homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.141.47
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Keyword Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Keyword Discussion Forum

This 66 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 66 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Brett's quick rank (good)
Have you updated it?
web_india

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 4:33 am on Sep 10, 2002 (gmt 0)

I was doing site search when I came across Agerhart's response to Marcia's post in this thread.

[webmasterworld.com...]

which refers to Brett's quick rank system.

Since, it's dated april last year, I guess we can have the latest on this.

So Brett, have you updated your quick page rank point system. I liked it the way you put it.

title: 10 points
meta descrip: 5 points
large h1-h2 headings: 5 points
domain name: 3 points
bold or italic text: 2 points
url or filename: 2 points
beginning of a sentence 1.5 points
just usage in text: 1 point
meta keywords: 1 point
title attribute: 1 point
alt tag: .5 point

All members inputs are welcome.

btw, how do I modify my post's title?

 

candidboy

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 8:25 pm on Nov 18, 2002 (gmt 0)

One more thing here seems to be missing is outbound links :(
I had some good results with outbound links as well.

So for example the moment I gave an outbound link to major authority related to website theme, site got boost in ranking in google. In fact for some less competitive keywords, site ranked in top, just because a link was going to relevant subject based site.

So I will weight outbound link at 6 points :)

WebSempster

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 1:45 pm on Nov 19, 2002 (gmt 0)

I would suggest the following as limits / guidelines to avoid an 'overloading' and improve presentation in search engine results:

1. Make sure that <title> and <meta title> are identical.
2. Limit title to 60 characters

3. Limit <meta description> to 150~180 characters, good grammar and avoid punctuation.

4. Limit <meta keywords> to 8 terms, 12 words; 70% of which must be in the body; avoid repetition.

5. Limit alt, title and summary attributes to sensible lengths ... I have no hard numbers on this yet, but think that there would be a negative factor for exceeding 4 words.

fathom

WebmasterWorld Senior Member fathom us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 2:42 pm on Nov 19, 2002 (gmt 0)

1. Make sure that <title> and <meta title> are identical.
2. Limit title to 60 characters

Just a personal preference but I dislike defining titles this way, rather vague.

Top Level Hierarchy Page Titles

2 words, or
3 words; if it applies to a highly competitive query/keyphrase
4 rarely; attempting to target multiple topics on a single page delutes all topics (words) and produces less.

These pages are rarely that informative and primarily define navigation (there are always exceptions though).

Second Tier Pages

3 - 5 words arranged in most common query strings
To a maximum of 60 characters

where even possible (if applicable) single keywords should be used as page titles. This tends to be very few instances, since "less title means broader topical information", and would normally be only relevant at mainpage.

IMO ;)

tourist

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 5:28 am on Nov 20, 2002 (gmt 0)

2. Limit title to 60 characters

Just a personal preference but I dislike defining titles this way, rather vague.

Top Level Hierarchy Page Titles

2 words, or [3 or 4 words]

"Rather vague?" I don't understand - vague how?

Personally, I'll skip the top results with titles like "Blue Widgets" for the result who's title is "Widget World: We buy, sell & trade blue widgets." I find a two or three word title to be the slimmest of hairs better than "Untitled."

Your <title> is your first introduction to (read impression on) potential visitors/customers. "Untitled" doesn't grab me & neither does "Blue Widgets." If you can't come up with a more imaginative title than that, then I question whether the content will be any better. You need a "hook" to grab my attention and make me want to visit you, and being first in the SERPs isn't it.

You may have the best content on the Net and have exactly what I want, but if you blend in with the rest of the noise while I'm still at Google, I'll never know it & you just lost a potential customer...

Just MHO :)

fathom

WebmasterWorld Senior Member fathom us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 8:47 am on Nov 20, 2002 (gmt 0)

Note: off topic again. Sorry! ;)

Personally, I'll skip the top results with titles like "Blue Widgets" for the result who's title is "Widget World: We buy, sell & trade blue widgets."

I would think that Widget World would be the title and

We buy, sell & trade blue widgets. would make a good overall description for the mainpage and purpose of your site.

Targeting a single page to bring awareness and interest to your listing on the pretence that SE users will query "buy", "sell" and "trade" all at the same time, dilutes their searching ability, Users will search on "trade" only if that is what they are interested in.

I agree the title is attractive but unless you have unbeliveable PageRank, lots and lots of links with supporting anchors, excellent (keyword rich content) and generally a huge web site the chance of this title getting near the top for Google-eyes in a highly competitive industry is remote (on any single search query using buy or sell or trade and Blue Widgets).

On this particular reference:

Second tier page titles would be

Trade Blue Widgets
Buy Blue Widgets
Sell Blue Widgets

...on individual pages, and in Google the main page of "Widget World" would preceed or follow the second tier pages as the primary or secondary listing -- providing amplifying information.

Also, you now retain not just position #1 but #2 as well, and two chances of the click.

All personal preferences aside... the bulk of search engine users click on #1 regardless of how good it looks (I'm not saying -- you can just stick anything here).

The approximate difference between #1 listing click-through rates and #4 click-through rates is about 18%, or a potential loss of 18 clicks out of 100, (if only considering the listing look) and not if #1 through #3 satisfied their search requirements, which make this ratio much, much greater.

In addition, it's a big drop off after that...

The SEARCH matters not... it's the FIND that is important.

Although "some" users are enticed by fluffy, cleverly written slogans, or tag lines or even longer professionally written titles... less is more.

People search listings only (the search isn't their primary objective)... they buy, sell, or trade from web sites or the official physical business. If that very first site can do that... they will not search further, even if those professionally developed titles are far better than anything else on the page.

NOTE: An untitled at #1, gets more than a perfectly worded title (listing) at #2.

Generally speaking, the listing got to #1 for a reason (although possibly spam) but in this case users go to #2 or re-define their search which decreases overall click-throughs farther down in SERPs.

fathom

WebmasterWorld Senior Member fathom us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 9:51 am on Nov 20, 2002 (gmt 0)

You need a "hook" to grab my attention and make me want to visit you, and being first in the SERPs isn't it.

Adding separately:

The hook -- if a person searched queried blue widgets and #1 listing title reads:

Blue Widgets

followed by a description -- seems like a pretty good hook to me! ;)

Yidaki

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 6:09 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

>One more thing here seems to be missing is outbound links.
>So for example the moment I gave an outbound link to major
>authority related to website theme, site got boost in ranking
>in google. In fact for some less competitive keywords,
>site ranked in top, just because a link was going to relevant
>subject based site.

I'm curious - who else had success with what candidboy described?

troels nybo nielsen

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 7:37 pm on Nov 21, 2002 (gmt 0)

I use h5 quite a lot. Seems I had better change to bold. :-(

jamesa

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 5:23 am on Nov 23, 2002 (gmt 0)

I agree, the domain name has a considerable amount of weight put on it.

I wonder if this only applies to 2nd level domains, or can we still reap the benefit with a cname, i.e.- widgets.branding.com vs. www.branding-widgets.com?

Agnew73

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 2:47 am on Nov 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

I'm wondering about H1, H2, H3, etc. tags versus CSS. I've got a weakness for aesthetics which is probably to my peril, but I'm willing to overhaul them in a heartbeat if CSS are working against me. Does anyone have any words of wisdom on their effect on rank versus H* tags?

fathom

WebmasterWorld Senior Member fathom us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 3:17 am on Nov 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

CSS (including external file) is same as using H-tags but with the benefit of defining the aesthetics to match design.

Beyond the optimization value the use of font families is especially useful.

Agnew73

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 3:41 am on Nov 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

Thanks Fathom. Good to know, especially since <H*> output just make me recoil. I'm kind of anal that way I suppose...

WebSempster

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 7:53 am on Nov 24, 2002 (gmt 0)

I've found recently that some experienced people don't necessarily follow what is being said here. I hope this example might clarify:

1. make sure that your style says something like this somewhere:

h1 { color: #0000FF ; font-family: Arial, Verdana, sans-serif ; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 18pt; }

2. replace the <b> tags arround the 'title' in your text with the <h1> tags instead:

<h1>FooBar Widget Cleaner.</h1>

The text will now be blue, centered, bold and bigger that general text. Any survey bot will see it as an acceptable <h1> tag. Make very sure, of course, that the color is contrasting to the background.

GilbertZ



 
Msg#: 428 posted 7:54 am on Dec 8, 2002 (gmt 0)

I'm sure keyword in domain is a fad...everyone is jumping through hoops...when you do a search these days there are a bunch of keyword-keyword.com, kw-kw.net, kw-kw-kw.name and it presents itself better to a search engine than to a human being.

As a human being, depending on the kw, I will often not trust a kw-kw.com... The more SEOs use it, the sooner that will be completely removed from the count...imho of course.

Unversed

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 6:08 pm on Dec 8, 2002 (gmt 0)

I believe the respected Mr Tabke said in a famous thread some time ago something to the effect of
:( Keyword domain name : bad
:) Brandable domain name : good

citing Goto.com => Overture.com as a role model.

Of course, he was talking about overall strategy, not just short term ranking.

deft_spyder

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 6:00 pm on Dec 19, 2002 (gmt 0)

Someone mentioned the title attribute for images.

It may be that I just woke up, but are we talking about the name attribute.... or am I just being dreamweaver-centric?

brakthepoet

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 6:38 pm on Dec 19, 2002 (gmt 0)

Was most likely a reference to the ALT attribute. For example:

<img src="image.gif" alt="Buy Blue Widgets">

The W3C has a good write up on doing it for accessibility reasons. [w3.org ] But it's always nice for SEO too, as the bots will gobble the text up.

deft_spyder

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 6:48 pm on Dec 19, 2002 (gmt 0)

"title attribute: 1 point
alt tag: .5 point"

i dont think so, because they addressed the alt tag, and there is a title tag entry in the list right above that.

I know the name tag, just havent used a title tag.

so whats this title tag?

pageoneresults

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 6:49 pm on Dec 19, 2002 (gmt 0)

deft_spyder, here ya go...

W3C - The Title Attribute [w3.org]

I've found it to be a great alternative to the alt tag. Why? Well, it appears that the alt tag is not supported by all browsers, mainly Opera and Netscape. When you use the title attribute, Opera and Netscape display it just like an alt tag.

What elements are supported within the img tag?

W3C - Including an Image - The IMG Element [w3.org]

P.S. I should verify that when I do use the title attribute, that it is within the <a href> that is assigned to that image, not the actual img tag itself. I do use the alt tag as it is intended and it typically mirrors the title attribute of the <a href>.

deft_spyder

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 7:05 pm on Dec 19, 2002 (gmt 0)

thankyou for the thorough answer. Integrating that into my page immediately.

pageoneresults

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 7:08 pm on Dec 19, 2002 (gmt 0)

IE5.0 and NN6.0 support an additional attribute in the IMG tag, the TITLE attribute. The TITLE attribute is similar to the ALT attribute. If the TITLE attribute is present, mousing over an image will give the TITLE and not the ALT. Broken images display the ALT, with the TITLE mouseover. This gives flexibility as to what information the user gets in a mouseover. NN4.7 doesn't support this at all.

<added>After doing some back tracking on my notes and those of the W3C, using the img with a title attribute is not really recommended. The W3C suggests using the alt tag as it was intended. If the image has a link assigned to it, then use the title attribute in the <a href> tag and the alt tag on the image.

Whatever you do, be consistent. If you use the title attribute on links, do it on all of them. If you wish to pass W3C validation, you'll need to have an alt tag assigned to each image. For spacer images use alt="" (that's two quotation marks). If you have an image as a bullet, use alt="*". This all deals with accessibility issues.</added>

seoRank

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 12:18 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

Since High-Positioning is a result of ‘Multiplication’ of ‘PageRank’ and ‘Relevance’, would it make sense to separate out the two? ... Which means that even if a page has 0.01 relevance and PR10, it will be nowhere on SEPR. One can’t really add up the mixed tally then.

How about -

PageRank Weight
PR of incoming link: 10 points
Relevance of incoming link: 7 points
Inbound link text: 7 points
Proximity (multi kws of incoming link): 4 points
Outbound links: Dilutes PR

Relevance Weight
title: 10 points (reduced if kw density low)
domain name: 7 points
subdomain: 5 points
directory name: 4 points
file Name: 3 points
large h1-h2 headings: 5 points
first sentence of first paragraph 5 points
proximity (multi kws): 4
beginning of a sentence 1.5 points
bold or italic text: 1 points
usage in text: 1 point
title attribute: 1 point
alt tag: .5 point
meta description: 0.5 points
meta keywords: 0.05 point
outbound links: needs substantiation?

Also - ;)
keyword competition index: 10 points
SEO Experts ability to get everything right: 10 points

deft_spyder

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 6:45 pm on Feb 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

A excellent addition the the equation that should be considered.

it seems that file name should be below proximity in this case... so it your rank for it incorrect, or is its position mixed up.

great job on clearing some of the 'fog of war'.

jbauder

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 4:31 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

When I see a weight on file name I assume it is kw in file name ... I have also noticed what I think is some type of preference for [index.html] be it either the home page or an index of a subdirectory or subdomain ...

I suppose it is also reasonable to attribute this to other factors ie; index pages would tend to have a higher PR but I'd be interested in others thoughts

WebSempster

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 4:55 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

I bet that if the folks at Goo gle follow these postings that they have a good laugh at us.

louponne

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 8:16 am on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Proximity (multi kws of incoming link):
I must have missed something here. What's that mean?
mykel

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 3:05 pm on Feb 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

louponne: if I'm not mistaked this refers to how close to each other the various words of a multiword keyword are. For example if your keyword is "blue widget" there is a difference if you have a link to you that says: "blue widget" or "blue hairy widget".

Oaf357

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 3:46 am on Mar 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Are H1 and H2 tags really that important?

I've never used them, ever. My site that I'm currently developing isn't using them either.

fathom

WebmasterWorld Senior Member fathom us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 3:50 am on Mar 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi Oaf357 & welcome to WebmasterWorld ;)

Are H1 and H2 tags really that important?

Based on the above... and a little reasonable deducting -- yes. :)

ginga

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 11:02 am on Mar 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

People,

I've been looking for a resource like this for weeks.

My great thanks for the benefit of your experience. :)

Alex Poole

Tor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 428 posted 11:09 am on Mar 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

I've been looking for a resource like this for weeks.

Just out of curiousity; how did you actually find WebmasterWorld ginga?

This 66 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 66 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Keyword Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved