| This 74 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 74 ( 1 2  ) || |
|Is it time for Google to tone down the URL component of their Algo?|
keyword rich urls are beating good pr and well optimized pages!
On one of my serps, 7 out of the top 10 have keyword1 and keyword2 in their urls - before the .com They are mostly pr5 pages and they are beating pr6 and pr7 pages that are better optimized. The number 5 ranking site even has "Home Page" as his page title (i.e. no keywords here). Now I don't have the biggest seo ego, but its awful tough losing to a guy who has "Home Page" as his page title *#$!*&
I think this shows us the power of pre .com keywords in the algo.
Assuming that Blue Widgets is my keyword string, should I just join up and register smartbluewidgets.com? Some of these keyword laden urls look so dumb, you'd think its time for an algo tweak?
>Welcome to free enterprise
Exactly! If google makes it too easy for me to set up getabluewidget.com (without even bothering with a proper page title) and rank 5th - then their search relevance will suffer and someone else will come along with more relevant serps.
Sorry, I should have rephrased the "Against".
It should have been, Neutralising any extra ranking benefit from.., which I believe is what I tried to lay-out in the linked to examples.
It should be in the line with what Google generally tries to achieve:
Not to penalise, but to ignore linking effects or constellations which would give too much benefit to any site for any specific ranking.
Or in my case: I would dread the day I would have to split my site to set up twenty seperate key-word rich sites all interlinked heavily, just to keep up with the others.
Having 10 different language/tld sites all interlinking to each other should be perfectly possible and maybe even advisable and one should never feel hampered or scared in doing so for any possible Google penalty (this fear sadly is the case after the january PR0 penalty action). However achieving better rankings (because e.g. of external inbound links) than someone putting all those languages into one site should not be the case, do you agree?
[edited by: vitaplease at 2:36 pm (utc) on Sep. 6, 2002]
>Exactly! If google makes it too easy for me to set up getabluewidget.com (without even bothering with a proper page title) and rank 5th - then their search relevance will suffer and someone else will come along with more relevant serps.
WHEN will they ever learn? YOU NEED THE HYPHENS! ;)
They look great on tee-shirts too! You need XL though....
I have to disagree with you on obtaining a pr5 when you just get listed in odp. I am listed in odp for several keywords # 1 and I only have a pr4. Is there something I'm missing?
PR from ODP is inherited the same way as from anywhere else - it depends on the PR of the page linking to you.
If you manage to get listed in ODP on a high PR page, and preferably with as few other results as possible, you will do better than if you are on a lower PR page at ODP with tons of links going off the page.
lesson: given a choice of two appropriate categoies, push for a listing in the higher PR one :)
The problem with keyword urls is when you get a listed of ten sites listed on the first page, all containing blue-widgets.com, blue-widgets-usa.com etc, and the only place that blue widgets is mentioned on the page is "(C) Blue Widgets 2002". And I have already seen half of the top ten filled this way - another year and...
The algo does need to be toned down, maybe not dropped but toned down. I think.
>The problem with keyword urls is when you get a listed of ten sites listed on the first page, all containing blue-widgets.com, blue-widgets-usa.com etc, and the only place that blue widgets is mentioned on the page is "(C) Blue Widgets 2002". And I have already seen half of the top ten filled this way - another year and...
I'm not seeing that in SERPs, and I checked some obvious choices where I'd expect SEO types working for businesses to be present. A SERP like the one you describe above screams out to me at minimum it would only happen where all the sites had some knowledgeable SEO types working for them. Like maybe they got there by buying some links from pages with high Page-Rank etc. And at worst that perhaps someone is cheating with crosslinking, etc. No matter what the algo is, if SEO types are involved they'll find a way to get to the top.
I have certainly tried getting my site listed using higher ranking keywords. But the website I am working on promoting has a narrow list of keywords that are really relevant. Believe me I have tried getting listed in everyone of them! :)
|WHEN will they ever learn? YOU NEED THE HYPHENS! |
That's what makes this less than a theory and more like superstition. The same misunderstanding that leads people to make one hundred word keyword metatags, etc.
An incomplete understanding of what's going on leads to these keywordinthedomainname.com aberrations. I have not seen any evidence that shows keywordinthedomainname.com boosts a site.
Do a search on anything. Say "wine." The number 3 and 7 results don't have wine in their url. Let's search on the eighth word of my post: Theory. SERPs 2,4,5,6 don't have it in their results. How about the 16th word in my post? "That." Serps 2,3,5 don't have "that" in their url. For all the keyword in the domain name url's that exist in whatever category you care to discuss, why are so many of them buried? Why aren't they rising to the top. Why don't all of my Google searches result in ANOTHER keywordinthedomainname.com site? Because it's irrelevant except when the keywords appear within inbound links, and only if they are separated by hyphens (keyword-in-the-domain-name.com) or spaces (keyword in the domain name), so that the search engine can parse the words as separate words instead of one conglomerated word.
Whoops! I let out a secret! :o
The dogmatism about keywordinthedomainname.com apparently runs too deep for reason to shine it's light on it, or else this would have been a shorter thread. That's my two cents, and I promise that this is the very last peep on this subject from me. Sorry if I offended anybody. That wasn't my intention.
Can you come up with a specific protocol that could be added to the Google algo that would be able to distiguish the difference between a keyword1-keyword2 URL that will properly weight these sites such that this causes good rankings of best information, and those that lead to poor rankings of information?
Perhaps G could recognize the difference between: (Anchor text in BOLD)
Visit this site to purchase fuzzy widgets. linked to www.brandname.com -
1) +1 link to www.brandname.com
2) +1 credit for anchor text of fuzzy widgets (ie +1 in relevance for "fuzzy widgets")
Visit this site to purchase fuzzy widgets. linked to www.fuzzy-widets.com
1) +1 incoming link to www.fuzzy-widgets.com
2) +1 credit for anchor text of fuzzy widgets
Visit www.fuzzy-widgets.com - linked to www.fuzzy-widgets.com
1) +1 link to www.fuzzy-widgets.com
2) NO anchor text relevancy credit for "fuzzy widgets" since domain name = anchor text name including the dash.
Visit www.brandname.com - linked to www.brandname.com
1) +1 incoming link to www.brandname.com
2) NO anchor text credit since domain name = anchor text
This seems very simple and seems fair(?), since if someone just gives you a link with your URL, they're just giving you a link, that shouldn't automatically benefit you because your domain name happens to be keyword1-keyword2.tld. If someone takes the time to give you a link with anchor text of keyword1 keyword2 then they're in effect voting for your page as being relevant for those keywords. If they made the anchor keyword1-keyword2 then most likely, they just gave you a link.
Sorry if my example is confusing/unclear.
I know of a keyword1-keyword2.tld site which ranks #6 for a query with about 250,000 results. The ONLY incoming links it has are from its one yahoo listing. The page seems otherwise unoptimized, etc. 6/250000 may not be great, but, I think it speaks volumes about the influence keyword-rich-domains can have when linked from high PR sites.
<Who says what spammy urls are? Are all those keywords relevent to the site? I bet they are. It seems to me that if they happen to be in front then they did both their homework and their job and deserve to be rightly rewarded for their work>
I agreee with you Toolman
There is much talk about spam. but what is spam?
All tricks we learn from each other when it works you feel good but the man who is in the second place tells you that you have a spammy site, but in the next update you could see that he have done the tricks he thought was spammy.
It will not be enough with good url but it will help alot specially the one with dashes :)
|If someone takes the time to give you a link with anchor text of keyword1 keyword2 then they're in effect voting for your page as being relevant for those keywords. If they made the anchor keyword1-keyword2 then most likely, they just gave you a link. |
in essence you mean well, however I have seen examples in e.g. DMOZ where the editors take over the keyword1 keyword2 in the title (without the hyphen). The other listed sites never seem to get that honour..
The title in DMOZ is the anchortext.
Google could very easily do a check on the percentage of anchortexts that are keyword1 keyword2 for keyword1-kyword2.tld's (and keyword1keyword2.tld's for that matter) and see if it is above average compared to the brandname.tld sites.
If they neutralise this effect (not penalise) 80% of the keyword rich url overvaluation (I am not saying spam;)) I see around would be taken care of..
Good point about DMOZ editors, but, well it would at least neutralize some of the benefits of having nothing more than a keyword1-keyword2.com domain name. Even if the dmoz listed them as keyword1 keyword2.com maybe their other incoming links which are list as keyword1-keyword2.com would be neutralized...
Edited to add:
And, exactly, neutralize, not penalize. The keyword1-keyword2.tld site may be very relevant and very on-topic for keyword1 keyword2. However, (imo) they shouldn't get a big benefit just because of the url and the way the anchor text is weighted....
| This 74 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 74 ( 1 2  ) |