homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.66.204
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 103 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 103 ( 1 2 3 [4]     
De-optimizing pays off
De-optimized several customer sites and went from nothing to top 10
funandgames




msg:151448
 3:48 pm on Jul 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Several people I met socializing at various piano bars and art events complained that their SEOed sites were not listed on Google at all. I decided to take a look and saw several 'uneccessary' tactics such as phrases in filenames, <alt> text etc. I removed it all and within TWO weeks, every single page that was edited was at least top 20 and most top ten with five number ones for a two word phrase. The sites already had great content and plenty of related incoming links.

De-optimizing is a fast way to get better ranked. Try it, you will be pleased.

 

caveman




msg:151538
 9:40 pm on Jul 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Over The Top filters...yeah I like that better. More of a ring to it...yet tasteful, and descriptive.

steveb




msg:151539
 10:09 pm on Jul 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Over the top does make sense, though filter does not. "Penalty" makes more sense, but this has always been more of a demerit. You aren't removed, you are downgraded.

And this phenomenon has always existed. (Google has a word for it: spamming.) The aspect most people are immediately familiar with is keyword stuffing. It's important to have your search term on your page; and good to have it in a link... however that doesn't mean you should make a page that merely repeats your two word phrase five hundred times, and includes all that in a single hyperlink. (I wish I bookmarked the page I saw that did that as its only "content"...). This is not optimization, or natural. It's just dumb spamming. Now what most people are talking about is not so dumb or blatant, but that blatant example is on the edge of the spectrum being talked about.

Even though some sites get away with it, the point is that Google doesn't like "over stuffing". It is one thing they call "spamming". They algorithmically devalue many sites that spam this way.

The way to go is to follow the guidelines, do what is naturally correct, use elements like H1 and alt text for what they were intended for, and don't stuff things in that don't belong. Send Google signals of quality and relevance, not signals of desperation.

caveman




msg:151540
 10:34 pm on Jul 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

I sense consensus.

ogletree




msg:151541
 2:20 am on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I agree caveman that a "threshold" exists as you say. As far as I'm concerened if I am not over that threshold I have failed. If you are below that threshold then you are not going to rank very well anyhow. I don't consider it any great feat to deoptimize a site so that I go from nowhere to 582. All my sites are over that threshold. It's no different than saying I need a PR6 or higher to get a term or whatever. It does not mean you need to deoptimize it means you need to get past the threshold. That is what this thread should be about. When you are over the threshold you can over op as much as you like and it works.

SEO has become harder. It used to be anybody could rank with a few simple rules. I like it. The harder the better. That just means I have less competition.

metatarsal




msg:151542
 9:41 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Sorry folks - this is all nonsense.

You see; if you KW stuff - you're not making a good site - you're making a site about 1,2, maybe 3 KW!

Do you get it yet?

!

Marcia




msg:151543
 10:04 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

There is no way to tell what is or isn't a good site without looking. And there is more to it than just "keyword stuffing," a lot more. Besides, there are loads of cloaked pages out there keyword stuffed to the gills that are doing just fine. And sites that are keyword stuffed with hidden text - and/or keyword stuffed hidden links - also doing just fine. So what?

We can't be so self-righteous that if we don't happen to get hit we can assume that others who did get hit were being bad boys. In fact, until someone has gotten hit they can't really legitimately call themselves an SEO.

IMHO

ogletree




msg:151544
 10:14 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you kw stuff the right way it looks fine. (without cloaking). Cloaking just means the person does not know how to do it the right way.

metatarsal




msg:151545
 10:31 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

What I'm trying to say is that my site is KW stuffed - because this can't be avoided.

If your site is genuinely about KW1, 2, 3 - then you can't avoid lots of mentions of KW 1,2 3

Why would an algo penalise you for this?

Think about it......

(O.K. don't think about it, keep de-optimising :-)

rfgdxm1




msg:151546
 10:48 pm on Jul 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Why would an algo penalise you for this?

Good point. I can think of seeing a number of amateur pages where obviously the webmaster knew nothing about SEO that are stuffed to the gills with the relevant keyword(s) *and* are also ranking well in Google. The reason for the huge number of the keyword(s) on the page was just because that was what the page was about. SEOs do this on purpose to rank well in SEs. Amateurs end up doing this because they don't pay attention to use synonyms (or, just don't care.)

MHes




msg:151547
 8:22 am on Jul 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

metatarsal and rfgdxm1

You are missing the point. Firstly OTT is about a combination of seo tactics, not just keyword stuffing. Secondly, a site can still rank well if it survives hilltop or any other filter triggered by OTT.

This is not rocket science, why are you so confused?

Shawn Steele




msg:151548
 9:21 am on Jul 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Lol @ the arguing! Comparing his situation to sites that are in the top 10 of "search engine optimization", or "computers", etc is not equal. The sites that are in the top 10 or 50 for that matter on such hugely competitve terms are ranking that high for a reason...and it's not how many times they put a kw on their page :)

My opinion...

Have users who post studies, research etc, give this data with every study:

1) Total results returned for said keyword / kw phrase
2) Total results returned for said kewyord / kw phrase when enclosed in quotation marks (ie "keyword phrase")

Why? This; while not being industry specific as to break the TOS, it will provide a fair estimate as to how competitive the term in question is, which will help others to assimilate the data, and determine if how closely it matches with their studies, results or situation.

Marcia




msg:151549
 2:00 pm on Jul 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Shawn, it often isn't the number of pages returned - it's *who* is being competed against. So the numbers don't always necessarily mean all that much. And it seems that some terms are hitting filters easier than others.

BigDave




msg:151550
 4:54 pm on Jul 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Exactly Marcia.

I have never much liked it when someone equates the number of results with competitiveness.

[click here] gives 15,500,000 results, and gives the same number when it is in quotes.

[diamond tennis bracelet] (I have no affiliation with this term, it was just a high dollar item that I tried) returns 119,000.

Which would you consider more competitive?

It might actually be harder to displace adobe on click here for the #1 spot, but they aren't "competing" for that spot, they just happen to have a few million links to their download with click here as the text.

This 103 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 103 ( 1 2 3 [4]
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