are in order, you fin'ly got to where y'all was headin'. (And I mean you in the larger, general sense, so everyone can save their time posting and all the "shocked ...SHOCKED that this goes on I tell you.").

[Shyflower]

No. He'd be skewering in a sarcastic and vitriolic manner the people who think keyword counting improves their writing. ...And, were he a member here, getting infraction notices from Sitepoint weekly.

Clemens would be banned post haste. And would, depending on how aware of the 'net and web zeitgeist he was, consider it a mark of distinction.



You have to understand the reason why you get these posts -- where "here" actually is. This writing forum is the public manifestation of all the consideration web development is capable of rendering to the written word. Keywords, SEO, SEO, SEO, and scraper software. That is it. To read the threads on who should write content, writing isn't even part of the development process. Consequently you have exactly what you should expect here.

You can be annoyed about it, but don't be surprised one little bit. For anyone being annoyed rather than changing things within they way they, themselves, do web development, save yourself some time. 'cause it ain't gonna change.

Where "here" is would be precisely what was aimed for. So congratulations are in order, you fin'ly got to where y'all was headin'. (And I mean you in the larger, general sense, so everyone can save their time posting and all the "shocked ...SHOCKED that this goes on I tell you.").

Actually, "here" isn't what we are aiming for. I would be quite interested in seeing your ideas to attract quality writers to SitePoint, writers that would not only contribute their own ideas about "content for your site," but also those who would help new writers learn the craft of writing.

I've visited and/or joined several other writing forums and what I find is usually an elitist group of over-educated copywriters, technical writers, journalists, and/or literary writers who "think" they know about writing content for the web. Generally, they don't have the vaguest idea of what it takes to sell beyond a sales letter or a direct mailer... if they even know how to sell at all. They view the term "web content" as something disparaging to writing, but they are in the "web content" marketplace.

Even SitePoint's bloggers, book writers, pod casters, and article writers are infrequent visitors to this forum. What would you do to attract a Seth Godin, Michael Fortin, shoemoney, copy blogger? "Where" would you go from "here"? The way I see it, we can each be part of the solution or part of the problem. Cranking on the negatives isn't going to solve it.

[DCrux]

What would you do to attract a Seth Godin, Michael Fortin, shoemoney, copy blogger? "Where" would you go from "here"?

Wrong question. The question is, what to do to attract someone who may turn into somebody like a Seth Godin. What to do to foster or attract people who want to turn into the next Godin, or Fortin, or whomever. Right now you're getting SEO posts, because SEO is part of web development. And writing is not -- clients do that. If clients want something written, they go out and find somebody. And the only time this doesn't happen is with -- you guessed it -- an SEO firm. Which, like an Escher, leads us right back here.

Because it is an observation unpleasant to contemplate doesn't make it a crack.

Should the concept of design change from decoration to influence, change can happen. If not, then probably not. You're in a self reinforcing feedback loop. Or you could say it's a self-supporting ecosystem seeking homeostasis. or call it status quo behavior. And you'll have to design a different one.

That discussion is off topic for this thread. In fact, it's specifically about discouraging threads like this one, so it's against topic. I'll start another topic for discussion of this shortly.

[Shyflower]

Because it is an observation unpleasant to contemplate doesn't make it a crack.

To clarify: I didn't say "cracking" I said "cranking".

[Shyflower]

As small business owners become more informed about the web, they are looking for writers who can get their messages across to their visitors. Sure, SEO is a part of that, but many clients are beginning to understand that the best way to hit the heights on a Search Engine is to present clear, concise, and informative messages on their websites.

Many are seeing the fallacy of concepts such as "keyword density". Actually, I think search engines, themselves, have helped to eliminate such inconsequential factors through their own deprecation of the META keyword.

More business people-- small and large --are also beginning to understand that they may not have the skills to write the content that will sell services to those who read on a computer screen.

It has long been believed that Marshall McLuhan's "The medium is the message" is true. However, I think that on the web, the reverse is true and that the web is evolving into a place where, for businesses, "the message is the medium."

Although there is, of course, room on the web for those types of content I mentioned earlier, "web content" is coming into its own as a new genre. It is a mix of sales copy and information. When written properly, it introduces a company to potential customers and builds their trust sight unseen.

Wrong question. The question is, what to do to attract someone who may turn into somebody like a Seth Godin. What to do to foster or attract people who want to turn into the next Godin, or Fortin, or whomever. Right now you're getting SEO posts, because SEO is part of web development. And writing is not -- clients do that. If clients want something written, they go out and find somebody. And the only time this doesn't happen is with -- you guessed it -- an SEO firm. Which, like an Escher, leads us right back here.

Because it is an observation unpleasant to contemplate doesn't make it a crack.

Should the concept of design change from decoration to influence, change can happen. If not, then probably not. You're in a self reinforcing feedback loop. Or you could say it's a self-supporting ecosystem seeking homeostasis. or call it status quo behavior. And you'll have to design a different one.

That discussion is off topic for this thread. In fact, it's specifically about discouraging threads like this one, so it's against topic. I'll start another topic for discussion of this shortly.

[Govig]

How you should write is dependent on what you are trying to achieve e.g.
1) Backlinks: write an article, enough use of the keywords and use of "Latent Semantic Indexing" (more so) so that there is no doubt the search engines know what topic the article is about. Keyword your anchor text. Write the article 2 more times with at least 30% difference and use an article spinning/submitting piece of software to churn loads of spun articles out there to get lots of fairly low quality backlinks. Doesn't have to be the best piece of writing.

2) Backlinks and traffic: Write a great article which again has a blend of keywords and LSI, providing benefit, benefit and more benefit, presents you as an authority but leaves someone wanting more info and you are the trusted knowledgeable person they can get it from by following your link. Pop into ezinearticles for e.g. so the backlink is better and can get your traffic
Well, my two pennies worth anyhoooooo!

p.s. by the way - Hi everyone..... my first post

[Shyflower]

Off Topic:

Sometimes you really have to wonder if anyone reads through a discussion before they join it.

There are plenty of threads in this forum about the negative value of article spinners and the poor practice of writing for search engines first and visitors second. This is the "Content for Your Site" area of SitePoint. Please limit your discussions of best SEO practices to that forum. In fact, since the original question was one about SEO, I will move this thread to that area.

[Stevie D]

How you should write is dependent on what you are trying to achieve e.g.

... Backlinks ... Backlinks and traffic ...

Sorry, but if that's your attitude to content writing then you are going about it completely the wrong way. Content writing is about content writing, not about sucking up to search engines or conning people into reading rehashed rubbish.

If you write good quality original content (and that doesn't include stealing someone else's content and changing a few words here and there), you'll find that you get links to your site and loyal readers much more easily than if you're feeding them the online equivalent of Mills & Boon.

People don't want to read dull, dreary drivel. People don't want to read mindless nonsense. People don't want to read rehashed rubbish. People don't want to read articles that have been spun so many times that they're inside out. If you're putting any of those on your site (which it sounds like you are) then you're on a hiding to nothing. Why would anyone read your site when they could read a better-written article by the original author, who actually understood what he was writing about? Answer - they won't.

If you want to talk about SEO, that's fine - we have an SEO section of the forums that is for that. But this bit here is about how to be a better writer, and if all you care about is how your writing will affect SEO then you're in the wrong place.

Edit - when I wrote that, it was in the "Content writing" section. If it's now in the "SEO" section then that last sentence doesn't make a lot of sense, but I'll leave it there for posterity

[almedajohnson]

Hi Guys,

Nowadays web content writers need to do optimized writing. We cannot just go on and write in our ways about a subject. We will have to make sure that we are maintaining a certain amount of keyword density in an article plus that article must have a marketing touch as it would be used for SEO. Don't you think, it effects the quality of the content too? It is recommended to maintain 3-4% keyword density in an article. This mean, if my article is having 300 words, I will have to repeat that particular keyword for at least 10-12 times, if my calculations are not wrong. Don't you feel its too much. Don't you feel that optimized writing had a negative effect on content writing. They say, write for people not for bots, don't you feel, nowadays everyone is looking to write for search engine bots? What are your views about it?

3-4% is not minimum keyword density. It is maximum keyword density. So you don't need to put your keyword forcefully. This density has been forced to stop keyword stuffing which was doing by other people for marketing purpose. I think you are taking it in negative way.

[Stomme poes]

Actually, I think search engines, themselves, have helped to eliminate such inconsequential factors through their own deprecation of the META keyword.

This doesn't seem to be working. My bosses still fill up several rows of keywords in that meta tag, and they've been told. Waste of bytes.

1) Backlinks: write an article, enough use of the keywords and use of "Latent Semantic Indexing" (more so) so that there is no doubt the search engines know what topic the article is about. Keyword your anchor text. Write the article 2 more times with at least 30% difference and use an article spinning/submitting piece of software to churn loads of spun articles out there to get lots of fairly low quality backlinks. Doesn't have to be the best piece of writing.

2) Backlinks and traffic: Write a great article which again has a blend of keywords and LSI, providing benefit, benefit and more benefit, presents you as an authority but leaves someone wanting more info and you are the trusted knowledgeable person they can get it from by following your link. Pop into ezinearticles for e.g. so the backlink is better and can get your traffic

This is absolutely why I've stopped using Google for many types of searches, because Google continues to rank this junk. (of course, I'm also sitting here actually wearing my new duckduckgo T-shirt... awesome.)

People don't want to read dull, dreary drivel. People don't want to read mindless nonsense. People don't want to read rehashed rubbish. People don't want to read articles that have been spun so many times that they're inside out.

But people know robots do.

He'd be skewering in a sarcastic and vitriolic manner the people who think keyword counting improves their writing. ...And, were he a member here, getting infraction notices from Sitepoint weekly.

Clemens would be banned post haste. And would, depending on how aware of the 'net and web zeitgeist he was, consider it a mark of distinction.

That does sound like him, yes. But first he'd get in a good couple of rants about yahoos and their robot-pandering. And they'd be worth hanging up at work as "motivational posters" lawlz.

You have to understand the reason why you get these posts -- where "here" actually is. This writing forum is the public manifestation of all the consideration web development is capable of rendering to the written word. Keywords, SEO, SEO, SEO, and scraper software. That is it. To read the threads on who should write content, writing isn't even part of the development process. Consequently you have exactly what you should expect here.

You can be annoyed about it, but don't be surprised one little bit. For anyone being annoyed rather than changing things within they way they, themselves, do web development, save yourself some time. 'cause it ain't gonna change.

Where "here" is would be precisely what was aimed for. So congratulations are in order, you fin'ly got to where y'all was headin'. (And I mean you in the larger, general sense, so everyone can save their time posting and all the "shocked ...SHOCKED that this goes on I tell you.").

We could report posts/threads that belong in SEO but were posted in Content Writing and have them moved there, and keep actual writing stuff in Content Writing (and if any writing stuff somehow ends up in SEO, move it to Content Writing)... not sure if that's just spooning water from the ocean into a bucket but it's proactive.

[johnsander]

In my point of view, nothing is important except readership when you are writing on a topic you just need to focus on that when user will read this. will he get information from here or not and it does then definitely he will stay and will refer to others.
In other words, keyword density does not come first but also readership come first regarding information as well as ranking factor.