Forum Moderators: mack
Sure, most webmasters want their own site high in search results, but I'm just wondering about the micro-economics here, specifically the concept of opportunity cost.
So, more experienced gurus, please; your comments, opinions, thoughts and input are welcome. If a webmaster focuses all attention on search engine rankings, what will that same webmaster lose in terms of the rest of the website development effort?
There are so many articles floating around the web about SEO techniques, tips, tricks and what ever. Covering standards compliant coding, good brand development, good page structure and layout, great topical content, correct use of Keyword and description tags and link building, but out of all of these there is only really one area that is not included in the bread and butter of making a good website, which is link build (although this may come with time if you content is good anyway).
If your making a great, useful site (which should be the aim anyway) then obviously your content is going to be spot on and topical. In doing so your keyword density will naturally be of a good standard to make the topic of the content clear to the likes of search engines.
If your making a great site naturally you will endevour to use standards compliant coding and good page layout. Using logical and meaningful link text to navigate around the site. You'll also use the title and keyword tags correctly, without the need to think too much about it.
I think what i'm trying to get at is if the site is well thought about, then a relatively high page ranking will naturally come, with the only real extra effort coming in the area of link building, which as mentioned before may come with time anyway if your content is good enough.
If a webmaster focuses all attention on search engine rankings, what will that same webmaster lose in terms of the rest of the website development effort?
Nothings, if he will use only correct methods...
Where do I learn to discern correct from incorrect methods?
I used to obsess too much about my search engine rankings. You can waste an awful lot of time. Now I mainly concentrate on building good, relevant content. The inbound links and hence the improved search engine ranking will gradually come if your site is good.
As no search engine would prefer ranking a non search engine friendly website.
The rest is alchemy, in my opinion. Sticking with these rules will not result in a trade-off at writing content.
use, but don't overuse keywords
Can I get a few pointers to other threads where this is discussed?
Is there a forum for this purpose? (Is this the forum for it?)
I really need to get a handle on this concept.
Is there a forum for this purpose?
Our Keyword Discussion [webmasterworld.com] forum would probably be the best place for such topics.
I agree with a lot of these posts that if you develop rich content for your site and make attempts for your site to be "SEO Friendly" by following the SEO tips you read you should do fine. You'll never be on the front page of a search engine however unless you spend every waking moment configuring, adjusting, watching trends, and becoming a SEO guru by trade. Thats why I go back to letting the professionals do it for me. The investment pays for itself and some pros will even offer a guarantee in some shape or form.
I don't think I can agree with "You'll never be on the front page of a search engine however unless you spend every waking moment..." More than one of the sites on page 1 for my #1 search phrase don't seem to have much going on, a couple don't even have a single meta tag.
Content is king
I used to think this too. I think the truth is, "Traffic is King"
Generating content without a plan to generate traffic means a lot of work spent for naught. Content "may" be a source of sustainable traffic. then again, it may just be taking space on a disc drive on some server somewhere.
WBF
Right on tbear, I think you've hit it square. Content is king because that's what keeps the users coming, but great content isn't always a shoo-in to high rankings. Sometimes, users prefer inferior content in favor or some other site attraction.
If you can identify what motivates a specific group of searchers and provide it for them (whether its 'good content' or not) the SEs will more often than not get you that traffic.
At this point I don't even think of SEO anymore. I build my sites with rich content and no search engine/keyword spamming and the rest falls into place.
Bruce
Personally, I feel that the visitor is KING.
That's the bottom line, the visitor. So, its...
Visitor first. All else second.
In the beginning, we've all found ourselves focusing on "just SEO". After a while, once you become familiar with markup languages, you realize that if you follow the guidelines for developing websites for your users, you've covered everything else to do with organic search. There isn't much more you can do there, so its time to move on to other revenue generating activities. ;)
If you rank great, but your site provides a poor user experience yor conversion will suffer, even if you rank not quite so well, but offer a good user experience the return may be far greater.
Mack.
I would never be on the floor of the NYSE waving my hands and screaming "BUY 40 SHARES OF CORN!"
(Off-topic) Nor would anybody, as corn is traded on the CBOT, not the NYSE. (Unless some company is corny enough to adopt the symbol CORN...)
Content is kingI used to think this too. I think the truth is, "Traffic is King"
Generating content without a plan to generate traffic means a lot of work spent for naught. Content "may" be a source of sustainable traffic. then again, it may just be taking space on a disc drive on some server somewhere.
WBF
In my humble opinion, both *content* and *traffic* reign, and they are interconnected.
[edited by: John_Blake at 1:09 pm (utc) on May 3, 2007]
