| 8:08 am on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|as search engines have changed a lot during this phase due to spamming etc..I think those steps might become 52 instead of 26... |
to flip it around - I think the original 26 steps are all the more accurate due to the increase in spamming.
the list is basically a guide to "whitehat" SEO - no funny stuff / all about content development. those strategies are less prone to get the axe when google cranks up the spam filters.
I haven't seen any strong evidence that there's really any thing new under the sun with google in recent history.
Even with "hilltop" possibily playing a roll and the "sandbox" effect - the same techniques will get you ahead in the long run.
| 5:06 pm on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yep -- the best way to get top spots is to build a really great site that is focused on the keywords you are targetting
| 6:41 pm on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
a lil' black dress
a single strand of pearls
a dbl shot of jack daniels
Brett's 26 steps
- some things are truly timeless
| 7:22 pm on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There was a discussion about this recently which raised some good points - particularly in relation to domain name (keywords in the domain do still carry some weight).
But overall I would say it ain't broke so don't try and fix it. And in relation to domain name I would still go branded any day of the week (options aplenty for viral and traditional/offline marketing).
Using my own take on Brett's guide combined with having spent a lot of time reading and digesting material on here, I have absolutely no fear going up against major sites on ultra-competitive terms. I always get to #1, eventually. Always.
It's classic and it won't break. If you think it through when digesting it, you'll seee that ultimately it's a simple process. It's an organised way of looking at good design (ergonomics and useability), W3C compliance and good use of your HTML abilities and writing skills.
My own variation of the "method" places a little more emphasis on inbound anchor text and writing skills.
Have I mentioned writing skills yet? It never ceases to amaze me how poor some page titles and opening paragraphs are on sites trying to attempt to rank highly for competitive terms. Get the basics right. That's the flavour of what Brett wanted to get across I'm sure.
You need to put in a lot of effort. I also believe you need to be passionate about what you're producing and very competitive in nature. Those last two things are not something you can learn in any guide.
If you understand the original philosophy behind Brett's post (in other words you "get it"), compliment it with the other gems you've picked up on the forums here, have the drive, ambition and passion for your site to be ultra-succesful, then you will rank top 10 for your main key phrases.
I guarantee it.
| 4:19 pm on Dec 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
thanks you all for these great comments...although i was waiting for Brett too to share some of his thoughts...any guesses where is he?
| 7:44 am on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Oddly enough, after 9 months of following Brett's 26 rules, I am still not doing that well in Google. (I do have 1 top 10 KW) That having been said, I AM doing VERY well in Yahoo with 75% of my traffic coming from Yahoo and MSN with lots and lots of KW combos scoring top 10 and even #1 there.
Not complaining, Yahoo and MSN send lots of traffic, just pointing out that following Brett's steps ain't just for Google:)
| 10:35 am on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It certainly isn't just for google - the basic steps are applicable to any engine.
Google has a particular issue at the moment which is now fully understood (commonly referred here as the "deep freeze" or "sandbox"). That will affect rankings on any new site in G, curently.
| 11:30 am on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Brett's "Successful Site in 12 Months with Google Alone" [webmasterworld.com] is as sound today as the day it was written.
If you combine it with Caveman's recently updated Dropped Site Checklist [webmasterworld.com] you are pretty much golden!
These two threads alone contain some of the best information regarding successful web site building available anywhere on the internet.
I have used all of the information contained in both threads and have managed very well with my site. Sure there is additional information to be had ... but I guarantee that if you diligently set out to build your site as Brett suggests and check Caveman's list as a follow up, your site will be very successful and will outlast most spammer sites.
There are naysayers out there who will condemn the notion that content is king ... but I for one am a firm believer. I've proven this theory to myself time and time again. Just add a page of new content and "boom" ... more hits! Works every time!
Much may change with search engine algorithms and spamming techniques change with them ... but good original content is good original content and nothing changes (or beats) that in the long run!
There is no substitute for hard work. ;)
Well there is, but I prefer to play it safe with my livlihood!
| 9:00 pm on Jan 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You need to add a few things to the 26, well, actually not add, but change, or subtract. Take a very very close look at WebmasterWorld pages. Study them. You will see several things if you know how to find them. Several of those 26 steps are not only not followed, they are completely reversed.
Consider this a puzzle, like in those ones with two pictures, with maybe 3 differences. There are about 3 or 4 major differences you'll see between that list and the reality of this site. Take those differences and think about them. And there's a few others that you won't see unless you do some things you might not think about doing normally.
Personally I don't like those kinds of methods, I see them as spam triggers, but there's little danger of WebmasterWorld ever having a spam trigger tripped by its pages. But they are there for you to see and learn from, I use several of these methods, and I learned them from these pages. And they work. Which is why they are used.
| 11:29 pm on Jan 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, 5-20% keyword density would be considered a little high at present.
| 10:31 am on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
lizardx - are you implying that webmasterworld html contains spammy practices? :O)
| 7:54 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think that C: Site Design should include that you should get a quality logo and not only keep the site simple but make it look nice in a way that is appropriate for your sector. For us programmers out there that might mean hiring someone or buying a template. But in the end a lot of people base their opinion (correctly or not) on a site on whether it looks pretty or not. Again, this depends on your audience though. Anyway, this is something I've gotten picked on for not doing well enough so thought I'd share it.
|Mr Bo Jangles|
| 8:28 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Lizardx, what is the point of making it all so much harder? If you've really got a good issue to make about some technical 'reversals' - why not spell out precisely your arguments for the edification of us learners and the review of your peers?
| 1:19 am on Feb 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|