Key phrases in body text only tell Google to consider for inclusion

The amount of key phrases in body text irrelevant or hurtful

[funandgames]

After several weeks of research, I have discoverd that a site really only needs one or two instances of the desired key phrase to be considerd for inclusion in that SERP. A page can lose ranking with as little as four instances of the key phrase.

1. Key phrases in the body text are there to tell Google to consider the site.

2. Key phrases in the body do not make a page rank any higher once it is considered.

3. Strating at about four, the more key phrases in the body text the lower the page ranks.

So simple, but so true.

[jcoronella]

What do you consider "body text" Outgoing link text, alt tags, and text or just plain text?

[rfgdxm1]

>3. Strating at about four, the more key phrases in the body text the lower the page ranks.

I can think of LOTS of sites at #1 in the SERPs that violate the above. And, it would make more sense for Google to just give no extra credit beyond so many instances of a keyword. The reason being to minimize collateral damage to sites where the webmaster didn't even know about SEO.

[Widestrides]

I agree with rfgdxm1. There are many exceptions to your theory as there are exceptions to every theory that I have seen posted. To penalize a site that has more than four instances of a keyword or keyword phrase would hurt too many relevant sites who "need" to repeat their keyword or kw phrase numerous times for good reasons.

Another theory down the tubes. But, I'm still looking for the right one. There is something about my pages that Google no longer likes.

How about affiliate links? Any eveidence that a ceratin number or kind of affiliate link causes Google to dump a site? This also would punish some innocent sites, so I hope it is not the case.

[trimmer80]

it maybe too premature to completly discount this theory. What was the structure of the content tested. Maybe it is true if four instances exist in one paragraph.

Could you please explain if the content you used for the sample had any common components.

[funandgames]

Body text only. Didn't research the amount of link text as much.

All same keyword phrase (3 words) in example below...

Site 1: 250 words and three instances was #1.
Site 2: 250 words and six instances was #11.
Site 3: 250 words and 13 instances was #144.

Site 4: 600 words and one instance was #3.
Site 5: 600 words and four instances was #5.
Site 6: 600 words and 77 (yes 77) instances and was #189.

Took samples on about 60 keyword phrases. Very few exceptions found.

Widestrides: Are you the official webmasterworld theory dumper?

[edited by: funandgames at 4:00 am (utc) on April 20, 2004]

[trimmer80]

very interesting.

How many words in your key phrases?

[funandgames]

One words are too much work for their limited value.

Two words - same phrase all samples:

Site 1: 250 words 1 instance #1
Site 2: 250 words 2 instance #5
Site 3: 250 words 5 instance #6
Site 4: 250 words 11 instance #17

Site 5: 400 words 0 instance #2
Site 6: 400 words 1 instance #4
Site 7: 400 words 5 instance #5
Site 8: 400 words 33 instance #43

One site with 1800 words had 101 instances. #121.

[trimmer80]

Took a quick look around and I am seeing similar.
If people post the details of exceptions (non specifics of course) and we compare those to the other discussed, then maybe we can get a relevant theory working.

[zgb999]

I have the impression that the amount of keywords "allowed" on a page to rank well is dependent on incoming links for that keyword and other factors.

But it is still a theory I havent't tested enough.

[Widestrides]

No, I am not the official WW theory dumper - just a frustrated webmaster, like many others, who can't figure out what Google doesn't like about our pages. I appreciate all efforts to discover the error of our ways. Tell us what we are doing wrong. We'll change!

I see at least three high ranking sites with five, six and seven uses of a 3-word kw phrase. But I also found some high ranking sites that only have one or two uses of this 3-word kw phrase.

I have two sites that I am trying to resurrect. One has only 2 uses of that 3-word kw phrase, the other has seven if you are counting title, description and alt tags.

So, your theory has not been dumped just yet. I will experiment some more.

I agree that it could be the kw phrase usage, because when the kw phrase is altered or added to or used in a different order in a search, the "penalty" may sometimes be lifted.

[Patrick Taylor]

What ever theory it is you're testing, examining the top ten (or 100 sites) on one criterion and drawing conclusions doesn't make for much of a test. It's the same logic as saying big feet make for good golfers just because the top ten golfers happen to have big feet.

[Jakpot]

How about affiliate links? Any eveidence that a ceratin number or kind of affiliate link causes Google to dump a site? This also would punish some innocent sites, so I hope it is not the case.

Some of my affiliate pages are top ten, but most out of sight. Prior to Florida they all ranked well. I have not been able to detect a common thread and there
may not be a consistent one.

[netnerd]

If the top ten golfers tend to have big feet then it is probably not going to do your golf game any harm if you have big feet....

[beakertrail]

After several weeks of research, I have discoverd that a site really only needs one or two instances of the desired key phrase to be considerd for inclusion in that SERP. A page can lose ranking with as little as four instances of the key phrase.

Makes sense but there are many sites which appear in SERPs with no use of any of the words used in the search query.

These appear to be listed because of the amount of referring links to the site where the anchor text uses words which are in turned used in the search query.

1. Key phrases in the body text are there to tell Google to consider the site.

Not always. Yes, I'm sure the use of the phrase triggers Google to consider the site but a page can be listed with no use of the phrase.

2. Key phrases in the body do not make a page rank any higher once it is considered.

Google's whole PageRank technology states this. Gaining a higher position in the SERP relies primarily on outside sources, rather than onpage elements.

3. Strating at about four, the more key phrases in the body text the lower the page ranks.

I have heard many people stating this has been why Florida kicked them off the SERP etc, but I don't think this is always the case.

For example, I manage a web site which does very well in Google. So far no updates have caused any negative effects in the site's SERP position or number of traffic, in fact, totally the opposite.
The site is informational with various revenue streams plugged in.

The front page actually contains a keyphrase 15 times plus 5 stemmed variations of the keyphrase. This is not used in an overoptimised way because the front page is full of information. In Google, the web site has always been in the top 6 for the keyphrase since August 2003 which is very competitive ($4.00 per click for #1 on AdWords).

Well, that is my insight into it from my experience.

Beaker

[Patrick Taylor]

Starting at about four, the more key phrases in the body text the lower the page ranks.

I don't believe there's any connection. If I do a search for "search engine optimization" I don't see the top page with only one instance of the phrase and increasing numbers of instances when I go down the results. Not that this proves anything either, and I can't think of any good reason why Google would encourage "reverse optimisation", as if the most relevant page is the one that has the least instances of the term for the topic the page is about.

On a recent Google search for "Google keyword density" I found several references to a recent study which analysed the frequency of keywords and phrases in the top SERPS - with quite a reasonable sample. It's exactly the same as the golfers' feet - and yes, it may not do any harm to have big feet in golf, and maybe it makes no difference at all (it could be that people with big feet just happen to like playing golf).

[Silent_Bob]

This is an interesting thread. I've found that for some keyphrases I do seem to suffer for over repetition of keyphrases (not through my own writing but from using manufactuerers product descriptions). But on other threads the sites outranking me use even higher kw density. It is very tricky at the moment.

In general I'm finding that sites that use less body text and more keyword rich titles and links are doing better. One site in particular keeps coming up in all my keyphrases at the top of the serps, and it only ever has about 4 lines of body text - generally repeating the keyphrase once or twice. It has about three h tags with the keywords in and a few links with the keyphrase in. I'm currently testing a few pages on my site to see if changing to a similar format will work. The good thing about having a large site is that you can change lots of pages in different ways and see which techniques are working at the moment.

[steveb]

"I don't believe there's any connection."

That's understating it. The reverse is true in competitive areas, but this is not something that can be talked about in the abstract. Other factors are much more important.

[trimmer80]

So SteveB, are you saying the saturation point of a keyword is based on the competitiveness of the term?

[grandpa]

I thought I observed the same trend that funandgames observed. That was just before Florida, and since that time I really haven't been back to take a look. It seemed me to however that keyword density was relevant, with emphasis on less density, not more. Haven't I heard that same sentiment expressed elsewhere in these forums too?

[steveb]

"So SteveB, are you saying the saturation point of a keyword is based on the competitiveness of the term?"

No I'm not.