Forum Moderators: not2easy
To start - content development is a huge topic that cannot so easily commented on unilaterally. It is nonetheless so important and if I may make a supposition - even more important than "link development".
To example this - many eMarketers write articles posting them in various venues and share their knowledge and ideas in discussion forums. In the simplest of terms -- they promote themselves continuously. They appreciate that "new content" have multi-level value - whether that be new direct webpages in the website, links (to or from existing webpages), or other areas of opportunity. In hindsight, regardless of the "why they do it" without that [content] the "link" and/or subsequent opportunities are gone - therefore the "content" by proxy is a must (more important).
If I had to place importance on specific topics under content development (which loosely translates to website development) these would be key topics:
Coherently Website Content Development demand all of these factors as all are the backbone of your professionalism. Second, these topics are inherently tied to technique and tactics (all the stuff SEOs do) - or ranked results "demands".
That's very important to understand... Google suggests designing a website as if search engines didn't exist - they added an algorithm though to make sure "the best come to the top" unfortuately who actually defines "what's best"? Search engine users? Or a mathematical equation?
In reality - designing as if search engines didn't exist - means going against common sense - as a search attempts to "make meaning" out of million of webpages towards a specific search string, thus to "not make meaning" seems a little counter-productive. A bit of a cliche or oxymoron -- I'm not sure which? ;)
Please note: knowledge is intangible - you can't say "don't attempt to learn to be better"... thus what I believe Google thinks they're saying is the remainder of this post.
If you do these, you will unlikely ever drop from Google results and continuously improve each update.
Usability
There are many usability references online. An exceptional one is Software Usability Research Lab [psychology.wichita.edu], Dept of Psychology, Wichita State University. SURL is updated about every six month - and there are some extremely detailed and enlightening case studies for practical application that will gain you enormous value.
Usability can not be trivialized, or generalized. It's important to note that this is an overview - you really need to research usability and embed these into your own strategies in support of rankings and visitor appeal.
From SURL:People often become lost within a web site's structure. In fact, 58% of users will make two or more navigational errors while searching for information. 66.8% of users have stated that one of the greatest problems about the Web is "not being able to find the information that they are looking for".
This fact is even more astounding if you consider that "search engines" are supposed to make it easier for users to find information and as such, in order to fulfill your role it is not enough just "to rank" a website but to help in converting the ranks, to visits and ultimately to sales.
Much has been said about the design process of websites, such as establishing the proper mood or "feel" to create user interest. However, users tend to be far more satisfied and stay with websites that are designed for their "use" in mind. One of the chief mechanisms to do this is the proper use of "perceived use".
Perceived use refers to the "properties of a specific object, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how an object could possibly be used". To illustrate: a text link label "home" may be perceived as something to "mouse click on" because "home" is synonymous on the web as meaning -- "go to mainpage". Often in the world of SEOing we sometimes switch the "home" text anchor to a primary keyword of the website to gain "ranking favor". Consequently, that "perceived use" is now lost.
As humans on a preconscious level seek structure in the things we see. If there is no intentional structure, we will invent our own, which more often than not... "Will result in becoming lost".
The "home" label allows visitors to regain positional knowledge. To retain effective "perceived use" while managing ranking favor an image button offers a fair tradeoff.
e.g. <a title="keyword" href="index.html"><img alt="keyword" src="image.gif" width="25" height="15" border="0"></a>
Now "home" is written or the button and the primary keyword is in the title="" attribute and alt="" tag - the best of both worlds! ;)
Even if the websites Nav Bars are primarily text link anchors, an image of a text link (and even a rollover text link image) will offer the benefits of both usability and ranking ability.
This is what Google is saying: IMHO! ;)
Research
Ongoing research into industry and markets is a must to gain a competitive advantage. This is less about "keyword research" and more about establishing opportunity.
By nature SEOs understand web technology and how it can be used to enhance any website. Unfortunately we don't appreciate all the ins and outs of all industries and markets thus we MUST research client's industry/market. This may seem daunting as the breadth and depth of information available online "is" daunting -- but don't we "understand technology here"?
The single most important thing to remember in research in that "recent" is the key and Google offers an enormous time saver when it comes to recent.
Use of Google automatic news reference allows you to quickly scan headlines based on keywords. Tailoring your services (and time) in this fashion allows you to manage clients using innovative forward thinking, conveying to them recent events and at their level of industry/market comprehension.
Example: News is based on recent industry/market trends - associating clients with such newsworthy items, assisting them to appreciate the need and use of wire services, developing their own press releases to capitalize on these recent occurrences can generate enormous exposure, that is:
While in SEO circles we might say that's "not my job" -- exposure isn't an SEOs job? huh?
When I develop a new client - one of the first things I do - is type their keywords in at Google News - and hit the autosender. A quick few minutes a day per client, can really pay off, and regardless of whether you are the SEO, or the client actually doing your own strategy - if you are not using Google news in this fashion -- you're likely missing tons of recent trends to capitalize on monthly.
Is this not what Google is saying?
Copywriting
Copywriting may not be your forte - it does however offer a definitive competitive advantage that we "must" strive to incorporate. Users often miss important pieces of information simply because it is not seen. Todays SEO tends to tightly focused on "keywords" not realizing that once the search engine user (or visitors from anywhere else) are inside the website "the keywords often matter not". While you might be ready to say "that's not my job" again - however if visitors are missing important iinformation "because of only keywords"... you may be reducing the effectiveness of that strategy rather than assisting it.
Read-ability and scan-ability are the primary concerns of text copywriting:
- Use of "Headlines" - topical orientation verses cleverly written,
- Succinct writings,
- One key idea per paragraph,
- One primary topic or theme per page,
- Writing in an objective style instead of a promotional style, and
- Writing as "Market Focus" versus "Company Focus".
All of this list are issues towards ranking and/or tradeoffs, and one more - users "instinctively" ignore the graphics that are presented on a website. Visitors are twice as likely to fixate on text than on the images in their initial visit to a site - thus the "text copy" should be your fundamental concern - page by page.
In reality if you simply "keyword it"... the ranks will not help much.
Whether or not you are adept in copywriting isn't the issue - understanding and conveying the importance of these development consideration is. Additionally, article writing, news, recent events, etc., should be outsourced to a professional (if this isn't you).
It's important to realize the "sales" produce revenue, and taking some of that initial revenue and investing in "copywriting" will produce more revenue.
Lastly on this topic - is a very big plus for copywriting -- A stagnant website is less appealing to search engines... we all need to really appreciate this -- A stagnant website is less appealing to search engines... thus should this content area be ignored - your attempts to maintain rankings will become more difficult over time.
Is this not what Google is saying?
Value Added
Whether a website is "informative" or merely a product/service based eCommerce website, all must take advantage of the web’s greatest asset - interactivity.
The use of Flash, Shockwave, JavaScript (and other programming languages) if used as value added demonstrations, downloads, etc. offers as much to customer enticement as they do to ranking ability.
Huh?
Yes - Flash, Shockwave, and JavaScript, etc. produces "better ranks".
You may ask - How does this help in "ranked results"?
Getting listed in primary directories that have a review system in place, the first one being DMOZ - Open Directory Project.
In general, DMOZ accepts websites that adds merit to its categories. Multiple listings are an exception to the rule: "one site, one listing (sometimes you may not even get one listing) - notwithstanding -- interactivity demonstrates merit, and mreit adds more listings to you.
So how can we demonstrate merit. Well a links page has little hope of being accepted elsewhere - a directory however, whether industry/market specific or for general submission offers this potential in due course.
Adding a topical discussion forum is another example of gaining merit.
Creating a directory or forum or both (and being successful) does require much upfront work but let's consider the alternatives.
Link development and content development both require enormous effort - and we may not have time to dedicate to these efforts independently. On the other hand - the directory itself aggregates links without the need to search for links, and the forum aggregate content without the need to write "all of it".
The directory offers an accept/reject submission function (on noting a return link) and the forum draws interested members in some of which can demonstrate moderator potential - like here at WebmasterWorld which, allows you to focus on the bigger online picture and non-employees to manage your content development directions.
In both instances, the time saved, value added, and the creation of interactivity cannot be easily ignored.
In my own efforts to "appreciate" DMOZ and believe me when I say I do - I have personally demonstrated to DMOZ "merit" through use of Flash, Shockwave, JavaScript (and other programming languages) and gained a multitude of links in kind, which translates to, better rank, more visitors, and many more sales.
Is this not what Google is saying?
Credibility
Should many or all of the above considerations be implemented into a website significant credibility is gained. There are still other considerations that also add to ranking potential.
While a "Contact Us" may be useful that same information posted on every page particularly a physical address will gain results (Brett coined the spaghetti effect). Many searchers use geographical locations as in keyphrases, as such many SEOs add "location" to say the title elements without weighing the value properly.
As we have seen in the past a particular phrase doesn't need to appear on the page "to rank" thus (as an example) using location in conjunction with a copyright statement (remotely on the page) can have the desirable effect if "the other part of the query topic is heavily weighted on the page.
Now as the physical address is part of every page this offers 3 advantages:
Content development is so very important to rank development - and the prime reason (IMHO) that Google suggests developing as if it wasn't there.
[edited by: fathom at 5:57 am (utc) on Mar. 17, 2004]
