| This 73 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 73 ( 1 2  ) || |
|What should be new linking strategy after florida?|
h1 or not, alt .... what and what not ....
| 6:58 pm on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
After the florida update i thought of penning down the summary of it apart from cries.
Here what I hate to see but true
You should not have one single keypharse as anchor text for all backlinks, try to have around 4 to 5 keyphrases (40% use the main keyphrase, next 30 % some other,...). Also try to link different pages instead of your homepage. Donot do reciprocal linking, you will be penalized for that.
You should not have more than one h1 tags, donot follow the h1, h2, h3 sequence. Have H1 and h4 and thats all.
I recommend donot use it right now, the reason being all tricks of SEO should not be applied on the same page. So leave it, less priority.
Title, meta tags keep it as early, but I will say donot use title and h1 together.
between 3% to 10%.
|Links + Title + 5% keyword density +nothing else =#1 |
More to add but right now I will stop here for other experiences, lets share it and get into the right track again.
| 2:56 am on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I do think the same but when you have cut throat competition, you can't be honest enough to take the back seat.
Whatever you said is right and I donot think SEO means a site full of keywords, which is #1 in SERPs and give a tummy pain for the users. This is a balance between both. I will put it this way,
I have a good site with good content , very attractive, good for user, top to bottom and left to right strategy followed for user.All well done.
Why will I do a link exchange or ask someone to link back though link and anchor text are king and queen of this kingdom. I have done all right.
Why am I not #1, what is that I am lacking, what are the tricks behind it, how is G and other SEs work?
This analysis is SEO. Everyone knows what their users want(or trying their best to understand them), otherwise having a #1 position is useless.
Good site first and SEO second not the reverse, I am sure all of us here are following this sequence only.
| 3:08 am on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"What should be new linking strategy after florida?"
Nothing has changed in terms of linking strategy, and certainly almost none of the first post ideas are true.
Link to and from sites that make sense to your users. Link to and from sites with anchor text appropriate for the content of the pages. Have page titles and H1 tags use that same relevant text (or in the case of titles, that text plus more descriptive words if appropriate). Do not link just for the sake of linking or SEO.
Targetted anchor text, good links, appropriate titles and headings... these are still the sites that sit at the top of competitive serps.
If there is one change, it may be that linking out to relevant sites is an algo bonus.
| 3:09 am on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Are you sure "nowhere" is true? If it is, email Google and ask them why? If you have simply lost position, then you must face up to the fact that there are better/more relevant pages (in Googles eyes) above you.
Anyone that is relying on their position of one, or a few pages, is their own worst enemy.
| 3:31 am on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have a small doubt,
If I am optimising my homepage for "kw1-kw2" and "kw2-kw3", my question is related to internal linking.
I have around 150 pages, should I keep one single link to the homepage saying home or,
should I keep "kw1-kw2" and "kw2-kw3" as anchor text too. Now I will have three links(three different anchor text) from each page ot the homepage, Home (for users)
From the user point he will always click the home link only.
| 3:56 am on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Dave's posts imo are excellent. He sounds to me like DigitalGhost, Brett, or GG ~ excellent company relative to Florida and long-term success.
The fact of the matter is that none of the above mentioned individuals are in position to justify the "[DID THAT]" posts. Their positions are rooted in the fact that they refuse to even try to explain Googles current algo positioning, or the contradictions therein.
Instead, they take the position of a realist and pragmatist. Saying, essentially, that in the end, Google wants to serve good results, and the best thing that you can do is create good results through sound content creation and comprehensive and user-centric marketing tactics.
SEO is out and effective publishing is in.
| 7:00 am on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've always thought that Google would sooner or later develop an SEO "bell curve" type penalty. From what I'm hearing about this Florida update I'm wondering if they may have finally done it.
What do you think?....Basically Google could assess the number of SEO-type techniques used on a given site and compare that to a bell curve representing the number of times these techniques were used on a large sample of the web. If the SEO-quotient of your site is above say the 90% percentile you are penalized, etc. Using this type of system would reduce intentional manipulation of the index and at the same type make the specific criterion used for the penalization very difficult to determine.
| 5:12 pm on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I was just about to write... "I aint changing anything yet, it's too early to tell". But then, that's easy to say for the likes of us that haven't suffered at all in this up date.
However, regardless, it does seem to me as too early to tell. I was horrified at reading the first post of this thread; taking such drastic action and changing so many variables now 'could' be a waste of time. Desperation I suppose.
As for link development - I say just mix it up. Too much of the same thing is going to draw attention, whatever it is.
We do it all the time now in SEO. We put the keyword once in the title, we keep the description short and concise, we keep the density as natural as possible - all these things to keep underneath the radar.
Likewise, masses of incoming links with the same link text (or whatever other theories there are at the moment), may just make you stand out enough to get a penalty.
Mix it all up - if you have a long term site it seems the way to go. No doubt this post is of no use whatsoever to those who need a quick fix like yesterday.
| 11:22 am on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What should be new linking strategy after florida?
|Good site first and SEO second not the reverse, I am sure all of us here are following this sequence only. |
I agree, well said.
| 11:34 am on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If sites that have lost position for hundreds of pages are simply not good enough, then why is that some have returned to their number one spot from hundreds of pages?
| 2:09 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I've always thought that Google would sooner or later develop an SEO "bell curve" type penalty. From what I'm hearing about this Florida update I'm wondering if they may have finally done it. |
It always seemed like a natural progression they would undertake to me as well.
In our industry, many of the "link cheats" have disappeared. Our ranks have remained fairly steady, and we even gained a PR point, but still lost several major single keyword positions. Bottom line, post Florida we've seen our Google traffic cut by about 40%.
Thing is, the non-commercial serps I see are lacking at this point. For instance, last night I was helping my son do some research for school and we had to drill down to page 3 or 4 on a topic to get good, relevant returns. The first page was filled with oddball pages of unrelated content with an isolated mention of the term.
I ran the same key on Alta this morning, just to see, and the most relevant page we found deep on G was in position 7...
While I'm happy to see some of the cheats in our industry finally snagged, that position is countered as a general user who is less than happy with the serps.
| 7:32 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|In our industry, many of the "link cheats" have disappeared. Our ranks have remained fairly steady, and we even gained a PR point, but still lost several major single keyword positions. Bottom line, post Florida we've seen our Google traffic cut by about 40%. |
I didnt do anything bad, all i did was followed the google guidelines, but still nowhere in SERPs, I am fed up of this anyway.
| 7:56 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We didn't do anything "bad" on the pages targeting the keywords we've lost out on either, yet are suffering right along side you... I was mearly pointing out what upside there is, albeit small.
| 8:27 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Shoestring, my guess is that you didn't have enough high quality inbound links. Maybe the sites that pointed at you were cheating and you were more or less dragged into it? Just a guess though. I cannot see any other reason. Or maybe you did some bad thing, e.g. keyword stuffing or hidden text, by mistake? It *is* possible to do it by mistake you know, not the least on a big site. I wonder how picky Google are about it?
| This 73 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 73 ( 1 2  ) |