| 10:07 am on Aug 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hi and welcome to WebMasterWorld.
You might start with this
Good clean short pages are about all I know.
| 12:19 pm on Aug 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have just read messages in the thread you suggested.
What I have concluded from that is .. "Just optimize for Google and Fast will be taken care of automatically."
If any one reading this finds this conclusion faulty please correct.
| 6:33 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Your conclusion about Google/Fast pretty much sums up my approach as well. Most of my rankings compare quite well between Google and Fast. However, I still find some major differences. As a quick example I ranked 4 for a term in Google and only 208 in Fast. This gives me a bit of incentive to explore the differences between the Fast and Google algorithms.
| 7:17 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Doing a three-keyword search, alltheweb.com sometimes put two keywords in quote and ranking differs. See on the right side:
Your query was rewritten into:
keywords "keyword2 keyword3"
| 7:30 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>I ranked 4 for a term in Google and only 208 in Fast
Well they are different. Fast is not so easy to rank well on with just a few highly themed inbound links with good anchor text.
Fast is different and rely more on on-page stuff.
Angiolo, you're right. Fast have a habbit of rewriting longer queries. This also have an effect on the serps.
| 8:13 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Fast is different and rely more on on-page stuff. |
That is our experience also Rumbas and should explain why gmoney sees theese differencies in his SERP`s.
| 7:54 am on Sep 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
*Fast is different and rely more on on-page stuff.*
Are we talking content with KWs, metas and Alts, or a combination?