| 12:17 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not all would show up in search because they're all called different things. Here's one
There are several more discussions about the topic kicking around as well.
| 12:45 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
14.) Alphabetical prioritization
Could someone elaborate on that one?
| 2:11 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
And please define "Proper Website Design"?
| 2:14 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
15. W3C validation (or at least trying!)
| 2:16 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|12.) HTML keyword ’comments’ |
You won't go far with that one...
| 2:18 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
12) html comments...
That can't be among the top 20.
| 2:26 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Design - not all critical to rank by any means
Validation of code - HTML & CSS
Adherance to usability standards
Page load time
Page size - optimum & maximum acceptable size, HTML to text ratio
Creating clean, lightweight code
Optimizing graphics sizes
Dealing with dynamic pages
Check that all links work
Intuitive site navigation that's spider friendly.
But those aren't SEO techniques (except the navigation) - and there are over 100.
| 3:21 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Content worth linking to.
| 3:32 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|1.) Proper Website Design |
HA! I came across a page today that is number 4 and it has no, none, zilch, nada <head> tags. The page begins like this:
alt="some alt text" width="455" height="88"><br>
There is a thread kicking around about a July update. This is a page that fell out of the blue in the past 48 hours and landed where it is.
And don't put too much weight on "proper" design, at least right now.
| 3:46 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you have a 100-page site, break up the pages and make it into a 1000-page site. Then break-up the newer pages and make it into a 10,000-page site. Then make it into a 100,000-page site and so on. (Warning: Don't make it more than 4,294,967,296 pages, Google's index might overflow. It won't like you then.)
| 6:53 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
#?) Regularly updated pages
| 8:10 am on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|14.) Alphabetical prioritization |
Could someone elaborate on that one?
If your business name starts with an "A", "B" or a number you end up at the top of directory results. Many directories are split down into sub categories starting with "1" or "A". As this part of the sub category is nearly always on the first page of a category, this means you always end up on pages that have higher PR and not a deep buried page with a PR1.
Over time this can make a difference.
| 12:24 pm on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
1.) Dense, well structured (usability!) content
2.) Simple, hierarchical, structured and on-topic text link naviation (vertical and horizontal hierarchies)
3.) Title, Description both visible and tags that incorporate on-topic keywords
4.) On-topic, natural inbound links from a variety of different (geography, size, ranking) sites that include major, on-topic keyword as anchor text
5.) On-topic outboud links that make sense to the user and context
6.) Simple, lean code (use a SE simulator to view what SE's see)
7.) Static or static looking/acting pages
8.) Sitemap (not linking full titles)
9.) Redirect ALL domain.com traffic to www.domain.com or opposite
10.) Regularly updated, useful content, more content and more content
That's my top ten and I am as happy as can be. Ranking 3rd and 4th with a new site (three months old) out of 1.9mio at G with G as one of two keywords for that result. Must be something right ;-)
[edited by: adfree at 12:52 pm (utc) on July 16, 2004]
| 12:30 pm on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
spam and content scraping ...seems to work ..for some
| 12:37 pm on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I would differ in the opionion that site design isn't an SEO technique. If it aint searchable, it aint gonna get found. The simple placement of a sitemap on the homepage can help get more pages indexed resulting in (potentially) new pages being found through user keyword searches.
| 12:48 pm on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Total--makes sense
| 4:38 pm on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|9.) Redirect ALL domain.com traffic to www.domain.com or opposite |
Why? How can this affect ranking?
| 5:35 pm on Jul 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In the cat's we deal with there is simply no rhyme or reason to the way G is ranking the sites. Some are blatent spam with little to no content, others have no inbound links and low PR, while others are complete crap.
So in a nut shell I think that to rank well in G right now you may as well just roll the dice.
(at least in our cat's)
| 8:02 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> GreanLeaf: Why? How can this affect ranking? >>
You might realize that some SE's, including G, cast different value upon www... or non www... domains. In case you got sites linking both ways to you and SE's miht spider both ways this would dilute overall value as opposed to just have one of the both recognized and get traffic to.
I redirect all non www... traffic to the www... entrance via IIS permanent redirect (could do the same via .htaccess at Apache) and gained some ground really.
| 8:18 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>spam and content scraping ...seems to work ..for some
That goes with saying - that's #1 right now! ;)
| 11:12 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I mean this in the nicest posssible way, but....
1/. Not sharing your most important techniques on a public forum.
...I mean, if your competitors are any good they are reading here.
(So are Google, Yahoo at al.)
| 7:22 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> 1/. Not sharing your most important techniques on a public forum.
It's still stunning how all the second most important techniques posted here got me up and running and make me fourdigits every month now as extra spending money!
| 7:37 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Not sharing your most important techniques on a public forum. |
I certainly doubt that your secret techniques are more important than the public ones. They may be what gives you an edge, but you still have to pay attention to the basics.
| 12:01 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't know BigDave...we have 10 secret techniques that I'm quite certain *are* the secret to our success. ;-)
IMHO, linking strategies don't get as much attention in here as they might, relative to their importance. (I'm talking internal and external *strategies*, not just 'go get links.')
| 1:28 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>1/. Not sharing your most important techniques on a public forum.
2/. Not sharing your latest finds in a public forum.
| 2:28 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
your "secret" techniques might be the "secret" to your success, but they still are not more important in ranking than the public knowledge.
Here is a piece of public knowledge.
Get at least one link from a page that is already in google to stay in the index.
Are any of your secrets more important than this when it comes to ranking? Can your secrets help you if you are not in the index?
"How about using the keywords for which you would like to rank, either on page or in anchor text."
Can your secrets help you rank for those workd on a page where you have ignored the public knowledge?
| 2:53 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
BigDave, there are little details, some of them very subtle, minute and hard to catch, that can definitely give a decided edge, all other things being equal.
The problem with certain things, however legitimate, is that they'll work quite well for a while; then when they're more widely used they become more widely known. The next step is that they start to become widely abused, at which time Google has to take measures to overcome the abuse problem.
Those things may not be spam at all, even though at the point of abuse some will call them spam who really don't know the difference between what is and what isn't, and report them as such. No matter to Google whether it is or not, imho. Whichever way search results are being skewed to the point of uselessness, diagnosis of the illness helps with devising the cure.
| 5:35 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not saying that these things cannot "give you an edge", because they sure as hell can.
My problem is when someone says they are the "most important" thing when it comes to ranking.
Those special little tricks are only of value *after* you get your basics down. You can rank at least in some cases without the tricks, You will never rank without the basics.
Have you ever watched a football team that only practices their trick plays, and never practices something as basic as a post. They never win, and their only source of pride is when the pull off one of their precious plays.
On the other hand, if you have a great running and passing game, and you have a great defense, you don't need those tricks, but when you do use them they are a lot more effective.
Tricks are good to know, but they are not the "most important".
| 6:03 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
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
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.
Also there are others but they are my little secret. I'm sure a lot of us have figured out the big secrets but I doubt anybody is going to say. This list is very sound and has made me a lot of money.
Some of the things are not tricks they are stratagies. Without a good stratagy you will not get far. It is common sense and involves KW selection and how to set up a site. The basic rules will help an existing site with good backlinks. If you are starting from scratch you need to know the special tricks. If you just follow the top "How to" threads here you will do fine in the long run but it will take a while.
| This 57 message thread spans 2 pages: 57 (  2 ) > > |