Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I just posted that in copywriting section but maybe here is more suited.
I think less so with Yahoo and MSN. I'm a fan of MSN because they seem to be hitting a reasonable balance between links and on-page factors.
Google and Yahoo are on extreme opposite sides in the way they handle on-page factors as well as links, imo.
So in terms of Link Development, I try to concentrate on finding a site that msnbot and slurp like in order to get squeezed through their front door. You can call it a quality site or a site with good backlinks.
Anyone else have thoughts about this?
I noticed recently that we took away some text from a page and it dropped even though we had zillion of links with good anchor pointing at it. So from that i deduce that on page factors still have some weight even if you have lots of inbounds.
With respect MB, I think they are quite on the same side regarding Links. In my opinion, Yahoo appeared to come to the point in handling links where G used to stand before Florida, but Google has leaped forward by several miles. In other words, how you can achieve high ranking in Google in the past, you have good opportunity to rank high in Yahoo, using those old techniques. I could be wrong but that is what I saw and felt in my niche.
Yahoo appeared to come to the point in handling links where G used to stand before FloridaThat's my sense too. For me, a high volume of links from diverse sources weighs heavily. I don't do link exchanges or join link networks and have had good success on Yahoo with clean white hat sites, some in fairly competitive areas. Unlike pre-Florida Google, they MAY target/punish for obvious link spam, but I can't say. Anyone?
MSN seems to favor directory links in my experience. Haven't yet narrowed it to which directories but the MSN Small Biz Directory is probably a given.
Me too, a big fan, I'm very impressed with them - though they're still kind of like trying to aim for a moving target.
I've got sites ranking very nicely in MSN that are about as link-deprived as it can get, but yet with looking at how some pages are ranking they'll probably move up when a few quality IBLs are added.
Meantime, IMHO those sites won't get any rankings in Google until there's a good number of links.
How much are on page factors good for serps these days in the era of links being the most critical factor.I would estimate that only about 20% of a page's ranking comes from on-page factors. I have seen SERPs where on-page opt make the difference between #1 and #2. Some people still think on-page SEO should be enough to make them rank #1. One of the nice things about on-page factors only playing a minor role in a page's ranking is that it allows good content to come to the front, because people tend to link to good content much more so than to poor content.
PageRank is around 25%, and anchor text is around 25%, and linking page/site topic may account for another 25% or so. Something like Title of the page linking to you could probably have a 0 to 5% value, as might the repetition or reoccurance of a keyterm of your anchor text somewhere else in the linking document, as might the strength of the linking site's overall thematic simularity.
Of course, these values may vary with the variation of other values, and of course, the SEs all count things differently.
I really think MSN is the search engine of the future. As a searcher, I'm finding much more relevant results there in the last 2 months or so than at G or Y. They big brains at Microsoft seem to have struck upon the best balance, if their SERPs are any indication these days.
