Content Density Observation

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Content Density Observation

Possible part of Google's algo

vmaster

3:54 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

In an attmept to tweak a specific pages to achieve better ranking for them, I made an interesting observation. Pages with higher content density seem to do better over those with lower. I define "Content Density" as the ratio of the content on a particular page to the size of that page. To illustrate this, a page with 200 words and size 5kb would be higher ranked than a page with 200 words and size 10kb. Obviously, this does seem to be consistent with Google's "simple is best" philosophy. One can achieve higher content density in various ways, the most important being external stylesheets to cut down the page size significantly. Other options include removing unnecessary html, minimizing use of javascript (use external scripts if essential) etc. Any further suggestions?

netguy

4:07 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

vmaster... I would agree with your assumptions. We have several sites of differing formats, and it appears that the condensed text with fewer images, java, etc. are much quicker to rise up the SERPs than the 'heavier' ones.

Unfortunately, I find that many visitors prefer the visuals, so even though it may be a slight disadvantage with Google, we'll probably continue lean towards giving our visitors what they want.

4eyes

5:26 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yep - thats a definite

Strip our all the js and css into external files.

If you are using Dreamweaver Layers, there are a couple of free extensions that will strip out the layer positioning information and dump it into the <head> with your css styles. Then you can move all this to an external css file and end up with a nice tightly coded page where the content to html ratio is high.

le_gber

5:48 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

what about server side includes?

leo

Balboa

5:52 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Server side includes get compiled into the output page, so would contribute to the total size of the page.

martinibuster

6:10 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

prefer the visuals

Visuals don't slow down a bot. However, throwing your content into visuals will certainly hide your content from the bots.

I'm not sure that "content density" is the right word. What you are talking about is the "Text to HTML Ratio" and it's one of the most basic aspects of seo-ing.

I don't think you can call a site properly optimized if you don't at least try to trim some fat from the code in some way, including the superfluous <td>'s that Dreamweaver loves to throw in.

tedster

6:18 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

One thing that bugs me is this -- what does the content-to-HTML ratio have to do with relevance? I can't see a reason to assume that a simpler page is a better answer to the user's query.

I've been doing things this way for so long, that I have no current testing on the issue. So I'm wondering if it's REALLY part of the algo today, and if it still is, why?

le_gber

6:25 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

if it still is, why?

Maybe Google's PhD's are nostalgic of HTML 1.0 and want to go back in time, when the web was only an information based medium, web bages where only text and nobody was trying to spam search engine (don't know if they existed back then, though) by using filthy techniques ...

What do you think? :)

martinibuster

6:36 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

Good catch Tedster,
I don't think it's part of the algo. This relates more to how easy you make it for the search engine to index your site.

Keeping content close to the top of the page (at the code level) for the benefit of the bot, as opposed to making it slog through a 45k Drop Down Menu, is a good way to approach it.

There are some things that some clients may insist on, like hit tracking code, and the best you can do is to tack it on at the end, after your content.

caine

6:38 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)

I personally don't worry to much about HTML / word ratio's. More about keeping page size down below 20k and word amount from 150 to 200 per page.

4eyes

11:54 am on Apr 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Tedster

The html size issue is possibly a bi-product of some kind of speed and usability factor.

I know its a generalisation, but smaller, tighter coded pages are usually also faster and more useful to the viewer. Not just because of the coding, but maybe a load of related issues involved.

If Google do any kind of viewer satisfaction testing, the end result would possibly be that smaller pages scored higher. Even if page size wasn't the main reason for the preference, it might be enough for them to factor as a 'plus'.