|Have any website changes been successful?|
the debate to make changes or keep waiting
| 10:50 pm on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From what I've read, many people have been tweaking and making changes in an attempt to get back their position. Has anyone been even remotely successful and if so what was changed? Along those lines, what hasn't been successful?
Iím also wondering if people believe there is any use in making changes right now. Is the consensus that the shifting is still taking place and we should wait it out?
| 1:04 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
what kind of changes are you talking about?
| 2:56 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The changes I'm thinking of include taking out keyword-heavy anchor text, changing page titles, lowering keyword density on pages and internal links, etc.
| 3:38 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Florida left my site at #3 for my main category keyword in 4,700,000 results. I have since moved up to #2 for the first time.
My index page in PR6, my best secondary pages are PR5 and the rest, PR4. What I have focused on recently has been to place additional links from the PR4 pages to other pages on the site trying to get them up to PR5. This works every time and I am surprised at how many SEO's place so little emphasis on this.
Although the higher PR takes some time to be recorded officially, I am certain that they are factored by Google within a few days. If you have a large enough site, this is a very effective way of improving your overall page rank. Additionally, I have added extra external links, which seemed to already been factored in.
Other than that, I try to look at my site through Google's eyes to determine what provides them with the best quality results. I can't see increasing keyword density, increasing H1, H2 tags, etc., providing higher quality results.
Just get the basics right such as keyword in the title, description, in the alt tags, a few times in the body text and make very sure that it is contained in you anchor text. After that, search for links and try to get your internal pages to improve their ranking. From my experience, Google does not care if it is internal or external links so be sure to max out on your internal linking structure. If you have other websites with PR4 and above pages, by all means use a strategic linking strategy to help get the PR of you internal pages up.
Works for me.
| 3:44 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Iím just making minor adjustments that I was behind in doing anyway to see if anything moves. Of course, since I am making adjustments faster tha G bot crawls, if they do change, I will not know what I did to make it change. Since I did not do any SEO anyway, it doesnít matter to me what I change, as long as I recover for the 2 KWs that keep new visitors coming in the front door.
| 3:56 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
old mac donald had a link, e i e i o
and on that link he had some links, e i e i o
with a "link", "link" here, and a "link", "link", there
here a link, there a link, everywhere a link link.
old macdonald had a link, e i e i o
old macdonald had a synonym, e i e i o
and on that synonym, he had some "synonym's", e i e i o
and on that ....
do a search on AV or ATW for the keywords your targetting, look to the right at the "related searches", add some of the appropriate words in related searches to your page.
Link out, not just to places that link back.
| 4:01 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I made a small change and lost my #1 position on Inktomi!
| 4:02 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
mary had a little lamb little lamb little lamb ...
Some of my link exchange partners are emailing me on chaging their anchor text. I am quite sure they are the one who 'take action'. I do help them to change it because I believe in 'taking action' and is a strong believer on the over optimization penalty.
Don't see the SERPs with your eyes, see it with Google's eyes. And everything will be clear in a heartbeat.
| 4:22 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"I made a small change and lost my #1 position on Inktomi!
And WHAT small change was this? Duh...this is what we are wanting to know - what works and what doesn't?!?!?!
| 4:26 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
cherryo, if I were you, I would be seeking out those that never lost their positions, or moved up.
| 5:33 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
those who never lost their positions may not have lost them for a number of reasons that are not necessarily because they knew what they were doing. (im sure some of them would like to think so though), that's not directed at you personally dave.
There are also a lot of sites that may be very new and may be doing well because of it.
| 5:35 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Dave-Hawley, my site is still #2 for Keyword1 but gone for Keyword1 Keyword2. So I should look at myself since I'm doing great to see what I'm doing wrong?
| 5:41 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Maybe you're doing great. However, before, you were ranking better for more keywords than you do now. That, generally means you are not doing better now than you were before.
So, yes, you should look at yourself and see what caused the problem. Or don't look at anything and wait for EVERYthing you have to disappear.
| 5:59 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
dave_hawley, you continue to reiterate the simplicity of ranking well, by essentially providing lots of good content, following google guidelines, etc. and while i understand your point, and don't disagree with it fully, i do wonder if you are judging your own site(s) high ranking appropriately. here's what i mean.
i have some sites that held their positions in the florida update. some of these provide lots of good content and follow all the goo-guidelines, while some of them have very little content (as there just isn't much to say about the topic). with all my sites, though, i try to follow the goo-guidelines, whether or not they have tons of content.
the difference in the ones that suffered in this update and the ones that did not, appears to have much more to do with whether or not google is targeting the specific keyword phrase or not. those that don't have much reason to be targetted (based on various different conjectures) did well. those that were obviously targetted by google, were hit hard by the update.
so....would you say that the keywords you are still ranking well for, are keywords that google would likely target for the filter or not? my guess, after looking at the sites i could find that you own, would be that those keywords are not part of a new google filter, therefore the old rules still apply. that doesn't mean the old rules still apply to everyone.
| 6:00 am on Dec 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hey no problems, thought I may give you some good simple info that will help in Google.
I'll leave you all to it, good luck!