| 7:35 pm on May 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have the pages been indexed?
Do you use the same title/metas for each of the 5 pages?
| 7:49 pm on May 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All pages are indexed and show with "site:www.example.com". I have unique titles and meta descriptions for each of the pages.
As I said the article is targeted to some competitive keywords, but I think it should have started to bring some visitors by now...
| 10:26 pm on May 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Promote it. Highlight it all over the site by running little promos for it. Buy some advertising for it for a month or two to get some traffic to it. If it's as good as you say, these things will get others linking to it, and then you can stop the advertising.
| 10:32 pm on May 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
malasorte, LOL, I've also written what I consider to be the 'best' article in a certain niche, almost zero traffic on it since I put it up. Meanwhile, quick one off notes to myself have skyrocketed to number one in a matter of days and have gotten very good traffic.
I've given up trying to figure out why one thing works and another doesn't, could be the market, could be how search engines view the page, or a combination of the two. Or maybe users just don't like the presentation of it, hard to say, I decided to not worry about it.
| 12:18 am on May 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
maybe its the key words thats been used , they arent commonly searched up by users
| 12:24 am on May 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Put the article on a 5 year old PR7 site and it would get plenty of traffic as long as it's a topic that is searched on. Hard to believe you have a seven month old site that is not suffering some type of sandbox effect.
| 1:50 am on May 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've written a number of what I consider best-in-class articles. Most of them have risen straight to the top of the engines, largely because everyone and her dog links to them without my asking. But this one article I wrote, a dozen pages and a couple of weeks of effort -- nada. So recently I broke down and did something I never did before: Bought advertising for it, both on another site and in Adwords. I'm only getting as much traffic as I'm paying for, but every several days someone else links to it. I'm paying $150/mo. in advertising. In a few months I'm hoping my rankings will be good enough that I can cancel the advertising and sell the adspace for ~$300/mo. or more.
And if not, then at least I've created a very useful article that makes a fair number of people very happy. :)
| 11:21 am on May 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Roughly How many websites link to your article?
| 6:33 pm on May 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I'm giving serious thought to combine these 5 pages of the article into just one, do you think it would make a difference? |
I don't know what you call competitive, but 4000 words would likely never hit for anything I'd call competitive. It's just too many.
I was going to stop there, but I'll share a thought with you that just came to me.
Instead of pagination, perhaps you could call it an "in-depth 5 part series" and give each part of the series a distinct theme / keyword set / definable section.
While you may have written a stellar piece overall, my suggestion sounds more like something I would link to, than an article that is 5 pages in length. Maybe you can't split it like that, but if you can, you'll be helping the article market itself.
| 7:59 pm on May 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
4000 words is fine. One of my top articles in terms of traffic and rankings is 3950 words. (I just counted.)
How can there be such a thing as "too many" words? Information that's in-depth is useful, and distinct from worthless cursory "articles" that don't tell you squat. Google realizes that.
I'm thinking the opposite: 800 words per page is too few. It's hard to impress someone with how thorough you are on an 800-word page (to the point that they'd want to link to it).
| 8:34 am on May 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It has to depend on the audience. Personally I would hate to read that many words on one page, it needs to be split up to make reading it easier.
Perhaps the article just isn't on the kind of topic that people will link to readily? Most likely, though, the right people haven't seen it yet. Although you say your site as a whole has good traffic, I'd guess that most people don't arrive via the home page. Therefore, they won't necessarily be aware of your newest articles.
| 12:05 pm on May 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks all for your answers! I will leave the article in its current state for another month, and if things do not change I will give serious though about advertising or merging it into a single page.
| 2:24 pm on May 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|How can there be such a thing as "too many" words? |
Because current algos consider / weigh word counts. I didn't say you couldn't get traffic with a 4000 word article. I imagine you can get traffic with a 20,000 word article.
If you're trying to hit keywords that go for $7.00 or $8.00+ per click, you won't hit the serps with a 4000 word article in any contemporary search engine, with any significant traffic. It's easily provable. If it helped, that's what you'd see at the top. That's not what's there. If you look at the top 20 results of any competitive terms, I doubt you'll find a 4000 word anything. Even if it's not hurting, it sure isn't helping or the top 20 results would be filled with 4000 page articles.
| 3:25 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I'm sure it is the best online article dealing with this product. |
Take a quick poll of the 1,000 URLs ahead of you for this keyword in Google. Are any of them feeling like they are too highly ranked?
|Still no visitors from search engines. |
"Little or no visitors" would be more accurate, since you cannot accurately detect SE referrals when people implement client-side privacy measures.
If this is really a competitive keyword, then it seems like you've entered a butt-kicking contest despite not having two legs to stand on. I would fall down dead with shock if I wrote a article that quickly zoomed to the top of the Google SERPs for a competitive keyword.
If I want to go after even modestly popular keywords, I expect to build supporting content (often focussing on lengthier terms that include the shorter, more profitable search term). I expect to build that content over time, and accumulate links over time, and add internal cross-linking over time to support my contention that a certain page is the best authority for a given search term.
| 4:34 am on May 23, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Why not put up both the 5-page version and another page of the same thing all in one and compare traffic?
| 4:52 pm on May 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> Why not put up both the 5-page version and another page of the same thing all in one and compare traffic? <<
Generally duplicate content is frowned upon.
| 5:25 am on May 26, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>Generally duplicate content is frowned upon. <<
By who? By search engines? That could be. None of my business depends on search engine ranking, only word of mouth.
So how about putting each one up for a length of time and comparing that? Or on separate servers? Just ideas...