| 3:52 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Can anybody specify the new linking strategy.
| 3:58 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
i don't think this has anything to do with page structure, as much as it does a desire to sell ad spots
why sell people what they are getting for free?
| 4:05 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Granted, I'm not the SEO guru around here, but that recipe sounds like quiche to me. (If you don't understand this, you've never had quiche)
I'm not sure about the H1 - H4 suggestion. H tag use is standard web design and good practice. As long as you don't repeat KW's till the cows come home, or use ALL H1 tags you should be fine. I still believe that proper use of H tags can only improve your ranking, and that includes the use of H2 and 3.
| 4:07 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm hoping this not one of those "you must sing from the same Florida song book threads". Anyway, here goes.
|Donot do reciprocal linking, you will be penalized for that. |
Not true! I do this all the time to relavent sites and so do many other sites I watch.
|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. |
I use these exenstively as it helps users.
|Title, meta tags keep it as early, but I will say donot use title and h1 together |
Don't even think about keyword density, just write your text for humans to read.
Of course, all this is ONLY relavent if you want good placement.
[edited by: Dave_Hawley at 4:15 am (utc) on Dec. 2, 2003]
| 4:12 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Dave, youve been around long enough to know about url drops.
| 4:14 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sorry I don't get your point?
....Oops, yes I do, sorry!
| 4:16 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
" Donot do reciprocal linking, you will be penalized for that."
In my opinion, that's not correct.
|too much information|
| 4:20 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
you know, I would really like to see this thread develop into something good.
I like the start so far, but to tell you the truth the only thing I have changed is my title.
I am using Alt tags, H1 and H2, recripocal links, and a KWD around 20%. What I have found is that the main target set of keywords for my site I am not in the SERPs at all.
BUT if you mix up the words, separate them into smaller combinations, etc. I'm on page 1 of all of them.
The only reason I changed my Title tag was to keep it from matching my H1 tag too closely. I just got crawled today so I'll let you know what happens in a day or so.
| 4:27 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What to do?
The general consensus seems to be that Google is targetting over-optimization of commercial keywords. So, the sensible question to ask is, "How does google recognise this?"
The probable answer:
1. A dictionary of commercial search terms (adwords?)
2. Links, particularly reciprocal links, that have these keywords
3. A correlation between 2 and on-page optimization factors.
4. An absence of natural-seeming links.
Number 4 is the important one, I'd guess. 4 is what makes a page seem to be nothing but spam.
Personally, I wouldn't change sensible on-page optimization - H1 tags, URLs, etc. There is no reason why Google wouldn't want to be told what a page is about.
The solution? It's only a theory, but if I was heavily affected at the moment (which I'm not), I'd be looking for non-reciprocal links inserted into the middle of body text WITHOUT good anchor text. This means...
Yep. People here hate blogs, but at the moment I'd be asking everybody I know who has a blog to link to me - not comment spam, and not permanent links, but the sort of link that comes in the middle of a post with anchor text like "really useful article" or "good info here" or "this is really funny". And probably not to home pages, but deep links.
Preferrably from Blogger blogs. There's a reason Google bought them. Natural seeming links from real people, to indicate that a site is more than spam.
Just a thought, based on logic rather than any evidence.
| 4:39 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Alt tags |
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.
Alt tags are very useful html. Average users like them because they can mouseover and see additional link/image information, and if used appropriately can really add value to your site. Why would anyone avoid using them? I seriously doubt Google is applying any filter to alt tag usage (when used properly).
| 5:15 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
in the past, after a major update. did google tell the public what had changed in its algo? or did we just pick it up. The major thing that i am seeing is that you need less keywords on your page. but at the same time, how are you suppose to write a very informative page without mentioning your topic more than an x amount of time. i noticed that sites with high backlinks and keywords placed well. but sites with lower keywords and low backlinks also placed well. I think it all has to do with backlinks and keyword density
| 5:30 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
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.
Utter utter nonsense....
| 5:33 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|or did we just pick it up |
I think some of us would like to *think* we "just pick it up" but to me it's quite clear that Google will always keep 1 step ahead of SEO's. Personally I see SEO as pointless and very superficial. I focus mainly on HO (human optimizing) sticking to basic HTML and constantly adding linked content.
|The major thing that i am seeing is that you need less keywords on your page. but at the same time, how are you suppose to write a very informative page without mentioning your topic more than an x amount of time |
I do not *think* Google is overly concerened with keyword density. Just write text for humans to read and you will get the right ratio.
| 6:38 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I totall agree with Dave_Hawley; there is nothing to do much with the on-page factor like H1 or title tag, but these could simply are the end-results of another algo which is much more complicated.
To answer this thread question - "What should be new linking strategy after florida?"
I think trying to understand the concept of Eigenvalue and eigenvector as well as webgraph can be valuable. I recall Mil2k, a senior member here, had elaborated about subgraphs quite nicely several months ago. Although it might not be exactly the same phenomenon of Florida, it gives a good idea and concept how the filter can be triggered.
| 6:56 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What I have written is after analysing around 5 sites of some very popular kew phrases.
It is something like,
Water is good for health, bacardi good for relaxation, wine tastes good, apple juice very nutritious.
Utter nonsense, how can you forget milk, a complete food.
But G says never take all at the same time, you will get a bellyache.
Everything is good but still many not there as they have done over.
| 8:20 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>> What I have written is after analysing around 5 sites of some very popular kew phrases.
Analyzing around 5 sites might not be sufficient, Aji unless you hit the right jackpot. If you dig further more, you might be surprise to find more discrepancies and inconsistancy in the pattern and you will be wondering why.
For ex., "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"
I'm familiar with some sites that employed similar tactics that you described above but could not escape the Florida wipe out.
| 8:24 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|What I have written is after analysing around 5 sites of some very popular kew phrases. |
Well it's conclusive then, 5 from 3 billion is ample ;)
| 8:27 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
As a web design company we've always put a link to ourselves on every page of every site we build (right next the the copyright info at the bottom). Until now we've always formatted it this way:
Copyright © 2003 Client Name ¦ Created by Widget Web Design
..With the words 'Widget Web Design' as the link back to our site.
'Web Design' happens to be part of the company name, but are we supposed to change our link strategy now because web design is a commercial term?
| 8:33 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
sparticus, I would advise *strongly not to*. There is a LOT of steam being vented at present and as such some VERY bad and hasty advise is being given.
[edited by: Dave_Hawley at 8:34 am (utc) on Dec. 2, 2003]
| 8:34 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>> 'Web Design' happens to be part of the company name, but are we supposed to change our link strategy now because web design is a commercial term?
Does it hurt you now? If not, I don't think you should be worry about.
If you are still worry about it for the future, you may consider to have only plain text 'Widget Web Design' and then your company url on the side or at the bottom. - Just an idea though.
| 8:39 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Having web design in the link text does seem to be hurting us - we used to be number five in Google for 'web design country name' but now we've disappeared.
We were also number nine or something for 'web hosting country name' and we've dropped off for that too.
Interestingly, we're still number one for 'web hosting city name'
| 8:50 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
sparticus same thing here, I've been tempted to start a thread to see what web designers were experiencing.
| 8:55 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I've been tempted to start a thread to see what web designers were experiencing. |
Well... I'm seeing one of them ranking #3 for keyword1 keyword2 widgets because he links to a widget site on his client page. ;)
| 9:08 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Robert, I've been experiencing the linking out phenomenon for several years. It's the problem of industry standard of linking back from client sites from every page; and after all, what if the phrase is part of the domain name?
| 9:11 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You can't have too many relative outbound links. The more unique the descriptions of your outbound links are in comparison with other sites linking to the same place, the better.
When it comes to inbounds, the same thing applies. If all the links pointing to any of your pages are at least slightly different, you will be much better off.
I don't think anyone is getting "penalized" for linking structure. Here's my guess...
If you have 10 inbound links to a page, and 9 of those 10 links have the same keywords in the same order, you will only be given "credit" for 2 links.
I know of one site that was recently brought to mind because they contacted me to request a link. I said okay and was all set to give them a nice descriptive paragraph. All they wanted was one sentance with a 2 word keyphrase in it. I did some checking and ALL of the links pointing to their site say the same exact thing. Before florida they were #2 for the 2 word phrase, they are now at # 50. It is not a spammy site and the keyphrase for those who are wondering IS once in the title, once in description, and very low KWD.
| 9:55 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think the exact keyphrase as anchor text for outbound links improves your ranking for those keywords, but the exact keyphrase repeated elsewhere on the page lowers your ranking for those keywords. That's why directory sites are ranking higher. If this is true, then there's plenty of scope for the multiple domain spammers.
Does anyone have any evidence that Google is actually discounting/penalising reciprocal links?
| 10:43 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I cant believe people are seriously discussing playing around with H & alt tags. Are we now ditching w3c guidelines and best practice because we think it might score a point or two with the big G.
Aside form the many other good reasons for sticking with convention, Ink loves "H" tags -do you want to mess up your Ink listings as well as G? You're timing is perfect!
Alt tags are also going to be part of the big accessibility conversion certainly in the UK where the Disability Discrimination Act stipulates that sites should be accessible for all. Is Google going to therefore penalise such a vital component?
Thats not to say that keyword stuffing should be allowed - youve just got to be sensible in applying your seo.
If its clear that repitition of anchor text is being penailised - and I dont think any of us know for sure that it is - then you change your text implementing a broader keyword range than before.
One thing is for sure - LINKS ARE GOOD theyve always been good and they always will be and you have to continue accumulating them. We all have to adjust our practices and within 6 weeks we will know how to fine tune our websites.
Until then let the debate continue but please - lets keep it real.
| 11:16 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think there is no strategy that will help. If you are using keywords which are on the hit list then there is nothing you can do.
In my opinion Google have sought to attack their problems at the root, rather than cutting branches off. The keyword is the root of any search. In theory, this is a great idea, in practice there has been casualties.
If Google are worth their salt, they will fine tune the filters to let the good sites through. If their only motivation is $$$$ then alot of webmasters will need to find another way to make a living.
| 11:39 am on Dec 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> Eigenvalue and eigenvector as well as webgraph
That was some very specific words. Although these concepts indeed could give some insight on how Google works (as well as a lot of other things), i really don't think that you have to know any mathematics at all to produce a good (ranking) website - and you don't have to be a PhD either.
These are just tools for analysing complex sets of interdependencies. It sounds pretty advanced, and it is, but it will not really help you create that super site, as these tools are used for entirely different purposes.
Go create that super site instead. Don't be afraid of links coming in or links going out; specifically, dont try to control the free flow of linking power. Nobody really can do that 100% anyway in the real world, not even the big household brand names.
Dawe_Hawley might be considered an "optimist" or even "SEO ignorant" by some for the things he said earlier, but that's an uninformed view. To me, what he says makes a lot of sense, you just have to dig a little deeper. SEO might not be SEO in all cases. And that is not the same as a SEO penalty.
Google does not penalize for SEO. Google does not penalise for proper HTML coding. Google does not penalize for incoming links or for outgoing links. In general, i will say that Google does not operate with penalties at all. In some highly specific situations, they have to employ some sort of manual tweaking, but in general they will stay far away from that. Why? Simply because it will make their system slow and inefficient, and that is the last thing they will want.
What they do is to assign weights to all kinds of things and then they rank pages according to those weights. If you page has the highest sum of weights for some term or phrase, you will simply rank highest for that. And, yes, weights can be set to zero as well as any other number - and they keep changing a little now and then.
As there are a large number of such weights, you will sometimes see that pages that are not "SEO'ed" at all rank just as high as pages that are. Of course they do that for another reason, as there is not one specific way to the top, but many.
(added: filtering, in turn, is an entirely different matter, unfortunately i have no time for that right now, sorry)
What has changed with "Florida" is simply that pages do not need to rank high for the exact phrase to be in top 10 (i might add; unless that phrase is considered to be an exact one). To webmasters running sites (with pages) that were previously on pages 2-100 that would be an improvement.
The Florida update was not a lot about your pages. It was mostly about Google's own pages - specifically that little thing known as the search box. What people type in here is now treated a little different, and it's actually pretty impressive.
By all means, it was a minor tweak in terms of page ranking and weighting. In terms of focus and understanding of search patterns it was a major leap.
With regard to your pages: Use your common sense - that will get you very far. With all due respect, these advanced tools are usually used (with great skill) to produce analogies of "common sense, real life" situations.
With regard to math: This has never been an equation of second order, so having just one maximum is not really natural anyway.
| This 73 message thread spans 3 pages: 73 (  2 3 ) > > |