Forum Moderators: open
However, in some cases, snippets show the keyword list which is obviously undesirable. So should keyword lists be replaced by whole sentences or are search engines clever enough with synonyms, etc. that such lists can be done away with altogether?
Alternatively, should I mix up my synonyms, etc. in my main text? (I find this a very untidy concept.)
Anyone have views on this?
Kaled.
Umm...am I missing something here? The above leads me to think you are spamming.
The above leads me to think you are spammingNo, he's just putting words on a page. When they are hidden, they become spam. It's like saying "Viewers of this page are also often interested in keyword1, keyword2", or another example would be the additional categories (see also) that the odp suggests might be of use to you when you are in one category.
<added>of course , that wouldn't help your problem. Nevermind;)
I like my main text to be consistent, for instance, I prefer to always refer to a sofa as a sofa rather than mix up settees and sofas, etc. in my main text. It's just a question of style.
When you only have a single keyword and a single synonym, there is not much of a problem, but in reality, a typical page will require half a dozen or so alternative keywords or in some cases, key-phrases.
As for spamming, well, my products do exactly what the page text says, no BS etc. If the user is satisfied that the page is relevant to the search, so far I am concerned, it isn't spam.
Kaled.
PS
I don't really sell sofas - it was just an example.
What counts is what Google considers spamming. If you are doing what I think you are, I'd be disappointed at Google for not banning your site until the end of time.
But to answer the original question. I think puttin relevant keywords within a text instead of just having a plain list can bring added value to the user (depending on the author) and the search engine. Usually webmasters larger sites just don't have the ressources to write a text like this for every page.
bring added value to the userGoogleGuy insists that if you build your site for users first...
IMHO, bury them in the text, at least make an effort to disguise your spam! ;)
As a shopper, I immediately become suspicious of a site where the SEO is overly apparent and usually shop elsewhere.
Likely a safer strategy. ;)
Might even add other interesting keywords.
SN
Also, you may wish to consider as a motivator that having these words in closer proximity to the key phrase may have a greater effect. Words in the footer are oft thought to not carry as much weight.
Only if google is your sole source of traffic.
Woz
As the OP posted this in the Google News forum, I presumed that he was concerned about Google. Of course, if Google is such an insignificant source of traffic that he feels he can risk the Google Death Penalty, then perhaps stuffing keywords in the footer of pages makes sense.
The issue is good technical style vs purist SEO, spam doesn't come into the equation. However, because of algo changes, the snippets are a problem now and this is something I shall have to address.
I can't remember exactly how he phrased it but even GoogleGuy said that SEO is not necessarily a bad thing from the perspective of the Search Engine designer.
Kaled.
Widgetland is often misspelled as Wigetland, Wijetland, Wijitland, Widgitland or even Wichitland. The correct spelling is WIDGETLAND.
And guess what - this page catches some hits for the incorrect spellings. If that's spam, open the can and I'll eat it. (with beans and eggs)
Good point rfgdxm1, I missed that.
Onya
Woz
I have also seen several sites, who put the keywords in descprive paragraphs like "What to think about when buying widgets".
All I want to say is, that there are more creative ways to establish a good internal linkstructure with keywords, than putting tons of them in the footer.
Are search engines clever enough with synonyms?
I can't say this for a fact but I believe Google and other major search engines are devoting resources to this as a necessity. The ability of the algorithm to detect that a page is making overall topical sense is becoming more and more crucial, and in the long run one of the few ways to truly combat spam. So I would be inclined to build your page with this in mind.
GoogleGuy insists that you build your site for users
Well... of course he does, but to some, no users means not built for users. I see nothing wrong or spam-like to put a section on your page that says up-front and above board: "here are my keywords and phrases: keyword keyword keyword etc..." That is content just like any other - nothing more than freedom of expression. Put tra-la-la at the end of it, as if you're singing.
Then a user-useless list of words is the very definition of spam. If the user can use these words somehow, even punily (like to understand a synonym), then it isn't. In most cases I see, like "related search words" this is pure spam. It adds zero to the user experience (unless those "related searches" are linked to a related search of course).
My view is what I've already posted: that the algorithm will of necessity become increasingly effective at detecting coherent and consistent copy in relation to something that identifies the subject of the page - like its title or links that point to it.
I don't think even Google would presume to define the user experience for web pages that belong to someone else.
I think they are doing exactly that: If you're using Google Adwords, your campaigns will be stopped if the target page contains popups. The reason is, that they don't think popups have a possitive effect on the user experience. So there defenitely is some spirit of "We have to educate webmasters, what's good for user experience".
Also statements like "What's good for the user, is good for Google" imply that their goal is to build a search engine, where only pages will rank high that satisfy the user / deliver good user expirience. Of course this is dependent on Googles perception of a "good user experience". This is why having more than one or two big players on the search engine market is so important.
(of course this message is totally off topic regarding the keyword discussion :)
I simply use a more obvious and open SEO stratgey (and possibly an inferior one). On a page that may be a thousand words or more, a short list of relevant keywords, spelling variations, etc. seems perfectly ok to me.
However, the issue is snippets. It seems to me that keyword lists need to be wrapped in full sentences. To me, this seems more like spamming than having plain keyword lists.
Kaled.
Umm...am I missing something here? The above leads me to think you are spamming.
Well then, am I missing something here? I didn't see in the first message that started this discussion where anyone asked to talk about spam or was looking for approval. I was under the impression that it was the snippet being asked about. Well, I've been known to be wrong before, so maybe I missed that part. ;)
But maybe that's right - maybe they shouldn't be on bottom at all if it's spammy looking. Maybe they should be done the right way, like the way Yahoo does it - on TOP of the page, with links, so they're anchor text. See?
Search for sofa [search.yahoo.com] at Yahoo Search:
Also try: sofa bed, leather sofa, sofa express, sofa table More...
Dang, Yahoo is even sneaking coffee tables in there along with the sofa search. How spammy can some people get? The nerve! Next thing you know they'll be adding links to slip covers and recliner chairs. Once folks start going down the spam road it only gets worse and worse. And what's worse is that newbies might see that and start copying them.
Of course semantic analysis may enter into the picture, and if that's the case then a better idea may just be to do up a page each for synonyms or semantically related words; like one page each for sofa beds, coffee tables, sleeping couches - etc., you get the picture. Then you just link to the pages talking about them using the keywords in anchor text in a well written paragraph on your hypothetical sofa page. Sounds like a good way to convert visits to sales to me, if they're coming in on other keywords.
Far less spammy than Yahoo any day of the week, and I never yet heard of anyone getting busted for content spamming if they're legitimate, well done pages.
BTW, I personally just quadrupled page views on a site and doubled income by doing just that - adding new products, useful pages with individually written unique content - for users. And no, the new pages aren't ranking for anything yet and maybe they won't; they're brand new. But apparently visitors coming in on already indexed pages for related items sure did click on the links put into paragraphs and other strategic places on the pages.
Added:
That does it! Alta Vista sneaked in those slipcovers! Search for sofa at
Alta Vista [altavista.com]
Related words - over on the right side, the prime click real estate on a page.
See what I mean about spammers getting worse?
It's hard to judge kaled's options without actually seeing the page and the question in its actual context. The best answer is probably a mixture of art and science, and it in doubt, go for art.
If you are doing what I think you are, I'd be disappointed at Google for not banning your site until the end of time.
I'm willing to bet Kaled has Adsense on his pages? Plus, Google miss the most simplest of spam techniques so actual words on the page are the last thing they need to be picking up on right now.
As a shopper, I immediately become suspicious of a site where the SEO is overly apparent and usually shop elsewhere.
I don't think Kaled's site is a shopping one, it'll be one of those affiliate directories or bespoke search engine results pages by the sound of it.
I would have to agree thought that mixing the 'extra keywords' in with the text is the best way to go from both a visual perspective and a Google perspective. Like you suggested to yourself, make sentences out of the keywords, a nice little paragraph to finish the page off will do just fine and lend a bit more credibility to your pages.
They do, I've seen hidden text and anchor text links so blatant it takes 5 seconds to find it with a peek into the cache. Especiallly the text-only cache, that's some kind of a tool there!
That isn't the point. And I don't know what kaled's site is nor do I care. It's none of my business and he didn't ask me what I thought of his site. This isn't a site review, there's a specific topic being brought up and I prefer to stay with the principles related to the topic rather than make unfounded assumptions and engage in idle gossip and accusations about a site I've never seen and don't really care to see.
That's all besides the point anyway. The topic can relate to different types of sites and MHO is that it's best to approach with the benefit of the doubt that we're talking about legitimate sites and what would be legitimate techniques. In other words, rather than get personal in ignorance, I prefer to mind my own business and deal with the issues that affect everyone. Otherwise it's a waste of time to read a thread and wade through extraneous noise, and we might as well not even bother having a discussion. Or rather, a non-discussion about a site we've never seen and never will.
Back to something productive, even if it's picked up in snippets, how much weight do extra words/synonyms have on a page, compared with other pages out there that have inbound links with anchor text for the keywords/synonyms? Does it even give any type of edge with competing?
