homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.43.155
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 57 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 57 ( 1 [2]     
Rank the top 10 Google SEO techniques
I'll post the averages after thread is done
buzzbeat




msg:195930
 1:36 pm on Jul 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

After doing a number thread searches I couldn't find a quick 'down-n-dirty' top-10 list of SEO techniques. I have included 14 below... what are your top 10? Got any to add?

1.) Proper Website Design

2.) Incoming links

3.) Keyword selection and use w/in a page

4.) Relevant content w/ proximity

5.) Page titles

6.) Submission to engines/ directories

7.) Internal links

8.) Outgoing links

9.) Cross-site themes

10.) Alt tags

11.) Meta tags

12.) HTML keyword ’comments’

13.) Using PPC as an organic ‘enhancer’ to SERP

14.) Alphabetical prioritization

 

notredamekid




msg:195960
 9:52 pm on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

I agree. Plus my .02:


1. Title
2. Anchor Text (from outside site)
3. Anchor Text (from inside site)
4. Any incoming link (PR)
5. Incoming links from authority sites
6. H1 tag

7. *linking to authoritative, topically-related pages with keyword in the anchor

8. Stemming
9. Keeping pages at least 15% different
10. KW's in <B><I><U> tags

Good Content and Validation have nothing to do with G ranking at this time.

I agree validation has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. I do however think that good content will help in the long term, as it will attract more links, and esp. links from authoritative sites.

Marcia




msg:195961
 10:23 pm on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

One exeption with HTML validation. I've seen a site get kicked out of 2 search engines because of serious HTML foul-up. A FP web designer who doesn't know a line of HTML, the page was missing end closing tags and had double head and body tags - and more. A total mess, it couldn't be crawled and ended up dropped. Got back in when fixed.

SuddenlySara




msg:195962
 12:26 am on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

google is too easy.

1. Title tag
2. title tag in body
3. keep signing guestbooks, blogs and virtually any
form online that allows your domain post with your title tag.

This stuff works and makes me sick.
Our area on the net is ruled by the above on google.com since that November 2003 crazy update.

SuddenlySara




msg:195963
 12:34 am on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

forgot to say " H1 tag on title in body.

4eyes




msg:195964
 8:21 am on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

I certainly doubt that your secret techniques are more important than the public ones.

Never said they were, but in any case, this statement is incorrect.

They may be what gives you an edge, but you still have to pay attention to the basics.

As proven by this statement.

Nobody said that you don't have to pay attention to the basics, so I am not sure who you are arguing here. Equally, I am not sure how you are equating 'the basics' with 'top ten tchniques'

If my competition is using the basics, and you accept that my 'secret techniques' are what gives me an edge, (your words, not mine), then not sharing them on a forum read by my competition is clearly a massively important factor.

How can you not see that?

Also, lets not forget, sharing any techniques that are not already widely known, can lead to the search engines acting against them.

As Marcia alludes to, this has happened with 'hidden features' on Google which were almost immediately disabled.

experienced




msg:195965
 9:24 am on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

i think there is no need to learn SEO and its techniques as google is going mad and, now as google is removing the sites from the database without any break, people are looking for another google engine. These type of removal are really bad experience for the SEO. So i think google is loosing the position it had. I have seen a number of sites over the net, with excellent content, backlinks, PR and all other bull ****, but only url are there.

GOOGLE GOING MAD

Dont you think so.

caveman




msg:195966
 11:20 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

I was being a bit cheeky when alluding to *our* secret techniques, and didn't put it in context...but Marcia and 4eyes make the point.

Taking "the bascis" seriously clearly got us into the game. But the game keeps getting tougher, and while there are still arenas where just following Brett's rules will help enormously, those basic rules are getting closer to becomming a cost of entry, rather than a path to significant success.

FWIW, our secret techniques are *not* what some might call 'tricks.' I prefer to think of our secret techniques as just more undiscovered - or at least unpublished - basics.

The problem with the original list in the first post (no offense meant to the poster) is that every point is so basic as to be of little use; it's the specifics of execution and implementation that lead to results, IMO anyway. There is for example a big difference between noting 'kw density' as being important (or not) and understanding what sorts of guidelines to use regarding implementation of 'kw density' in titles, META's, alt tags, body text, <Hx>, etc...

There may be 20 or 30 'important' basics. The trick...as in all things...is knowing how to execute them.

wellzy




msg:195967
 11:45 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

1)New Content
2)HTML Validation
3)Fast load time
4)Quality backlinks (with proper anchor text)
5)Clean, simple code
6)Header tags
7)Stemming
8)Good, unique content
9)Good site navigation (for spiders)
10)Secret recipe

Marcia




msg:195968
 11:53 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>I prefer to think of our secret techniques as just more undiscovered - or at least unpublished - basics.

That's exactly it. It isn't all rocket science; fortunately some of those little "secrets" are very simple things found out by accident and those are usually left unpublished - until enough people come across it and then it'll become more widespread - and eventually stop working.

One thing that delights me no end is the number of people who don't care to read "newbie" posts at forums. That can be a decided advantage for those with a more democratic attitude who aren't at the point of being "full of themselves". Sometimes the people who are groping and first learning can spot things that might be easily overlooked by more seasoned, experienced people. Not only that, but sometimes there are really are tasty little things dropped in inconspicuously in "newbie" type discussions. If they're ever dropped at all, that's the best place for it, IMHO. ;)

bhd735




msg:195969
 2:15 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Can anyone give a good rule of thumb for "fast load time"? e.g. under 5 seconds...

And what is stemming? Oops, I found the glossary here. Boat, boats, boating, to catch the synonyms.

[edited by: bhd735 at 2:33 am (utc) on July 20, 2004]

nuevojefe




msg:195970
 2:32 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Marcia,

Good point about newbie posts, etc. - It's more likely that a newbie is spending a lot of time reading, and testing whereas many vets spend the majority of their time implementing what they already know to be effective and the minority skimming other vets' posts and reading the more advanced articles, etc.

Can anyone give a good rule of thumb for "fast load time"? e.g. under 5 seconds...
- check out [pages.alexa.com...] then test your site (or whichever site you're analyzing) using alexa.com.

And what is stemming?
- visit [google.com...] see bottom of page.

nuevojefe




msg:195971
 2:33 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Welcome to Webmaster World too BHD735

paybacksa




msg:195972
 2:34 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

1. put up a page on your new domain a.s.a.p. and get a link from a frequently-indexed site.

2. Start optimizing your page, adding new pages, etc. following all these other suggestions.

Some say make a great site and then put it up. I say make a site and put it up, and then make it better every day.

bhd735




msg:195973
 2:40 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

thanks nuevojefe!

grandpa




msg:195974
 6:55 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

14.) Alphabetical prioritization
If your business name starts with an "A", "B" or a number you end up at the top of directory results.
... and not a deep buried page with a PR1.
Over time this can make a difference.

Just wanted to say that this technique actually worked very quickly, not over any period of time. Within weeks one (1) particuar site I know of jumped out of the box with PR5, and a single backlink to dmoz. Problem is that your site may already start with the letter M, so this method becomes useless.

Top 10 if you're creating a new site.

internetheaven




msg:195975
 7:29 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

8.) Sitemap (not linking full titles)

Sorry, didn't understand this one. Why not link the full title of the page to that page on your own site?

<snip>

[edited by: lawman at 6:56 pm (utc) on July 20, 2004]

t2dman




msg:195976
 9:51 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

8.) Sitemap (not linking full titles)

Sorry, didn't understand this one. Why not link the full title of the page to that page on your own site?

Google rightly considers "fat blue widgets" to be different from "fat blue" and different yet again to "fat".

If you are linking "fat blue widgets" you are unlikely to get as high as you could for "fat"

Therefore, have your text links for the words that people are searching for, and no longer.

ogletree




msg:195977
 3:39 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

t2dman I have not seen anything that would prove this.

buzzbeat




msg:195978
 4:30 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

No offense taken. I whole heartedly agree that the nuances and proper implementation of the major SEO tactics are what determines success. That said, the list was meant as a starting point of G optimization buckets and their importance, with, hopefully, some discussion around why and how they work.

ddogg




msg:195979
 4:55 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

1. Link text

2. Title

3. Internal links not too deep

caveman




msg:195980
 5:04 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

over-optimization-filter

:-)

caveman




msg:195981
 5:06 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

buzzbeat, it would appear that you achieved your goal!

yowza




msg:195982
 5:28 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

1. Clean URLs
2. Page Title
3. Headings
4. Inbound Links
5. Page Structure/Layout

t2dman




msg:195983
 10:02 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

re shorter links - t2dman I have not seen anything that would prove this.

Wow. I am able to get to the top for a term with the basics when competition is light. The name of the business might be A B C with links to that, however also known in short as A C and A B. Generally, I will be top for A B C and possibly A B. I then add specific links A B and A C, make sure I have A C in the text, and then generally get to the top for each.

So what you are saying, is that I could achieve the same with linking using the text "A B C D E F"? I agree that the longer phrase has the advantage of adding power behind each of the words in the link, broad brush. But I have always interpreted my experiences as saying the shorter link was more effective for the targetted phrase.

ogletree




msg:195984
 10:05 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

I guess that does not come into play the way I do things. If a term is 1 2 3 4 I have a page for 1 2 and 3 4 and 2 3 and 1 4 and 1 2 3 4 and so on. I probably have over 100K pages on all my sites.

notredamekid




msg:195985
 3:04 am on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google rightly considers "fat blue widgets" to be different from "fat blue" and different yet again to "fat".

If you are linking "fat blue widgets" you are unlikely to get as high as you could for "fat"

Therefore, have your text links for the words that people are searching for, and no longer.

I only agree if your title tag is something like "Buy your fat blue widgets here!"

then the site map anchor should be "fat blue widgets".

When I make my pages however, the title is already "fat blue widgets".

caveman




msg:195986
 4:19 am on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

t2dman, your assumption is perhaps more true for Yahoo than for G.

FWIW.

This 57 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 57 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved