Forum Moderators: open
Anyone ever hear this theory before?
SEO is taking advantage of how search engines organize page content to help with rankings. The methods search engines use to organize page content are designed for NON-seo'd sites.
Let us now check out your own post (as an example of non-seo'd content):
My wife went to a seminar today where they had an SEO company give a presentation. One of the the things he mentioned was the first six words in the first paragraph are important (duh) as well as the last three words of the first paragraph. When questioned he said they had done extensive testing on over 50 sites to reach this conclusion.
Now lets take the first 6 words and the last 3:
My wife went to a seminar . . . reach this conclusion.
That really doesn't tell me ANYTHING about what the paragraph is about. The first 6 words are normally fluffly introductions "My wife went to a seminar" and the last 3 are fluffy closings "reach this conclusion", clearly no search engine could use this information to help rank the page.
Any evidence to suggest this. Also has anyone got any thoughts on the number of words to have in the first pg and overall body content? Also I have been noticing that sites that are using a h2 tag as opposed to h1 at the top cropping up a lot more? Any comments...
Even some SEO "experts" are fooled by these silly theories that get passed around. Many like to believe that the recipe for good SEO has an elusive secret ingredient - like, make the fourth word in your second paragraph rhyme with "hoop" and you will improve your SEO by an iota. I can neither prove nor disprove the assertion, but I don't buy it.
Unfortunately, lots of others do - literally. Some of these "web promotion" seminars are pretty expensive to attend. Like snake oil.
Untested, unproven, and probably insignificant compared with real SEO strategies like inbound links, content weight and dupe filter problems