| 6:43 pm on Feb 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Having a bit of experience with the keywords you are referring to, I would suggest that you stay the course with your current strategy. The sites that dominate the top have all been on the web since the early days. They also have very large budgets, that are very hard to compete with. (just try purchasing any ad space sometime, and you'll see what I mean).
If you devote your time trying to improve for the "money term" you will be beating your head against the wall. Focus on secondary variations and be patient. In a category like yours, success for your top terms is really more of a bi-product of a long-term strategy.
| 7:07 pm on Feb 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My advice goes along the lines of WebGuerrilla. I would surgest that you take a close look at your log files, to see where the money is and mayby where the money is not. This should point to where to concentrate your efforts.
You should not, however, give up on the very competitive keyword, steady worke and time could very well land you in the top ten eventually.
Read up in the wmw forums and take a close look on your competitors, tweak around your code and content, making little changes at every update. I think you will see your work get results in the end.
| 7:25 pm on Feb 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
WOW...thanks for the great replies. I think I am doing pretty well for a brand new site. Even though the PR of the site is only 4 (hoping to be a 5 next update) I am ranked above sites with higher PR for many keywords. I think I will stick to my guns and watch my main keyword slowly rise to the top over time. Thanks a bunch for the help.
| 12:50 am on Feb 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have a similar situation. On a three-month old site, I rank high with keyword+location, and low with keyword. However, my log files show hits with keyword and no hits with keyword+location! In some cases, people are going through 4 or 5 pages of google results to get to my site. That makes me want to work on increasing the rank of keyword.
| 2:30 am on Feb 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The trick is to identify the secondary variations of your core term people are searching for. In some cases, it will be "keyword phrase + location"but not always. If your logs are consistantly showing refferals for your core term even though it isn't ranked, then I would think there are also other combinations besides location related phrases as well.
| 11:46 pm on Feb 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Could I sugest that you move your Jscript yo an external file and if you can try to improve your Code:Text Ratio.
These 2 changes can give improvements for little effort.
| 2:41 am on Feb 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>also other combinations besides location related phrases
This does happen, and the referrals are very specific and targeted. It also can happen "accidentally" just because a word happens to appear only one time on your site and doesn't on the other sites.
>Focus on secondary variations and be patient
If it's producing regularly, even on a small scale, it could be worth doing an additional site page geared to that particular type of searcher, turning the word on the page into a text link to the additional page.
Local is good because some people are definitely looking for someone in their area to deal with, and it's much easier to give a boost to the local keyword combination. They're often more serious; a lot of people look under the major term for information rather than having a need for the service.
>site is only 4 (hoping to be a 5 next update) I am ranked above sites with higher PR
This happens a lot; others may not even be thinking of going for those obscure phrases. And even with some who are, even though they may have optimized sites and have been at it longer, unless they read here they'll miss things that those who do read here will know. Not big stuff, but there are certain simple little basics that'll work wonders for those easier location-specific and secondary terms that haven't been discussed elsewhere. If they have I haven't seen them, or they just haven't gotten enough play.
>beating your head against the wall
With close to 4 million sites for the main two word phrase and the top ones big well-established information sites, which is probably what most are looking for when doing that search anyway in this case, it would be counter-productive to go after it at this point. Much better to target the specifics that are hitting serious local people or those in a specific niche in some cases. Far less traffic, but better results anyway.
| 8:42 pm on Feb 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 9:17 pm on Feb 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
is that right?
| 9:19 pm on Feb 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yes, that is correct. :)
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 9:19 pm on Feb 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Russell, as someone in this wonderful forum answered the same question for me a few days ago I can now answer it for you ;)
look at this thread
Thanks to Tedster for the solution
| 9:24 pm on Feb 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Cool thanks a million...I got it done on the main page. I'll do it for the rest of the pages ASAP. I guess this will shave 2-3K off the pages to make them better for Google. How can I improve my text to code ratio with all the JS mousovers that I have?
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 9:27 pm on Feb 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 9:29 pm on Feb 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This might be a good time to comment on the obvious redundancy in that line of code.
Some browsers will execute the code just fine without any attributes at all. But the format that brotherhood_of_LAN listed above gives you maximum compatibility.
| 9:30 pm on Feb 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
well i call this on my page for my nav bar
<a href="*****.html" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore()" onMouseOver="MM_swapImage('Image7','','images/side_nav1.1.gif',1)"><img src="images/side_nav1.gif" width="135" height="25" border="0" name="Image7" alt="*********">
is that right? or is there an easier way to do it.
| 7:42 pm on Feb 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I never found out if there is another way to do this...anyone know?
| 9:25 pm on Feb 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I suppose the answer is among the archives but I didn't see it - When you are talking about keywords, is it 1000 characters of keywords for a page or for the whole site? I used a keyword density site and it said I had 1344 in my keywords but I actually only had 91 characters on the page.