Forum Moderators: open
h1, bold, underline and italics
word.htm, meta desc and keywords
word.html
h3, italics and underline
h1, bold and italics
h1, bold and underline
h2 and underline
h2 and italics
H3, bold and underline and italics
h3, bold and underline
h2 and bold
word-word.htm and H1
Unique keywords ONLY in bold tags
h1, italics and underline
h1 and bold
h1 and underline
content and meta description
content
H1
word-word.html
word.html
I also had a URL with seven back-links on a PR 6 site and that URL didn't even get indexed. That URL got a PR of 4.
So the ultimate optimizing may be file name, H1, bold, underline, and italics, then meta tags. The more the better. Who cares about a PR and back-links!
I've just strated another test to see what is best,
key-word.html
key_word.html
key/word
or
keyword.html
two files for each (with and with out the keywords in the link to the file.)
just ranking your pages against themselves
Huh?
That is precisely the point of this type of experiment, to keep other results from contaminating your petri dish...
[edited by: Jesse_Smith at 11:46 pm (utc) on Aug. 11, 2004]
First listed word.html
URL, H2, meta tags, keywords and description. word.html
Near the bottom.
ONLY in URL. word.shtml
Nice work. Look forward to seeing your other tests.
Ditto.
I find underlines that aren't links really annoying - hopefully this wouldn't be encouraged by Google.
I'm going to do a few more tests like this just to see if it's just luck that they come up in this order. If they come up in about the same order, then we know what to do to optimize! Most of my sites use just <H3>!
Were you using <b> and <i> or <strong> and <em>?
I agree with the first part, but not with "The more the better." There is the rule that says that if you emphasine everything - nothing is emphasised.
I use <h1,2,3> on thousands of pages but only occasional b,i, on any one page.
I don't see Google having a problem with <h's> since they are a esential part of the structure of web pages, designed long before google was born.
So the ultimate optimizing may be file name, H1, bold, underline, and italics, then meta tags. The more the better. Who cares about a PR and back-links!]
I can't agree with the above. According to my observations, On-page factors per se are only effective with not very competitive search terms. For highly competitive markets backlinks and anchor text make the difference.
Huh?That is precisely the point of this type of experiment, to keep other results from contaminating your petri dish...
I was refering to his comment...
So the ultimate optimizing may be file name, H1, bold, underline, and italics, then meta tags. The more the better. Who cares about a PR and back-links!
How can you use these results in a real-world scenario? What he is doing may give the results of how to display and rank unique text, but not how to rank with others. PR and backlinks are two of the determining factors for this. If you take some of the factors in determining page rank and throw out the others, the test is a moot point.
However, if you are using the experiment to just see the value that the G places on text and file layout, then maybe he has a point.
However, if you are using the experiment to just see the value that the G places on text and file layout, then maybe he has a point.
That's exactly what it's for.
This experiment does not seem to take into acount over optimisation.
Of course h1,bold,underline italic on anchors text king. Many of us were doing this, pre November.
DO it through your site, and risk overopmisation penalties.
What's your definition of over optimisation? Google won't even ban spam sites, so why do you think it would do anything just because a header has a few extra HTML tags? What did it do last November?
Searching for any of the other two special words in the files bring up 31 pages vs. 21 from the main keyword. This does show where the back-link page is in the list...
h1, bold and underline and italics
h3, italics and underline
Unique keywords ONLY in bold tags
h1, bold and italics
h1, bold and underline
h2 and underline
h2 and italics
H3, bold and underline and italics
H4
h3, bold and underline
H3
h2 and bold
Unique keywords ONLY in H1 tags
h1 and italics
seven back-links on a PR 6 site ***********
word-word.html and H1
word_word.html and H1
word.htm, meta desc and keywords
word.html, H2, meta tags
h1, italics and underline
h1 and bold
h1 and underline
content and keywords
content keywords desc
content and meta description
content
meta keywords only
meta-description
word_word.html
word-word.html
word.html
One reason some didn't show up for the main keyword was because it was only in the meta tags, and the back-link didn't show up cause that only had the word as a back-link and not in the file. So it's official, Google doesn't look at meta tags if it's not a framed page, er didn't we allready know that?!
I'm also working on a much bigger test, a 90 file test, 10 different tests for each of the kinds of files...
h1
h1 and content
h1, bold, and content
h1, italics, and content
h1, underline, and content
h1, bold, underline, and content
h1, bold, italics, and content
h1, italics, underline, and content
h1, bold, and underline, italics, and content
then the results can be compaired with each other.
5 were overoptimised for target keywords
eg
widgets in bold, links on page, keyword stuffed yada yada.
All those 5 sites tanked, the 25 natural sites did not.
I removed the overoptimising on 4 out of 5, only the one I did not deoptimise staid lost.
What I am saying is your experiment is not worth much as it tells us nothing new. Your test seems to say we can put ALL text on page inside <h1> bold, underline italic text to maximise rankigns for every possible word?
widgets in bold, links on page, keyword stuffed yada yada.Your test seems to say we can put ALL text on page inside <h1> bold, underline italic text to maximise rankigns for every possible word?
No, only the header. In the test, no more than three words were coverd with the header code, and in the content the keyword only showed up once instead of being stuffed every where. If Google dumps a site just for adding a few tags to the header, there on crack! The only link there was was a 'Home' link linking to the main test page.
Thanks for the heads up but personally i wouldn't have told anyone
I presume you're saying you keep your own findings to yourself. Fair enough, but expect to find a different attitude on a forum like this one.
I'm sorry, you're tests are flawed. There are so many reasons why, that it is difficult to know where to start and as I do, I instantly lose the will to live.
Apart from the obvious constant algo tweeks that make your conclusions today, worthless tomorrow, the fact is that Google and the web is primarily based on links... a small matter you sweep aside.
What about these factors concerning your test.
1) Relationship of broad match words. Hiltop will not trigger if a nonsense word is used, and likewise other filters possibly applied to h1 etc. will probably not be activated.
2) Relationship of number of occurances of keyword, used in h1 etc. to the number of occurances in normal text.
3) Position of keyword within normal text throughout the page.
4) Occurance of keyword in title tag may trigger a whole new set of rules. Likewise, different combinations may trigger different rules.
5) Occurance of keyword in h1 but not in any anchor text out.
6) Overall word count and keyword density
7) Relationship between several pages on a domain all heavily focused on one keyword. On one page the h1 may be being ignored because several other pages use it, Google may have a duplicate content issue with your pages and be ignoring many of your test factors on one page and not another.
8) Word proximity within the tags, in combination with use of bold, word count and keyword postion throughout the document.
etc. etc.
Comments like "So it's official, Google doesn't look at meta tags if it's not a framed page, er didn't we allready know that?! " are just not true. You can never be so sure. Do they use them if the page is framed? I don't think so, but who knows. Do they use the keyword tag if the keyword is also in bold and h1 and links in? Do they use them if the word is in a noframes tag? They might... despite current theories to the contrary. The variations are too infinite to be so sure, nothing is official, we just have small snippets of observation for a particular example, which may not apply elsewhere with different circumstances.
Google's overall algo is probably amazingly simple, but within that simplicity is immense subtlety and complexity generated by factors in combination. You would have to do 10,000 test pages to even start making definitive conclusions, but even then, they would be based on test pages within the same domain and for a nonsense word, a huge factor that could isolate the conclusions to only that scenario.
The google algo is trying to find quality content which is relevant for a search word/phrase from a range of domains. On page factors will be related to links in from other sites and internally. They cannot be isolated.
One could conduct an experiment to see what effect the ratio of content to markup has, or the placement of key content in relation to navigation bars, etc etc etc. It's all worth knowing within the context of the big picture - which for all I know is just how you paint it.
So I would say a controlled-type experiment is worth a go, and all credit to someone who takes the time to present the results for discussion, knowing criticism will surely follow. I've done a few minor tests from time to time - mainly in relation to whether Google indexes text in Flash files, and it has no big significance either way - it's just a small piece of extra knowledge one is able to add to the soup.
Regards,
Patrick
I've seen some of my own framed pages indexed and there Google used the meta description to describe the link. *Looks at one right now.* Google has the exact same description as the meta description tag has.
So... doesn't mean they use that text for ranking purposes.
I presume you're saying you keep your own findings to yourself. Fair enough, but expect to find a different attitude on a forum like this one.
True, but only partly. There are many here who are happy to share information (including me), but there are others reading these posts who are just looking for advantage. They don't share information, they plunder it.
If I thought I had really found the Google "magic formula" I would think twice about publishing it. Not through selfish reasons, but simply because my site could be spammed out of existence.
Unfortunately I have not discovered the magic formula so the contingency does not arise. :(
Unfortunately I have not discovered the magic formula so the contingency does not arise. :(
You may never find that formula. It is always changing. I have around 50 sites, several #1 for very competative key phrases. But I also have some sites in the 100s and 200s. I follow pretty much the same rules for all, yet I can't fathom why the differences.
I know, I know... backlinks are different, relational phrases and proximity, ya da ya da yayda are different. Even the sites are completely different. So what works for one does not necessarily work for another.
But it's kind of hard selling that to your clients when it is such a crap shoot. And that is the very first thing I tell them before I start working on their sites.
It's a crap shoot :-)
"I find underlines that aren't links really annoying - hopefully this wouldn't be encouraged by Google"Agreed, it looks ugly too
you could always add a style to remove the underlines:
u{text-decoration:none;}
It's a crap shoot :-)
Yes, and in fact I do particularly well in craps (looking forward to Las Vegas).
Hard to argue against the *fact* that pass-line bets plus and 6/8 side bets gives you a position against a house with minimal advantage. Even a little bit of luck puts you on the profit side. If you add $1 hard bets on 6 and 8, which pay say 7:1, that "little bit of luck" is paying 7:1 to overcome the minimal house advantage.
Add a bit of intuition with regards to when a table is going sour, and when a table is rising, (let's say add a bit more luck), and you have a pretty good long term strategy for winning at craps.
Of course if you're consistently unlucky, you will consistently lose to the degree of that house advantage.
Personally, I do much better at Google than craps, so I don't think Google is quite like shooting craps yet. Even if it gets that bad, I suspect I will still play and win.
The temptation to shout things (or sell mod_rewrite things) from the rooftops is big, isn't it?
You just keep diluting the mix. One day, you will cotton on.....
added: I have two "mini secrets" connected to my sites which I wouldn't sell or tell for all the rice in China and I am sure most other successful webmasters do too. Biting your tongue is one of the most important things on the net....mine is bloody and raw.
[edited by: esllou at 3:34 pm (utc) on Aug. 13, 2004]
I take it you are aware that Google randomise results that are very close togehter in raw ranking value then?
