Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
I left out age because I have domains that aren't even old enough to show TB PR ranking top ten in Google for moderate to low competitive KW's.
Age may play a factor in the algo for more competitive KW's as I have some older sites ranking 1-5 for more competitive KW's.
my 3 cents
1. inbound links
3. title tag and description
4. relevant onpage content
5. relevant outbound links
2. + 4. are necessarily fuzzy due to your limitation to five and should be explained in farmore detail, but I'd regard the other three as equally fundamental.
Are you talking about domains or URIs (sites or pages)?
Rank with a single dictionary term.
Rank with a phrase.
Rank on .com .de .uk etc
Do some work.
Get on whatever google search your trying to rank for, enter the keyword you "assume" to be the money maker.
Take every site that ranks in that top 50, 100,? apart see how, what, why. Don't just look for the good look for the bad also. If they have less backlinks or a new domain why do they rank compared to?
Look at the sites past 50, 100,? to give you some indication of what doesn't work that well or what may hinder.
Factors to consider?
On page keywords.
Number of times keyword is used.
% of keyword to page words.
Keywords in those backlinks.
Keywords associated with your chosen keyword.
Number of pages.
Plus whatever is said above or below this post.
Yahoo site explorer.
msn search operators.
User agent spoofing. ( a google ip ;)
Disable css js
Database of your findings.
Or forgo the above and follow the big boys...
Forget ranking, manipulate the press, blogs, users (with shiny objects). BS hype and use your way to the top of the buzz.
Date googlers and goverment employees.
All of the above and that secret that we are sworn never to tell.
Oh, and welcome to WebmasterWorld ;)
I'd advise you to ignore appi2, can be a silly person.
If your content is good and a normal visitor will get benefit from it then I guess you are ok because that is what lexical analysis means. Those old stuff or dumb robot who crawls your page and rank your site because of ALT, META and title and interlinking is history now. Even yahoo is on the same path. Make your site for visitor not for robot that is it.
Of course you can; certainly, some niches are entirely overrun by spammers, but I've regularly used Google and found organically optimised, quality sites in the top ten.
Even among travel sites. Granted, I've never tried in real estate, viagra or porn - but Google is actually quite a good Search Engine, if you 'think like a customer'. And I often am a customer, so that's easy ;)
Even where the manipulators abound, 9 out of ten such sites are visibly (and unreadably!) over-optimized, so zooming down to Quality Sites isn't a challenge, is it?
Five out of my Top Six? NOT in order ;)
1. Page Design; get the seo as an integral part of the site, not an afterthought
2. Content is king; unique and interesting - link bait, if you insist. But then, everything on a quality site SHOULD be link bait.
3. A few links from selected, free Quality Directories. Period.
4. Appropriate TITLE and META KW, descr, author and charset tags, following guidelines. Others only if there's a reason to.
5. Perfect internal navigation (xenu is your friend). I said 'perfect'!.
And to make this even more interesting, ONE item that I see as closest to search engine suicide:
1. Anything remotely resembling a link farm, or that could, in Google's most careless of moments, be considered just possibly a link farm.
[edited by: Quadrille at 10:08 am (utc) on Jan. 21, 2007]
is that not an oxymoron?
BTW...link manipulation has nothing to do with the quality of the site. I see quality sites in money terms, but not a single one has not bought, spammed and/or manufactured links. Exceptions being a few social engineering sites.
While they are different articles, in my viewing they often go together. Very often.
Those who fiddle in one area, tend to fiddle in others. It's a self-control thing ;)
That's the real difference between the organics and the manipulators; the organics focus on the site, and trust the site; the manipulators focus on Google, and trust neither Google not their own site.
So in one sense, "Organically Optimised" is an oxymoron; because the builders are simply "building a site for purpose"; the SEO is very much a side effect.
The manipulators tend to build a site for Google, optimize like crrrazy, and even when they get the serps, folk either don't follow the overdone link, or don't return once they've looked in vain for quality.
And they won't be told ;)
Of course there are exceptions; I am sure there are fine sites with manipulated incoming links, and all else is just tickety-boo. But they are very much the exceptions in the Google I use.
[edited by: Quadrille at 10:48 am (utc) on Jan. 21, 2007]
My TOP-3 is :
- âge (in my experience, a site which is less than 1 year old won't rank high on competitive termes, no matter how many backlinks it receives)
- backlinks (they should be numerous and high PR if possible)
- keywords in <title>, <meta> description, <body>, <img alt="keywords">, and backlinks anchor text
[edited by: Frederic1 at 11:09 am (utc) on Jan. 21, 2007]
are you actually saying you can find top ranking sites in money serps that havent manipulated their inbound links?
This does happen. Do a search in Google for "computers" (valid money SERP?). You will always find Dell and Apple in the top ten of 640,000,000 results. Actual position will depend on where you are in the World.
Look at their home pages and you will see that they don't even bother to mention the word "computers" on the page or in the Meta content, but I am quite sure that they have not manipulated their inbound links or even actively sought inbound links.
Isn't the reason they rank so high because so many other sites link to them using the word computers in the hyperlink?
In some ways this reflects badly on Google's SERPs. Why should they feature these two sites in the top ten of 640M when they don't even mention the KW that was used in the search? I appreciate that inbounds are important but I would have thought that the KW should also be a primary criterion ...
... but then perhaps that's why I'm not working for Google. ;)
[edited by: activeco at 12:38 pm (utc) on Jan. 21, 2007]
Additionally, some people can not view flash! Especially the blind and may be the color blind as well depending on the colors! So by having the text, it will help to support the visually impared or color blind people!