| This 65 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 65 ( 1 2  ) || |
|H1, Bold, Underline and Italics are King!|
Result of an optimizing test.
| 4:21 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A few months ago I made a bunch of files with a special keyword in each file in a different way. Here's the results, with listing #1 first, then 2, then 3....
h1, bold, underline and italics
word.htm, meta desc and keywords
h3, italics and underline
h1, bold and italics
h1, bold and underline
h2 and underline
h2 and italics
H3, bold and underline and italics
h3, bold and underline
h2 and bold
word-word.htm and H1
Unique keywords ONLY in bold tags
h1, italics and underline
h1 and bold
h1 and underline
content and meta description
I also had a URL with seven back-links on a PR 6 site and that URL didn't even get indexed. That URL got a PR of 4.
So the ultimate optimizing may be file name, H1, bold, underline, and italics, then meta tags. The more the better. Who cares about a PR and back-links!
I've just strated another test to see what is best,
two files for each (with and with out the keywords in the link to the file.)
| 5:33 am on Sep 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ranked #1) H1, Bold, underline, italics, and Content
Ranked #2) H1, Bold, and Content
Ranked #3) Content
and so on.....
It really won't work.
None of the content had the codes. Only the header. It was like
If any one wants the URL to all the tests, sticky me.
| 6:07 am on Sep 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The stickymail is broken. Says file was not found. Perhaps you can include it in your profile?
| 6:21 am on Sep 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"None of the content had the codes. Only the header. It was like
Call me an idiot, too.
Can you explain a little more clearly what you tested?
| 6:27 am on Sep 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"In the test, no more than three words were coverd with the header code, and in the content the keyword only showed up once.."
"Three words were covered with the header code." It's like you're speaking a foreigh language...
Can you translate for us idiots?
| 6:46 am on Sep 3, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Can you explain a little more clearly what you tested? |
same thoughts there.
I've seen some people flame in this thread - which I think is uncalled for - any effort to share information is appreciated...
however - there's at minimum a lot of info missing here regarding methodology.
how were the pages linked into? we all know this is a -major- factor in the SERPS. If they were all linked to from the same page - I'm wondering how much the order they were listed in effected the results...
while I think it's virtually impossible to be 100% scientific about this kind of stuff - I don't have clue one what was actually done, and I'm not still not entirely clear what the results were..
although - it does kind of inspire me to run some tests of my own...
| This 65 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 65 ( 1 2  ) |