| 10:36 pm on May 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
About those "go words", seeing as ehow articles come from multiple authors , do they have a system for ensuring the published articles are SE optimised ?
I confess I had given up on onpage optimisation , till recently
| 12:43 am on May 25, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|seeing as ehow articles come from multiple authors , do they have a system for ensuring the published articles are SE optimised ? |
Yes. The topics themselves are mined from known search queries and assigned by their algorithm. Demand Media has a style guide their writers are required to follow. Their style guide isn't public although it wouldn't be surprising if it's out there somewhere. Their blog hints at their methodology. Here is a snippet [demandstudios.com]:
Bad: How to Make Homemade Cards for the Christmas Holiday
Good: How to Make Christmas Cards
...Successful titles are based on the most search engine-friendly way to phrase the question.
Here is an article by someone who signed up to be a demand media writer [readwriteweb.com].
|The stories are usually how-to pieces, often broken into steps. They're evergreen, designed to be as relevant in a year or two as they are now. They're the kinds of questions I would usually get answered through a phone call to my contractor father, or my brother the car genius, or my mother the seamstress/cook/homemaker/gardener/early computer geek. |
You can tell by the assignment headlines that they're generated from search engine queries...
As I posted earlier, Demand Media is an extreme model of this kind of article writing. My concept is to simply be aware of the Go Words and be sure to have them in there. It is the most basic advice, it must have been on Google's Webmaster Help section years ago. But judging by my competition this is a real weakness for many sites.
Circling back to links, people looking for citations (for links/twitter/facebook/word of mouth) will find it in Google and link to it.
| 7:12 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
You know, I understand the "create content that people will love" concept, but I think the linking power of your content depends a lot on your niche. Of course Matt Cutts can write good content and get links to it because basically all his readers are webmasters.
In my niche, on the other hand, people absolutely love my content, some of my articles have more than 1000 comments, accumulated over a little more than 5 years... but they are all computer illiterates that don't have websites, don't have twitter accounts and most of them don't even have a Facebook account. And if I eventually get readers that do have websites, guess what they do? They copy and paste my articles on their websites and I still get no link!
So, all this work I've doing over the past 5 years writing frequent, original and quality content that people do love, have generated me no links at all! The few links I have are links that I posted myself on directories and sites like Yahoo! Answers.
Sometimes I think I should just change my business model and adopt a single sales letter model like many of the sites that figure on the first page of results for most of my keywords... I spend my time writing good content and one page sales letter websites rank better than me. That's very frustrating...
So Google "expects" websites to get links naturally by popularity and that's what I've been trying to do for years, but I guess it only works on certain niches where people have websites and have good "nettiquete" linking to content instead of copying it.
| 10:05 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
poster deleted: I didn't see the examples that martinibuster gave previously
| 8:10 pm on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
"In my niche, on the other hand, people absolutely love my content, some of my articles have more than 1000 comments, accumulated over a little more than 5 years... but they are all computer illiterates that don't have websites, don't have twitter accounts and most of them don't even have a Facebook account. And if I eventually get readers that do have websites, guess what they do? They copy and paste my articles on their websites and I still get no link!"
That's a good point.
| 8:30 pm on Jun 3, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I think Google will do the web a big disservice if they favour only big-name sites when it comes to rankings. There should be an intelligent level-playing field aspect built into their algorithm so small sites can rank well for relatively highly searched terms if the content is top notch. The other day I bumped into a wonderful site about a medical topic which I won't go into (it was like a personal diary but at the same time a mini site) and was written wonderfully, in fact, very compelling with a wonderful human quality to it. I am sure it is miles better than anything eHow or Livestrong would have on the topic and would be much more helpful for people with this condition to read this particular site than the methodical articles eHow churns out. But I will bet my bottom dollar this site is no where to be seen for any even semi major keywords (despite being several years old) while sites like eHow or LiveStrong are raking in big traffic for competitive terms related to this particular medical condition.
| 5:21 pm on Jun 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I understand that you don't get many natural links so I would suggest that you find sites that might link to you and let them know that your pages do get thousands of comments (thus displaying social proof that your content is good).
When requesting links it is good to demonstrate that others already like the material.
| 5:26 pm on Jun 4, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Can you give a more concrete example of the "go words" you are referring to?
| This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 38 ( 1  ) |