homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.148.191
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: mademetop

General Search Engine Marketing Issues Forum

    
Page Analyzer - The best?
Suggestions on the best SEO page analysis tool for optimization
HLTc




msg:3994902
 2:03 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

I own a site on a particular topic that we were blessed to be ranked # 1 on Google for, for over 7 years. Out of 64 million results.

As far as optimizing my pages, I used only one thing: It was a page analyzer made by a well respected online publication called "Search Engine Watch" I believe. They had a little engine that you could install locally, and it would analyze a page, then come up with a whole list of suggestions.

Naturally there were tons of others like this, but these guys always seemed to have the latest knowledge base for their tool based on inside knowledge from Google. So i used theirs.

That was 8 years ago. Are they still around? Are they still the gold standard? Simply put, with very little effort we were # 1 for 8 years. I redid my site design WITHOUT optimizing my pages and we've now dropped to page 2 and can't seem to recover.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

HLTc




msg:3994910
 2:14 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Actually, upon further thought, maybe it wasn't a page analyzer made by "searchenginewatch". I know they kicked out a newsletter that I read religiously back then, but I don't know that they actually had the software program i am thinking of.

Can anyone remember what I might have used? It was pretty elaborate software. You had to download a knowledge base update every week or two because things kept changing. It would analyze your pages and come up with a list saying things like:

* You have 4 instances of your keyword on this page. Google prefers between 10 and 12 instances. Try adding more keywords

* You have 7 text links containing your key word on this page. Google only suggests having between 3 and 6. Try reducing your text links

* You have only one image ALT tag with your keyword in it. Google prefers at least 10. Consider increasing your ALT tag keywords.

It was really helpful. I can't for the life of me remember what the software was, but it was extremely hot stuff, popular, and the gold standard 8 or 9 years ago.

And it worked well.

HLTc




msg:3994984
 3:32 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Now I remember!

It was the Market Position Newsletter.

And the program was "Web Position Gold" !

Is that still the best one out there?

mattur




msg:3995024
 4:18 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

...these guys always seemed to have the latest knowledge base for their tool based on inside knowledge from Google

Unlikely.

It was really helpful.

Good content and quality links are what determine SERPS these days. "4 occurrences of keyword here and 6 occurrences of keyword there"-type advice is useless imho. SE's have evolved significantly since the AltaVista/LookSmart days.

See this thread from 2006: Web Position Gold and Like Programs [webmasterworld.com]

And Google Webmaster Guidelines [google.com]:

Don't use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc. Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service. Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google.

I suspect most professional SEOs do not use these type of programs. What changes did you make to your site?

HLTc




msg:3995075
 5:13 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Well.... a couple questions here

First off, I've learned over the years that its human nature for people who are "really" into a hobby to "poo poo" the successful programs that cater to the general public. Humans always do that. They say its "useless" and "Not as good as doing it the manual way", while they simultaneously forget that most people dont spend 900 hours a week researching how to do SEO. So given that tendency I typically "poo poo" threads like that one, which really sound the same to me as the threads on the video editing forums. Threads where hollywood experts "poo poo" home programs like Adobe Premiere because the "only real way to do it" is to have a studio in hollywood and write video editing scripts by hand. Given that nonsense tendency for humans to act that way, couldn't WPG be valuable on several levels for optimizing pages?

Your response implies that page optimization is completely irrelevant. How sure are you of that?

1) I cant imagine that keyword frequency and position don't play a role. That seems naive to say, given the fact that incoming link relevance is highly based upon whether the site linking to you has the same keywords. How do they determine a "quality link" if keywords are irrelevant?

2) The idea with WPG really was not to hit some "secret" industry number for keyword frequency. It was to help you keep from overdoing it. Overdoing it would get you penalized, or even blacklisted. So WPG simply notified you that if you have 45 instances of your keyword on the page, you might want to knock it down to something more acceptable. Seems valuable to me, even today, no?

3) "Good content and quality incoming links" were the holy grail even 10 years ago. But keyword frequency and other issues also played a role. So you're saying they've actually reduced the requirements for quality rankings, to just "Good content and quality links" ? Seems odd that they would simplify it that much.

4) I really still find it very hard to believe that page optimization has gone the way of the dinosaur, and that meta tags, keywords, alt tags, and text links on a page are "irrelevant" to Google and ranking....

Can you clarify?

mattur




msg:3995198
 8:20 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

You may well be right about the poo-pooing. OTOH I'm giving you the benefit of my experience, free, and have no reason to grandstand or mislead you. I think using any page analysis tool like this is a waste of time, so would not recommend using one.


* You have 4 instances of your keyword on this page. Google prefers between 10 and 12 instances. Try adding more keywords

* You have 7 text links containing your key word on this page. Google only suggests having between 3 and 6. Try reducing your text links

* You have only one image ALT tag with your keyword in it. Google prefers at least 10. Consider increasing your ALT tag keywords.

"4 occurrences of keyword here and 6 occurrences of keyword there"-type advice is useless imho.

Your response implies that page optimization is completely irrelevant.

No, it doesn't. ;)

So WPG simply notified you that if you have 45 instances of your keyword... Seems valuable to me, even today, no?

Anyone can tell whether a page's content reads naturally or is keyword-stuffed. *Anyone*.

But keyword frequency and other issues also played a role. So you're saying they've actually reduced the requirements for quality rankings...

What makes you think keyword frequency is a measure of quality...?

I'd recommend downloading Google's SEO Starter Guide [googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com] if you haven't read it already. WebmasterWorld also has lots of useful advice, in the archives and in ongoing discussions too. :)

HLTc




msg:3995253
 9:35 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Regarding keyword stuffing, simple wordsmithing can increase or decrease keyword count in an article without it looking artificial. You pretty much didnt respond to any of my points and instead decided to respond to this? Odd.

Ill simplify it for you. You claim keywords are irrelevant, yet you also claim page optimisation isn't. Can you clarify your definition of page optimisation in the complete absence of keywords, without sending me off to read a book?

tedster




msg:3995871
 8:18 pm on Sep 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I agree with mattur very much. As I read his posts, they discuss some of the fine details - but he is not globally discounting on-page optimization or keyword use. This lines up with thirteen years of SEO experience that I've had.

A client recently asked me to review a particular bit of "SEO software" they had acquired, and suggest how they could use it. Part of my advice was to ignore such measures as keyword occurrence and density, except as a wake-up call if you forgot to use the keyword phrase completely or over-used it so that it overwhelmed the page. Other than that, this kind of percentage driven on-page analysis just doesn't matter, IMO - it's just pseudo-science.

Even in the beginnings of SEO software, the suggested levels were not taken from any insider information, but rather from spidering a lot of SERPs data every month and number crunching on the way top sites work. That might give some insight into correlation, but it certainly doesn't indicate causation.

Mathmo




msg:3998214
 4:21 am on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've just started today using SEOQuake (a firefox plugin) and it is awesome fun! check it out :)

(completely free and covers all the basics)

Metapilot




msg:3999228
 1:17 pm on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't necessarily blame it all on on-page stuff, although it is possible that that's all it is.

How much did you "redo" your site? did you change to a new url structure or keep the old one. Did you keep the same content and meta tags on the same URLs? If not, did you research your backlinks and ensure you 301'd the pages that had backlinks to the appropriate new pages? Did you 301 the rest of your old urls to their respective new urls?

How about internal linking--did you look into that? Did you analyze how your internal pages were linking to each other (and to your homepage) and how those internal links may have been contributing to your rankings?

Also, how long ago did your redesign your site? you may expect some reduced rankings for a few weeks to many weeks even if you did everything right.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved