|What to do if you are listed good for free bla, but|
if you do a search for just bla its not so good.
| 9:04 pm on Oct 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
How can you liste good for a single keyword, if your rankings are good for 2 keywords and more and the single keyword is represented on every page like all the others, but what does it take to get a better ranking for that single "key" keyword, like this:
and so on but not for fish.
Is it the placement in the title (great fish), maybe move those around or what does it take.
p.s I hope you understand what Im talking about.
| 11:51 pm on Oct 8, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Getting ranked for fish all by its self doesn't have much to do with your page layout or keyword placement. Ranking well for popular single keywords is almost purely based on link analysis.
So if you want to be #1 for fish [google.com] you will need about 17,500 links pointing to your site with the word fish in the anchor text.
| 1:27 am on Oct 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'd like to learn more on that formula/subject...
any links here on that subject you know off hand..?
| 2:55 am on Oct 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If you want to learn more about link analysis then I would suggest starting with
It is an “old” paper written by the Google founders.
There is loads of information about PageRank, PR, backlinks, and link structure in the “Google News” forum. As far as I know you just have to try and piece together your understanding from various threads. However, the link above should help you to intelligently piece together the information you read.
Basically, to rank well in the link analysis department, you want to have lots of web pages linking to you that in turn have lots of pages linking to them who in tern have lots of pages linking to them etc.
The basis concept is quite easy to understand but unfortunately the hard part is actually getting the links.
| 11:56 am on Oct 9, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the reply I was thinking about the link to a page could have the final power to give the main keyword ranking a boost.
| 1:10 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks GR..I understand the specifics of linking..
I was refering to webGs specific 17,500 links pointing for a generic one word to achive a #1 ranking(on google)..
Certainly he was just throwing some sarcasm around..if he wasnt thats a read I certainly want to read !
| 4:09 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think WebGuerilla was alluding to the fact that the #1 ranking on Google for "fish" has 17,500 backlinks listed by Google.
| 4:22 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>I think WebGuerilla was alluding to the fact that the #1 ranking on Google for "fish" has 17,500 backlinks listed by Google.
Yes he was.
You could also consider convincing that #1 site to link to you from their index page :)
| 4:34 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The drawback on a #1 listing (singular keyword) is that although your traffic may increase 10,000 fold, it is likely that most of it would be irrelevant traffic to your web site.
What do SE users really want when they type in "fish"?
1 fish, 2 fish, red fish, blue fish, black fish, gold fish, old fish, new fish.
This 1 has a little star, this one has a little car...
what alot of fish there are... (how many different uses for fish are there).
Back in reality -- if you do not have what most are looking for -- on the singular "keyword" to the bulk majority of your site visitors you would be considered "SPAM".
Holding this #1 authority status you'd best have what the majority want. In general, the site holding this status does have the most to offer (most of the time).
In addition, just because you become #1 on the singular keyword does not mean you retain the #1 status on your most relevant double keywords and you may end up losing alot more than you gain.
| 11:41 am on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
fathorn, maybe the fish thing was the wrong keyword to use, lets say it is Cds, people will the most of the time just type cd, but you are listed good for new cd, so you want to list good for cd, but WebGuerrilla did get it right I just wanted to be sure.
| 4:26 pm on Oct 10, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You still have the same problem, blank, music, videodisc, multimedia, hybrid, RRW, cheap, used, for a quad or two speed, different colors, different brand names, or do they actually mean some sort of software.
Although there may be less variations the stretch from one to another is quite steep.
What does a user really want when they type CDs into the search box?
All? Or nothing that you carry even though they found you at #1.
| 4:19 pm on Oct 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Do people actually still search on one term words?
Or have searchers become a little more specific in thier search terms? I know that one of the sites I look after soemtimes gets some very specific searches - but that could be I suppose, because we happen to have those terms on our site.
For example using the "fish" term earlier, do people just search for "fish", or do they search for "cheap fish" or "cheap tropical fish" or "fish with blue and yellow spots that like to swim in murkey water"? (we're no 1 on that term :-)
| 5:13 pm on Oct 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
According to Wordtracker, the most frequently searched keyword containing the word "fish" is "fish".
However, if you add up all the searches for keywords like "tropical fish", "fish tanks", "aquarium fish", "angel fish", "fish tank" etc. then you will see that they greatly exceed the number of people searching for just "fish".
So to answer your question, the majority of people interested in things about fish don't just search for "fish" but instead use other words combined with "fish" in their search.
Added: I believe this same type of logic applies to most single keywords.