Forum Moderators: open
1.) Proper Website Design
2.) Incoming links
3.) Keyword selection and use w/in a page
4.) Relevant content w/ proximity
5.) Page titles
6.) Submission to engines/ directories
7.) Internal links
8.) Outgoing links
9.) Cross-site themes
10.) Alt tags
11.) Meta tags
12.) HTML keyword ’comments’
13.) Using PPC as an organic ‘enhancer’ to SERP
14.) Alphabetical prioritization
1. Title
2. Anchor Text (from outside site)
3. Anchor Text (from inside site)
4. Any incoming link (PR)
5. Incoming links from authority sites
6. H1 tag
8. Stemming
9. Keeping pages at least 15% different
10. KW's in <B><I><U> tagsGood Content and Validation have nothing to do with G ranking at this time.
I agree validation has nothing to do with anything whatsoever. I do however think that good content will help in the long term, as it will attract more links, and esp. links from authoritative sites.
1. Title tag
2. title tag in body
3. keep signing guestbooks, blogs and virtually any
form online that allows your domain post with your title tag.
This stuff works and makes me sick.
Our area on the net is ruled by the above on google.com since that November 2003 crazy update.
I certainly doubt that your secret techniques are more important than the public ones.
They may be what gives you an edge, but you still have to pay attention to the basics.
Nobody said that you don't have to pay attention to the basics, so I am not sure who you are arguing here. Equally, I am not sure how you are equating 'the basics' with 'top ten tchniques'
If my competition is using the basics, and you accept that my 'secret techniques' are what gives me an edge, (your words, not mine), then not sharing them on a forum read by my competition is clearly a massively important factor.
How can you not see that?
Also, lets not forget, sharing any techniques that are not already widely known, can lead to the search engines acting against them.
As Marcia alludes to, this has happened with 'hidden features' on Google which were almost immediately disabled.
GOOGLE GOING MAD
Dont you think so.
Taking "the bascis" seriously clearly got us into the game. But the game keeps getting tougher, and while there are still arenas where just following Brett's rules will help enormously, those basic rules are getting closer to becomming a cost of entry, rather than a path to significant success.
FWIW, our secret techniques are *not* what some might call 'tricks.' I prefer to think of our secret techniques as just more undiscovered - or at least unpublished - basics.
The problem with the original list in the first post (no offense meant to the poster) is that every point is so basic as to be of little use; it's the specifics of execution and implementation that lead to results, IMO anyway. There is for example a big difference between noting 'kw density' as being important (or not) and understanding what sorts of guidelines to use regarding implementation of 'kw density' in titles, META's, alt tags, body text, <Hx>, etc...
There may be 20 or 30 'important' basics. The trick...as in all things...is knowing how to execute them.
That's exactly it. It isn't all rocket science; fortunately some of those little "secrets" are very simple things found out by accident and those are usually left unpublished - until enough people come across it and then it'll become more widespread - and eventually stop working.
One thing that delights me no end is the number of people who don't care to read "newbie" posts at forums. That can be a decided advantage for those with a more democratic attitude who aren't at the point of being "full of themselves". Sometimes the people who are groping and first learning can spot things that might be easily overlooked by more seasoned, experienced people. Not only that, but sometimes there are really are tasty little things dropped in inconspicuously in "newbie" type discussions. If they're ever dropped at all, that's the best place for it, IMHO. ;)
And what is stemming? Oops, I found the glossary here. Boat, boats, boating, to catch the synonyms.
[edited by: bhd735 at 2:33 am (utc) on July 20, 2004]
Good point about newbie posts, etc. - It's more likely that a newbie is spending a lot of time reading, and testing whereas many vets spend the majority of their time implementing what they already know to be effective and the minority skimming other vets' posts and reading the more advanced articles, etc.
Can anyone give a good rule of thumb for "fast load time"? e.g. under 5 seconds...- check out [pages.alexa.com...] then test your site (or whichever site you're analyzing) using alexa.com.
And what is stemming?- visit [google.com...] see bottom of page.
2. Start optimizing your page, adding new pages, etc. following all these other suggestions.
Some say make a great site and then put it up. I say make a site and put it up, and then make it better every day.
14.) Alphabetical prioritizationIf your business name starts with an "A", "B" or a number you end up at the top of directory results.
... and not a deep buried page with a PR1.
Over time this can make a difference.
Just wanted to say that this technique actually worked very quickly, not over any period of time. Within weeks one (1) particuar site I know of jumped out of the box with PR5, and a single backlink to dmoz. Problem is that your site may already start with the letter M, so this method becomes useless.
Top 10 if you're creating a new site.
8.) Sitemap (not linking full titles)
Sorry, didn't understand this one. Why not link the full title of the page to that page on your own site?
<snip>
[edited by: lawman at 6:56 pm (utc) on July 20, 2004]
8.) Sitemap (not linking full titles)
Sorry, didn't understand this one. Why not link the full title of the page to that page on your own site?
Google rightly considers "fat blue widgets" to be different from "fat blue" and different yet again to "fat".
If you are linking "fat blue widgets" you are unlikely to get as high as you could for "fat"
Therefore, have your text links for the words that people are searching for, and no longer.
2. Title
3. Internal links not too deep
:-)
re shorter links - t2dman I have not seen anything that would prove this.
Wow. I am able to get to the top for a term with the basics when competition is light. The name of the business might be A B C with links to that, however also known in short as A C and A B. Generally, I will be top for A B C and possibly A B. I then add specific links A B and A C, make sure I have A C in the text, and then generally get to the top for each.
So what you are saying, is that I could achieve the same with linking using the text "A B C D E F"? I agree that the longer phrase has the advantage of adding power behind each of the words in the link, broad brush. But I have always interpreted my experiences as saying the shorter link was more effective for the targetted phrase.
Google rightly considers "fat blue widgets" to be different from "fat blue" and different yet again to "fat".If you are linking "fat blue widgets" you are unlikely to get as high as you could for "fat"
Therefore, have your text links for the words that people are searching for, and no longer.
I only agree if your title tag is something like "Buy your fat blue widgets here!"
then the site map anchor should be "fat blue widgets".
When I make my pages however, the title is already "fat blue widgets".
FWIW.
