| This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 39 ( 1  ) || |
Split from: [webmasterworld.com...]
just learned about "keyword order" in a different thread, and as i liked the way the list in the thread "where is everybody from? [webmasterworld.com]" evolved i thought i'll update this one ;-)
keyword in title
keyword in H1
keyword in URL
keyword density (total word count being considered)
keyword in title
keyword in links to page (anchor text)
keyword in bold / strong, etc.
keyword in other parts (full text, alt, title, meta description)
keyword proximity (if search for 2+ keywords)
keyword order (does or not order in page match order in query)
keyword prominence (how early in page/tag)
absence of competitive keywords other than search term
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:09 am (utc) on Aug. 30, 2002]
nice thread. I think you should emphasize off-page (site external inbound link towards page factors) as being a factor more important than on-page factors.
Concerning page size, I have never seen any proof for that, other than the limit in size for indexing.
If I'm right, muesli's proposing that off-page factors are more important for highly competitive phrases than less competitive phrases.
As we all know, widgets are more popular than wodgets. I content that you could get into the top ten for wodgets with a low PageRank and good on-page optimisation, but for widgets the off-page factors will be the main determiner.
I'm not convinced of the small page size and high rankings cause and effect, but I guess that if we were to repeat Brett's experiment [searchengineworld.com] two years on we'd still find that low-size pages do better on Google.
|I think you should emphasize off-page (site external inbound link towards page factors) as being a factor more important than on-page factors. |
my estimate is 35-40% (thus being the strongest factor already). what would you think? (feel free to post your percentages, i don't have too much SEO experience)
|If I'm right, muesli's proposing that off-page factors are more important for highly competitive phrases than less competitive phrases. |
that's one possibility but my thoughts were even simpler: i simply differentiated between the number of search keywords. i think a single keyword doesn't provide any context (whereas two already give some) so it needs PR and off-page factors as a cruch. the more keywords somebody searches for the more one-page factors may be valued. i.e. if somebody searches for an entire 10-word-sentence a PR2 page having the sentence as title is probably more relevant than a PR8 page with the sentence somewhere in its body.
It is hard to give numbers or percentages, as I would guess that the factors do not always necessarily follow linear or Pagerank logarithmic factors.
It just follows a natural logic:
A motivated vote from an independant entity is mostly a factor more objective, even though internal votes are frequently much better motivated (e.g. anchortext). FAST for example, puts little to no attention towards site internal links, as they say they are biased, which I think is not 100% correct. They are biased but they are also well motivated.
Add Pagerank and you factor internal motivation with authority.
Both Google and FAST, however have problems discounting heavy inter-linking of separate sites though. I mentioned some discounting ways in this thread:
Googleguy seems to suggest that heavy interlinking within subdomains (actually seperate sites) is now taken care of (discounted, or treated as "one internal site", instead of penalised?), as you are well aware of in this thread you started yourself: [webmasterworld.com...]
Lets put it this way. I think a link with "blue widget" anchortext from an external average PR4 page, is worth more in ranking for "blue widget", than a an internal link with the same anchortext from an internal average PR5 page (all other elements being the same).
That would be a factor 6 to 10, depending on what logarithmic Pagerank scale one would believe in. However, would an external inbound link from an average PR9 page be worth 6x6x6x6x6x6=more? I very much doubt so..
|It is hard to give numbers or percentages, as I would guess that the factors do not always necessarily follow linear or Pagerank logarithmic factors. |
of course that's true. most of our list is probably subject to multiple cascaded dependencies. that's the reason why this thread is called 100 variables and not 15 variables and it's also the reason why i tried to stick to concrete example queries.
anyway i think it's important to simplify. i think as soon as we have a list everybody somehow agrees on we should get these benefits:
1) have a check lists of to do's. not for cheating but for good usability and SE-aware-design.
2) be roughly aware of the importance of factors. some in this community seem of over-estimate link pop while others only go for kw stuffing, etc. it's the mix that does the trick and i'd like to have an example mix outlined.
3) learn from concrete examples. it's not allowed in this forum (and for good reasons) to discuss concrete queries. this thread is an (suposedly) acceptable exception ;-)
personally i have learned more from this thread (your replys and looking at the examples) than in 6 weeks of following threads here.
what percentage-ranges do you, vita, think each factor accounts for, looking at the 2 example queries?
[edited by: muesli at 6:28 pm (utc) on Sep. 2, 2002]
I was wondering when someone would bring up that comment regarding sites like, internet.com.
Anchor text links from within a site do work. I believe there is a threshold that once reached does not help in ranking a page or site. We do know the bot will continue to crawl the links that are above this theoretical threshold. Would PR be passed on? I think so.
Thanks for bringing up internal vs. external link text weighting vitaplease.
I tend to assume that Google looks at pages not domains. I am at fault - it's just how I think Google should work.
> this thread is an (suposedly) acceptable exception ;-)
We need to avoid anything where there could even be a remote possibility of it being seen as promotional or spam reporting. I think I'm safe with that example.
Great thread. A few thoughts after the latest update:
1. I see a move towards a "hub & authorities model". Maybe Google scans the "authorities" to find out if it contains a page about this kw, if it does, these come up first, if it doesn't, then it starts looking outside of the "authoriites" network.
2. Less pts from a high PR link (change from quality over quantity to quantity over quality over different "networks"). Inbound links from a variety of different places - .edu, gov, etc - less "theme" & anchor, more variety.
3. Large, established websites with many pages, that contain kw even if the whole site isn't about that kw, are ranking best - attacking the the "mini site" phenomenon
4. Inbound & Outbound Links shouldn't remain static - should be changed around often.
Just a few things I've noticed, may be totally off.
|FAST for example, puts little to no attention towards site internal links, as they say they are biased, which I think is not 100% correct. They are biased but they are also well motivated. |
Right. And it stands to reason that they're also relevant in many if not most cases.
If I have a site about Minnesota and a link points to a page named "Duluth," the odds are pretty good that the "Duluth" link is 100% relevant.
Of course, there's no way for a search engine to know that, unless it understands geography. :-) And even if it did understand geography, it might be thrown by a "Duluth" link on a "Port Cities of the World" site, just because it couldn't possibly know that Duluth is a port.
| This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 39 ( 1  ) |