Forum Moderators: martinibuster
This may have something to do with the fact that there is little to no SEO in my area.
If I had to compete with some of the people in these various forums - well... I guess I'd be in a permanent sandbox of my/their making
Regards to all
Rod
Doc Title, meta description, headings, on-page content, alt attributes, un-bloated code with external CSS and javascript files, and several other things all help too.
I have a site at #2 in 11 million results (on a two word search term) with only a few dozen incoming links and it is only PR5. The other factors are what count in that case.
SEO is not easy.
Relatively few people can compete at the highest level of SEO and taste the "forbidden fruit" of ultra-lucrative keywords. Most people who try get a reality check instead of a pay check.
Getting tons of traffic from Google is easy.
Luckily, there is no shortage of keyword combinations which require only basic optimzation, and anyone can pick these up with the right content strategy.
ThomasK ;)
One thing is not so clear: What will the engines use instead of links to rank pages?
What will the engines use instead of links to rank pages?
Maybe real popularity (read: unique traffic) is a better indicator of quality than a link?
Then SEO wouldn't be as easy as claimed...sounds like all you need to do is type some HTML into a network of sites and presto.
Might have to change the forum name to popularity development :)
True ...but when all this ends wise SEO's would be all set to retire and dont have to work anymore :)
Well, that would wipe out new websites, wouldn't it?
Is SEO really that easy?
Unless you're "example.com" you're not going to get that much unique traffic without search results (unless you're spamming something such as forum boards, blogs, etc). -I'm referring to the average Joe's website or small to mid-size businesses without any real press coverage or viral marketing.
Anyway, none of those other sources of unique traffic necessarily say anything about the quality of a site.
>>Unique traffic.Unless you're "example.com" you're not going to get that much unique traffic without search results (unless you're spamming something such as forum boards, blogs, etc). -I'm referring to the average Joe's website or small to mid-size businesses without any real press coverage or viral marketing.
Anyway, none of those other sources of unique traffic necessarily say anything about the quality of a site.
I had the same initial reaction regaurding unique traffic - BUT this only holds for sites that exclusivly market via SEP. While press coverage, buzz etc. cant be generated, clicks and traffic via adwords (and other "cheapish" marketing venues) can. Most "important" internet precenses will try to gather some traffic in this manner.
The toolbar and the statistic it gathers would likly be able to differentiate not only quantity but quality - so that sites which advertise, for instance, via popups have this traffic negated or penalized (good log files and conversion tracking allow us as webmasters to do the same - imagine what one could acceive with a logfile millions upon millions of users strong).
I think it only logical that in the near future traffic patterns and the behavior of visitors ranks pagerank for determining relevancy amoungst the top contenders - patterns and such for say 5% of internet users could be made to provide results infinatly more accurate then link weight and anchortext because it provides better more robust data and fudging results would require manipulation on a more substancial scale. A sites inbounds and content must be used to get the phrase - and in the vast majority of cases for ranking as well but when sorting the subset of top phrases your going to get a real strong correlation between quality of the site and pageviews per visitor you sent over on the query.
I dont know, it only goes so far, as you have general patterns and then you have query specific patterns, but the query specific ones - the ones which give you the most bang - need a good dataset, which in turn necessitates a well searched phrase and users phoning home. If theres one area where MSN has the edge...
That means that new sites would never get a look in because the established ones would be at the top all the time. I can see people using hitbots, proxy ips etc to make there sites get more hits.
There always has to be some commodity to a site ranking apart from purely content. You tweak one and then just as much mischief goes on in the part of the algo. Whatever google does it will be manipulated. Why not keep links. The are time consuming to get and you have to be constantly working to cover your ass.
Well, that would wipe out new websites, wouldn't it?
Maybe if unique visitors were the only factor in the algorithm. That's not what I'm suggesting.
I'm talking about an extra indicator of quality, sensibly weighted into a search engine algorithm to provide a superior user experience and decrease the effects of manipulation.
(Yes, a superior user experience means having access to all websites, even the new ones)
Recall one year ago, every one said 'Content is the King!'
:)
Recall one year ago, every one said 'Content is the King!'
Content is still king, at least in the long-term. If you want to spam SE's using disposable domains, that will work in the short-term.
"rate this site" It's an idea. Have a little table next to the site and have surfers rate the site. Yea, I know--that would open up a new can of manipulation.
Thanks, I didn't know it was that easy ;)
Ssh - dont tell forum 12 - link building is easy.
I guess it depends what side of the tracks you're working. In the most general situations,
Eeek, I'm getting dizzy!
