I'm seeing some weighting to keywords in URLs on Google based on a few expeiments I've run recently. Nothing that will guarantee a top 10 position in and of itself, but keywords in the URL do seem to be a factor for my pages.
I haven't read Brett's article for over a year and I recall that it is a solid foundation for those without any clues.
Yet when I look at certain top serps, I cannot help wondering if any of the 26 steps were applied by the owner. Sometimes, not all steps are relevant to a site, e.g. writing new content is not applicable to a site that is purely data fed. You would modify the advice by looking to aggregate new content from another source, e.g. reviews.
While it would be nice if Brett were to keep the article updated, it could never replace reading posts by others and staying up to date with current tactics, e.g. the Google Sandbox.
|You want it flushed out from the start. |
>> writing new content is not applicable to a site that is purely data fed
But making sure it appears fresh to the search engines is important. ;)
Thanks a lot olgetree and ganderla for sharing your experiences and
also thanks to egomaniac guiding me about the PR, but it seems bad to see no traffic increase, i can't wait to see the traffic jump to high levels, after all 400 pages have seen PR increase, were there no good keywords in 400 pages? there were lot many keywords!
But the question is where is Brett? and will he ever update his great article?
I have read lot of posts out here and have gained too much knowledge, but if brett could validate all the new facts, it would be nice for all of us coming here.
I know I'll probably get cussed at and thrown out on my ear for saying this but when I first read Brett's article earlier this year I thought it was all just common sense stuff. Nothing new or amazing. Though it may have been something special when it was written my first impression after reading it was "...and? Anything else?"
Your right it is. The thing is very few people know this. For it to be common sense you need to understand that you need SEO and that it has any value. You would be surprised how many developers could not tell you how SE's work. A lot of them think it is based on how busy a site is.
And you're right, ogletree. I was very ignorant of much about SEO just a week ago. Much of the input on this site has opened my eyes.
From what I can see, it's an evolving process and you have to keep up with it, or better yet be able to see trends so you can keep a step ahead of it.
I asked some questions about the article for that reason - it's dated material and things must have changed. I've seen conflicting info elsewhere. Imagine that - conflicting info on the web! So I read more. The more I study it, the more consensus I see in areas, and certain aspects become clearly necessary.
For my purposes, the best I can do is design my site for best use to the targeted user. SEO knowledge is good to have and helps me not to feel like I'm designing in the dark. The funny thing is that I wasn't aware I was in the dark.
Oh yeah, it's late and I'm tired. Completely lost a thought I meant to put in the last post and it's probably more important than the rest.
Despite the value of this site and the article being talked about, it would seem unwise to not seek out other sources and glean from them what you can. Trusting on one dated article won't put you out front, though for a beginner it could put you way ahead of where you were going.
If you check out other forums, you'll see they have different flavors and seem to dwell more on certain aspects. Current issues are being talked about elsewhere that barely come up here, although overall there is pretty broad coverage here.
That's just the way it is on the web - nothing new about it.
There really is not much more to it. If you do what Brett says you will do well in the long run. There are advanced things you can do but following that will do you well in the long run and it is really all you need. Actually if everyone did that G would be a very different place. One day the big companies might figure it out and it will be almost impossible to be number one unless you are a known corperation. I really doubt if they will but you never know.
|I was amazed to see that my site with around 500 pages, all of them were upgraded recently from pr 0 to pr 4 and pr 3, but i have seen no big jump in traffic even with increase in the PR. |
1)Wait, have patience. PR update doesn't mean that a SERPS's update has followed too.
2)Page Rank used to matter a lot in past(till March 2003)not anymore.But this doesn't mean that PR has lost all its significance. No, it's not. It's specailly relevent with the site having large no of pages.
3)SERPS Rankings have a very little to do with PR. I know many here would not agree and try to give many theoritical explanations but the reality is this.
4)Google was the first search engine which instrumented the concept of "link popularity" to rank pages and it used PR to determine that. Unfortunately for Google the SEO's exploited it to the extent that PR's relevency in current algorithm has been dramatically cut down.
>> Nothing new or amazing. Though it may have been something special when it was written my first impression after reading it was "...and? Anything else?"
But well structured and extremely well presented as 26 bullet points.
You'd be surprised how much it can either validate or inspire.
can't get your idea web newton.
actually i have one more idea on my mind, i was told that the SERP start improving some time before PR update.
And in any case, 500 pages with PR increase should reflect even 20 % rise in traffic, i was expecting that.
yes i do agree that PR still matters, but not in my case i think
I just remember my eyes glazing over when I kept seeing "add content, content content". "Forget about tricking the search engines". "Be good".
I've taken snippets from it, but in the end the way you optimize your own sites is a personal thing. It's an art, not a science.
For example - we have a high ranking page in competitive Google SEPS without a character of text on it. Who is going to tell me content is king? Not a single rule from the 26 steps can explain why that page is there.
>we have a high ranking page in competitive Google SEPS without a character of text on it.
Does it have those kws in the title?
|i was told that the SERP start improving some time before PR update. |
Not exatly. Mostly SERP's update follow after PR update.
Before i go ahead could you please tell me how old is your site. If your site is new(3-4 months old) you might as well wait because sandbox will not let your site go up in SERP's. While talking about the age of your site i mean the time when you initiated the link building for it. If your site is 1 year old but you've initiated link building just 3 months back your site is just 3 months old.
And by the way there han't been a major SERP update for over a month and half. This should follow anytime within next 10 day(i think so)and i hope you're site will get what it deserves.
"Who is going to tell me content is king? Not a single rule from the 26 steps can explain why that page is there."
Now I'm not sure exactly what Brett was thinking when he wrote this article, but the idea that I got from it was not that his 26 steps are the only way to do well using Google, but rather a solid methodology that will succeed over the long haul.
Brett's article was also not a guide to rank your page #1 in the SERPs, it was about
"drawing between 500 and 2000 referrals a day from search engines. If you build a good site with an average of 4 to 5 pages per user, you should be in the 10-15k page views per day range in one years time."
I've not followed Brett's guide completely, but from wht I hear from those who have, the article delivers what it promises.
Content, Content, Content, yes its true, i work as a software engineer, and last week i was checking the serps for one of our customers who has a site loaded with usefull content, the site is absolutely NOT optimised for search engines, but its almost on every SINGLE keyword in their business in the top 3 results.
Good Content means normally good links!
|Does it have those kws in the title? |
I'd bet a dollar it does.
As well as a truck-load of inbound anchor text links.
You could get a blank page up to #1 for a competitive search in google with the right inbounds.
The reality is, that's all you'd be #1 for.
Except in the mega mega-competitive markets, having breadth/width in your SEO marketing campaign is the key to long term success.
That's what Brett's article reflects.
I'd rather be #50 in G for my main keyword and #1 in G for all the kinds of phrases surrounding that keyword that are generally typed in by people looking to buy widgets, or otherwise quality traffic.
I second that. Sometimes people focus too much on what they consider their "money phrase" and forget about all the other associated phrases.
I've always found that the three and four word phrases convert MUCH better than the two word phrases anyway.
I know this has been beaten to death but can someone explain this to me and give an example?
G) Outbound Links:
From every page, link to one or two high ranking sites under that particular keyword. Use your keyword in the link text (this is ultra important for the future).
Sure, on a page about "red widgets":-
"For further information about the industrial use of these widgets see <a href=www*tj*com>red widgets by TJ</a>"
The purpose of it is to show google that you provide authoritative resources.
I think ogletree has given some examples on real-world effect.
>>I'd bet a dollar it does.
>>As well as a truck-load of inbound anchor text links.
Well, 2, but I guess that's why it's there.
I was quite annoyed it appeared actually. It's not useful to me or my clients and it might even cause a spam report and subsequent hand check. Our webmaster put the links to the page before the content was made.
Just to reply to a couple of comments above about Brett's steps working...I have no doubt they do, but there is always an easier route if you have your ear to the ground. First it was Yahoo submissions with domain names starting with 1-, then it was keyword stuffing with hidden text, then when hidden text filters started working it was rewriting the index page in weird english to fit as many keywords in as possible, then it was pagerank, and now it is anchor text. Who knows what will be next?
Whatever...it takes a year to do it with hard graft or 2 months if you brush up on what's in the latest algo. So all credit to you if you have the staying power to create a page a day. I do SEO to feed my business, not the other way round.
I think anchor text is very important these days to Pass PR and also to get higher SERP in Google
This is the thread that you want re Outbound Links
for reminding me of a nice post
> 1-Size. Is this still as important now?
> And do the recommendations include graphics or just html?
I feel it is, but the high water mark has moved up some with broadband growth.
I fell, much more important is that the site must respond very fast. With todays mega servers available, there is no reason that there should be any server delay what-so-ever when a page is served. Lag time should be almost eliminated.
The goal is to make something happen in the browser as fast as possible. That means, use good html and mark those image sizes so that the browsers render the page as soon as possible.
As far as page size, smaller is better from an optimization standpoint because it is easier to get a higher kw density with smaller amounts of text. There is still ancillary evidence that G prefers smaller pages.
Sure, but do your side-by-side usability tests and leave your biases at home - you will be surprised. Somes sites rock with CSS, and some die with CSS.
Same is true with the dhtml stuff.
> Have spiders evolved enough to make usage of CSS and 4.0 okay?
Been watching the google forum? Seen all those people talking about "weird characters" in titles? How about all those that have missing descriptions? What about those that are missing highlighted keywords? Seen some posts about people missing entire pages? How about those missing entire sites after they updated? If so, then you know all about the horrors of html 4.0 and excessive js. If not - start reading... it's all out there.
I guess the morale is to be very careful about the excessively tricky code you throw on a page. The worst offender is still embedding scripting languages (always put them external).
> I was wondering about the reference to keywords in bold and italic.
It just stands as a great habit. SE's love variety and you need to love producing variety to rank well over the long term.
> Do not use Virtual hosting - There are not enough
> IP's to go around and give one to each site.
So they say, and I tend to agree with that sentiment.
On the other hand, I will not use virtual hosting for anything important. I will also investigate the IP's I am assigned before I use them.
I do believe some SE's are still banning ip's and not sites.
> "Domain name: Easily brandable. You want "google.com"
> and not "mykeyword.com". Keyword domains are out -
> branding and name recognition are in - big time in."
More true today, than it was back then. Branding is in - been in - will stay in.
Nothing could signal "crap site - ban it - ban it now" faster than a dash or two dashes in a domain.
> I was wondering about the outbound links comment.
If you don't have outbound links, how are you going to get inbound links? If you aren't somewhat of an authority on your topic, how can people trust you? Quality, authoritative outbound links build trust. Even if you are pushing pills, you have to build trust.
On the other hand, I still feel strongly, that outbound links in the aggregate are important to the future of algos.
> update his great article?
Maybe at some point. Aside from the specifics, it is all good to go today as it was two years ago.
fyi: the article is now partially copyright Oreilly publishing and part of the Google Hacks book.
> I never wrote that it is impossible to rank well without keywords
And I never said the article had anything to do with SEO. I said it was 26 steps to 15k a day with Google Alone - the article was about building a successful site and SEO is just a natural part of that.
SEO is a site partner - not a site purpose.
| This 58 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 58 ( 1  ) |