Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Proximity of Key Words in Titles


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 26 September 2002 - 10:02 PM

While the forum was down, I asked Phil a question or three. I'll post them and his answers here for the benefit of others.

Hi Phil,

Since the forum's down, may I ask you a question? Does it make a big difference with Google if the key words of a search phrase are in close proximity to one another in the title tag, as opposed to being separated by several words?

Hi Rick,

Yes it does. Proximity matters everywhere in the page. They specifically say it somewhere - dunno where though.

Phil.

Hi Phil,

How close does the proximity have to be? Immediately adjacent words, or is a separation of 2-3 words allowable? Also, what is the maximum
Hi Rick,

The closer a search term's words are, the better. Having the exact search term in the title and page is the best by far.

I've no idea about any maximum number of words in the title. The more words there are, the more diluted the search term in the title becomes - probably. Having the search term at the start of the title appears to do better in Google. But we get onto doorway pages again if there are several good search terms for each content page in a site :) That's the big failing of seo copywriting - it can't optimise fully for more than one search term per page, and there aren't enough pages to cover all the search terms.

Phil.

#2 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 26 September 2002 - 10:07 PM

That's the big failing of seo copywriting - it can't optimise fully for more than one search term per page, and there aren't enough pages to cover all the search terms.

Says who?

I always optimize for 2 - 3 different keyword phrases per page, and very often even more than that. I would never, ever recommend only optimzing for one search term. That's just a waste of a page, imo!

Jill

#3 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 September 2002 - 10:32 PM

Ouch! You do know how to drop me in it, Rick :)

#4 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 27 September 2002 - 12:00 AM

[quote name='"Advisor"][quote]I always optimize for 2 - 3 different keyword phrases per page' date=' and very often even more than that. I would never, ever recommend only optimzing for one search term. That's just a waste of a page, imo![/quote']

Hi Jill,

Missed you and the others during the blackout.

Would you mind sharing some of the details of your approach without giving away any trade secrets? Just some pointers on how you tackle a job, analyze a page to determire which key words would be best to optimize it for, etc. Whatever you care to share. Maybe you've already written this up in a newletter or on your site, and you could just point us to that. Thanks.

#5 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 27 September 2002 - 12:15 AM

Hi Rick,

I'm sure I've written about this a number of times in various places, but can't think of any one place off hand, so I'll just answer it here!

Basically, for existing sites, I first do keyword research with WordTracker or similar. With keyword phrase list in hand (all words that are highly relevant to the company's business), I then would go through the site and see which of those keywords in the list might make sense on which pages of the site. Many times a page is using some form of a phrase already, but perhaps not the exact phrase.

If a page already has a good amount of well-written copy, I can often simply edit in the relevant keyword phrases that we chose for that page. (I usually have the client choose which phrases go best with which pages because they know what the words mean better than I do.)

For some pages, it will be necessary to rewrite from scratch. In those cases, I simply take the 3 phrases we want to target, tell my writer what they are, and she whips something up. (She of course needs to talk to people at the company about their target market, etc. first.) Rewriting from scratch is great because you can really get a wonderful piece of work that doesn't sound stilted or anything because it was written with keyword phrases in mind.

That's really all there is to that part of the process. Once it's written/rewritten, the client makes any edits and we're good to continue on with the rest of the optimization. Some clients will even find MORE places to put keywords, others will want to take some out. It all depends on the client. I try and be conservative with the use of keywords so that the copy doesn't get ruined, but I LOVE the clients who see what I'm doing with the editing and find me additional spots for them! :)

Jill

#6 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13527 posts

Posted 27 September 2002 - 11:54 AM

Sheesh!!

Ya mean there's another topic going on here besides the one I just spent the past 3 hours on???????


:shock:

Kim

#7 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 September 2002 - 08:39 AM

Getting back to the in-page proximity of a search term's words...

You may have noticed that this dance is causing sweeping changes to the serps. For a 3-word phrase that I've been watching ("uk holiday accommodation"), 5 of last month's top 10 pages have dropped out of the the top 10 - the new
I mentioned in another thread that the Title tag seems to carry less weight than before. My reasoning for that is that in the previous serps, the Title tags of 7 of the top 10 contained all 3 of the phrase's words - mostly the exact phrase. In the new top 10, the Title tags of only 2 pages contain all 3 words.

I've just realised that only 1 of the new top 10 has the exact search term anywhere in the page other that those 2 Title tags. So proximity seems to have taken a back seat.

People are reporting that the relevance of the serps has deteriorated and, judging by the results for the 3-word phrase alone, it does looks that way.

Having said that, the page at
It's all a bit puzzling, huh?

Phil.

#8 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 28 September 2002 - 09:37 AM

I've been expecting a drop of a kind in the weighting given to TITLE tags for a while. There were just too many hundreds of sucky titles that looked more like a keywords meta tag content than a real title.

Google didn't have to drop the weighting though, they could have just adjusted the penalty for length and discounted repetition, which would then hit the 'spammy' titles without lessening good, punchy titles. I'm gonna be studying hard to see which method they have gone with.

Whichever they chose, I put this down as another change caused by poor SEO work out there.

#9 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 September 2002 - 09:41 AM

So you're saying that me adding the word "Pagerank" to the start of my document's Title tag, to get it from the top 20 into the top 10, it was "poor SEO work"? ;)

Phil.

#10 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 28 September 2002 - 09:46 AM

So you're saying that me adding the word "Pagerank" to the start of my document's Title tag, to get it from the top 20 into the top 10, it was "poor SEO work"?  ;)

Phil.


If you did it like some so-called SEOs out there, Phil, creating a title tag that reads:
[color=
Then, [b]YES!
;)

A couple of illustrative examples:
here, here, and, best of all, here.

#11 Guest_Phil_*

Guest_Phil_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 September 2002 - 09:57 AM

Ah. I guess my tweak would be in the poor-to-middling category. I stuck the darned word at the start of a reasonable Title ;) It took it from
Nice examples. They look like some of my better ones ;)

Btw, how long has Google been putting adwords across the top of the serps? They look like search results but with a different background colour. Maybe they are sneakily moving towards incorporating them into the serps.

Phil.

#12 Black_Knight

Black_Knight

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 9339 posts

Posted 28 September 2002 - 10:14 AM

Btw, how long has Google been putting adwords across the top of the serps? They look like search results but with a different background colour. Maybe they are sneakily moving towards incorporating them into the serps.


A long time now Phil, but they don't always manage to sell those top-listed spots because they are 'Premium' listings on the original CPM payment model. It's not long ago that they started allowing the top PPC ones to sometimes show there too.

The top ones came into existance at the same time (and possibly earlier) than the ones at the side, but that was back when it was all CPM, and it cost a lot more.

#13 sanity

sanity

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 6889 posts

Posted 30 September 2002 - 03:49 AM

Personally I think as important as it is to have all your keywords in your title (and closer to the front) it's just as important to make sure your title is enticing and most of all - clickable!!

But hey, this is just my 2c. :wink:

#14 FantasticMoms.com

FantasticMoms.com

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 05 October 2002 - 05:45 PM

Hi Rick,
I simply take the 3 phrases we want to target..............
Jill


Hi Jill,

Do you mind if I ask how you deal with the <title> tag? I always try to make my keyword/phrase the first word(s) of the <title>, so am intrigued how you manage to get three keyphrases or keywords into one title.

#15 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 October 2002 - 06:54 PM

That was what I meant earlier when Rick posted what I'd written to him - that SEO copywriting can't optimise fully for more than one phrase per page. IBL link text is another weakness.

Phil.

#16 FantasticMoms.com

FantasticMoms.com

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 05 October 2002 - 08:04 PM

That was what I meant earlier when Rick posted what I'd written to him - that SEO copywriting can't optimise fully for more than one phrase per page. IBL link text is another weakness.

Phil.


I suppose the operative word is "fully".

Just goes to show SEO is certainly not an exact science, particularly as the goalposts seem to frequently be moving. :x

#17 FantasticMoms.com

FantasticMoms.com

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 05 October 2002 - 08:14 PM

Oh, while I think about it, does this mean we should no longer be making one page for each engine? Supposing I make a page for Lycos entitled "where-to-buy-potatoes.htm", do I then have to make a "where-to-buy-potatoes.htm" and put it in another directory for AOL, and so on, or is it best nowadays to attempt a more generic page and hopefully catch more engines?

You can tell I have been out of doing this for quite a while, can't you?

#18 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 October 2002 - 08:33 PM

If you are going to make doorway pages, then yes, make different pages for different engines. I'm out of date on it too. In the old days, each engine used different criteria when displaying the results from the same source. E.g. when AOL and Yahoo! both used Inktomi, they displayed the results according to their own criteria, so we needed to make different Inktomi pages for each Inktomi user.

You'll need to check if that still holds true. I'm pretty sure that all Google users (AOL, Yahoo!, etc) show identical results to those shown by Google itself - but someone may correct me about that.

Phil.

#19 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 06 October 2002 - 10:40 AM

Oh, while I think about it, does this mean we should no longer be making one page for each engine?  Supposing I make a page for Lycos entitled "where-to-buy-potatoes.htm", do I then have to make a "where-to-buy-potatoes.htm" and put it in another directory for AOL, and so on, or is it best nowadays to attempt a more generic page and hopefully catch more engines?

You can tell I have been out of doing this for quite a while, can't you?


That's the fastest way to get your site banned from all the engines.

Don't make any pages for the search engines or for any individual search engines. They all want one thing, and one thing alone -- a great site that has lots of useful content relevant to the search at hand. Give them this with your existing site and you will do fine.

Each page of your site is already a gateway (or doorway) into the rest of your site. Why would you want to reinvent the wheel by creating additional pages just for the search engines, when the search engines explicitly state they don't want you do that.

Make your site be the best it can be for your user and it will be great with the search engines. Make sure you clearly state on each page what exactly that page/product/service is about in words that real people would use who were looking for that information.

There's nothing tricky, scary or hard about this. Just use words and be clear and descriptive with your visible copy that your visitors will be reading.

No doorways. No gateways. No different things for different engines. No different things for engines and different things for visitors. These things were ALWAYS a bad idea, and are even worse today.

Good luck!

Jill

#20 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 06 October 2002 - 10:46 AM

Hi Rick,
I simply take the 3 phrases we want to target..............
Jill


Hi Jill,

Do you mind if I ask how you deal with the <title> tag? I always try to make my keyword/phrase the first word(s) of the <title>, so am intrigued how you manage to get three keyphrases or keywords into one title.


You put all three phrases into the title tag and separate them with a hyphen. There's a few different ways I do it, but that's a good way to do terms that are less related than some.

And Phil, you most certainly can optimize for more than one phrase per page if you know what you're doing. I've been doing it for years and years and years, and have no problems at all.

Just because YOU can't do it, doesn't mean that it can't be done! :wink:

Jill

#21 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2002 - 11:47 AM

That's the fastest way to get your site banned from all the engines.

That's just plain nonsense.

Here we go again <sigh> :2gunfire:

Jill. It was never a bad idea to make doorway pages for each engine. As you well know, each engine used their own criteria when listing results from the same source. Take Inktomi, for example. Using one template I could get almost any phrase into the top 10 (usually the top 5) at Yahoo! web pages about 95% of the time. It worked. But those same pages didn't do much in other Intomi using engines. That was in the days when linkpop wasn't so important. So you are wrong about that. I know you never made doorway pages but, because you didn't do it, doesn't mean that they were a bad idea. Just because YOU can't make successful doorway pages doesn't mean that they don't work ;)

As for fully optimising for more than one phrase on a single page, it can't be done. E.g. until Google's last update, it was beneficial to place the target phrase at or very near the front of the Title tag, to the extent that a simple adjustment in its position was most likely to change a page's ranking. How can you possibly fully optimise for more than one phrase in the Title tag? It can't be done unless you have one main phrase a couple of secondary ones, and that's not fully optimising for 3 phrases. The same applies to link text though to a lesser degree.

Also, it's ok working on sites that don't need to target many search terms (e.g. Caissa only wanted 10 - in another thread). There are enough content pages to cover them using seo copywriting, but I still say that the need to alter the text that the site wants to put on the pages is, and always was, too much. It's ridiculous to have to change what a site wants to say, and the way it want to say it, just so that the site can rank reasonably for its search terms. Why should any site be forced to alter what they put on their pages just to suit the engines?

Doorway pages are much better in every way. With them, you can target as many search terms as you like without the limitation of how many a site's content pages can handle. Seo copywriting is limited in that respect. With doorways, you can fully optimise for one search term per page - so much better than one main phrase and a couple of secondary ones. Also you can make pages to suit each engine's criteria - and, yes, they do have different criteria for ranking pages. Content pages can't do that.

Seo copywriting does do a good job; I don't deny that. But what it can do is very limited when compared to what doorway pages can do. Perhaps the difference between optimising content only and optimising doorway pages is what each person considers to be successful. I don't consider a few top rankings and a few not so top rankings to be successful, but I'm sure that others do.

Don't make any pages for the search engines or for any individual search engines. They all want one thing, and one thing alone -- a great site that has lots of useful content relevant to the search at hand

What the engines, particularly Google, would like is for sites to be out there without any sort of seo work on them at all, so that they can be ranked on merit alone. Jill, you don't make pages like that. You modify pages to rank more highly. You draw your line there. Others draw theirs somewhere else. But we all do the same thing - attempt to manipulate the rankings, and that's something that none of the engines want us to do.

Phil

#22 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 06 October 2002 - 01:53 PM

but, because you didn't do it, doesn't mean that they were a bad idea.


Yes...they ARE a bad idea. Always have been.

Just because one could "get away with it" for awhile, doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Did you enjoy it when AltaVista removed them all in one fell swoop? What did you tell your clients?

Doorway pages clutter up the engines and are now and forever have been -- a bad idea! :twisted: That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

As for fully optimising for more than one phrase on a single page, it can't be done.


Tell that to all my client's who have plenty of pages optimized for more than one phrase per page.

Why should any site be forced to alter what they put on their pages just to suit the engines?


Because it's not just to suit the search engines. If they're not optimized for the search engines, then 9 out of 10 times they're not optimized for their users either. Fix the site for the users, and you'll naturally fix them for the search engines.

Jill

#23 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2002 - 03:02 PM

Yes...they ARE a bad idea. Always have been.

That's an opinion that I can only assume is based on imagination, since you've never created doorway pages to promote a site.

Did you enjoy it when AltaVista removed them all in one fell swoop?

You are in error Jill. AV never did that. They penalised once cookie-cutters overnight but that's a different thing.

Tell that to all my client's who have plenty of pages optimized for more than one phrase per page.

Having optimised pages is one thing; having top rankings for all the optimised phrases is something else again.

Doorway pages clutter up the engines and are now and forever have been -- a bad idea!

Clutter up the engines? In what way? If you mean that they appear high up in the rankings then I think you make my point for me. If you mean that they are in the indexes but don't impinge on the top results then who cares?

Would you like to explain why a doorway page in the top 10 results, that takes a sufer to where s/he wants and expects to go is a bad idea? Does it hurt the serps? Nope. Does it deceive anyone? Nope. So what difference does it make if it a specially designed doorway page and not a content page? It's a relevant web page in the results just like any other relevant web page.

Because it's not just to suit the search engines. If they're not optimized for the search engines, then 9 out of 10 times they're not optimized for their users either. Fix the site for the users, and you'll naturally fix them for the search engines.

You're guessing wildly about the 9 out of 10 times Jill. Sites don't need "fixing" for the users. Your method is to change them to optimise them for the engines. That's nothing to do with users - it's to do with the engines alone.

You made some overall statements about how doorway pages have always been a bad idea, and how they clutter the engines. Would you like to tell us why you think these things? What makes them a bad idea, and exactly how do they clutter the engines?

Phil.

#24 MJR

MJR

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 210 posts

Posted 06 October 2002 - 03:13 PM

I don't think so...however, could it be that there might be some confusion in terms, i.e. doorway pages as opposed to front door pages? ;)

#25 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2002 - 03:58 PM

Welcome to the forum MJR.

I'm pretty sure that we don't have any misunderstanding about what we each mean by doorway pages. They are pages that are not a part of a site's normal content and are produced for the sole purpose of ranking highly in the search engines.

Phil.

#26 ricka

ricka

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 06 October 2002 - 04:00 PM

I won't touch the moral implications of this debate. But I think there are some practical ones which haven't been addressed. Phil's emphasis on doorway pages cannot be so universal a recommendation as it once may have been. It used to be that anyone with WPG or PositionWeaver could crank out hundreds of doorway pages, have many of them rank well, and not worry about it. These days it's a good way to get your site busted.

As I recall, Phil has written a program which generates doorways for him - pages on which the text is sufficiently randomized so as not to be detected as duplicate content. Not many people could write such a program. I guess he also uses a javascript redirect so that people aren't seeing his actual doorways. I don't know whether he puts them on domains different from the one to which he's trying to draw the traffic and I don't know what he does about getting link pop for these pages. I assume he achieves it internally or between domains he controls. He certainly understands link pop. What I'm getting at is that the creation of doorway pages which rank well and aren't easily detectable isn't as easy as it used to be. It requires skills like Phil's to do it right. So that, and the fact that doorway pages have such a tarnished reputation probably means that far fewer people are making them than a few years ago.

Still, despite his skill, I doubt that Phil's doorways are totally safe. A competitor could notice the discrepency between the search engine listing and the page they end up at; if they're alert they might notice the redirect - and then they could report him to Google and get the site busted. I agree with both your arguements. I don't see them as being so strongly opposed or mutually exclusive as the two of you do. But I do feel that Jill's approach is safe. No SE would object to it. While Phil is still playing a cat and mouse game with the SEs, and unfortunately, he's the mouse.

#27 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2002 - 04:46 PM

Hi Rick,

You can get into the moral side if you like. There are no techniques that have been mentioned in this thread that aren't perfectly moral.

The only way that doorway pages can get a site "busted" is when some of the more despicable self-styled search engine police see them, but I won't get into them. Even in that case, the chances of a page that is listed correctly in the serps for a given search term, and takes people to exactly where they expect to go, is unlikely to be busted unless someone at the engine concerned got out of bed on the wrong side that day. After all, that's exactly what the engines are trying hard to achieve.

pages on which the text is sufficiently randomized...

"different" is the word you were looking for, Rick, not "randomized" ;)

I don't agree that people who make doorway pages (and there are a massive number of them) are the mice, Rick. It's true that the engines are more powerful but all SEOs of whatever flavour run rings around the engines, and always have done :2gunfire:

For sites that need to show well for a great many search terms, and for those who do not want to alter their text, there is no suitable alternative to doorways for crawler based engines. I strongly object to the idea that sites must alter the text on their pages or forget about high rankings. Which is worse - a page's text must change, or a doorway page? Why shouldn't websites be left to display the text that they really want, in the way that they want it, without being forced to take pot luck on rankings? What difference does it make to competing sites if it's a doorway page or content page that is beating them in the serps? None.

Doorway pages harm nobody. They don't harm the engines or their serps, and they don't harm the surfers. The necessary rewriting of web pages does harm websites in that it impinges on a website's freedom to write and display things in exactly the way that they want to write and display them.

Phil

#28 MJR

MJR

    Gravity Master Member

  • Members
  • 210 posts

Posted 06 October 2002 - 05:55 PM

Welcome to the forum MJR.

Thank you Phil ;)

Let me use my own site for an example of what I mean - although I clearly understand your point.

My reddingcal site has been online since 1995, however about 4 years ago I noticed that I was having trouble getting a better ranking in AV specifically as well as Lycos, MSN and a few others of the day. So I created a "front door" page. The example: http://www.reddingca...main_index.html .

After creating this page my site improved to the top of AV but as an additional benefit I was now, and still am doing much better with AV, AOL (then and now) Lycos to name a few, even the editors at ODP moved my site to the top with this page (strange I might ad). If you notice on the "front door" page, there is no hidden texts, no tricks or techniques of any kind. However I have made full use of the meta tags. And ironically enough Google has also given this page a PR 6 (up from a PR 4) with the last update which now coincides with the actual domain's existing PR 6. This page has been submitted, along with the main page and both do quite well, depending on the engine/directory. This page serves not only as an entrance to reddingcal but to some of my other sites as well. Interestingly enough, to this day, the front door page ranks much higher on AV than the actual main page does. Frankly I do not know how anyone could argue that these types of pages are in some way not acceptable. In terms of SEO's, it is their job to provide their clients with the best possible listings within the parameters of what is "ethical", accepted and legal - guess the rub is what where is the line - thus the debate :)

Moderators: I hope you don't mind my using my site to illustrate my point

#29 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2002 - 06:40 PM

Hi MJR,

I've never heard the term "front door page" before but now I understand what you mean by it. Well done on it's success!

Nobody would find any fault whatsoever with that kind of page because it was created as an integral part of the site, whether it was essential for the site's operation or not. SEO copywriters often create new pages by splitting existing ones into topics and are then able to optimise more phrases. It's a good technique.

What some people find fault with is the practise of making many pages that are not integral parts of the site, to the extent that a surfer cannot even get to them from within the site. They are usually on the same domain but are not part of the site.

They are created solely for the purpose of ranking highly in the engines, and they are highly optimised for that purpose. They were more useful in the old days when such pages could be made to rank very highly but that was before linkpop/PR took hold. These days the pages themselves are not always the ones that get high rankings, although they can often do it - particularly with middle to low competitive phrases. So nowadays they are often used a bit differently.

Moderators: I hope you don't mind my using my site to illustrate my point

We don't mind links in posts, MJR, but thanks for being concerned ;)

Phil.

#30 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 06 October 2002 - 06:46 PM

Which is worse - a page's text must change, or a doorway page? Why shouldn't websites be left to display the text that they really want, in the way that they want it, without being forced to take pot luck on rankings?


If a person is sick, they sometimes need to take medicine in order to get better. They don't have to take it, but if they want to get better, they should.

If a website isn't getting high rankings, then it's sick and it needs its medicine. And it's not sick just from a search engine perspective. It is highly likely that it's a site that is very unclear as to what it actually does and how it can benefit it's users. A good dose of optimization (my kind) gives it what it needs to become a big, strong, healthy site!

A doorway page simply puts a bandaid on the sick site. IMO of course!

Oh, and the clutter thing...that's because you're adding extra, unnecessary pages to the databases of the engines. If you had to store all that data, would you want all those extra pages "cluttering" up your database? If you've got 1 million REAL pages of information and every one of those real pages makes a doorway page to lead to those real pages, I'd say that's a heck of a lot of clutter!
:BIG:
Jill

#31 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2002 - 07:01 PM

If a person is sick, they sometimes need to take medicine in order to get better.  They don't have to take it, but if they want to get better, they should.

That assumes that the site is "sick". But we all know that the sites aren't sick in the surfer experience sense - only in the rankings sense. Which nicely brings me back to the question - why should sites have to alter what they say and how they say it? That's what's sick.

Cluttering up the engines: I confess that I thought you meant cluttering up the serps. I don't think the engines mind that sort of clutter. Heck they like to boast about how many pages they have in their indexes. They may sometimes moan about doorways in the index but take them out and their faces would drop ;)

Phil.

#32 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 06 October 2002 - 07:12 PM

That assumes that the site is "sick". But we all know that the sites aren't sick in the surfer experience sense - only in the rankings sense.


No, we don't all know that. That's exactly what I am saying. The sites that aren't get high rankings are nearly always no good in the surfer experience sense. (The site owners just don't know that because no one visits, because they don't have high rankings!)

Of course, they might be exceptions to this as I could certainly not say 100% of sites that aren't getting high rankings are "sick." However, I see a lot of sites that don't get high rankings that come to me wondering what to do, and I can tell you that they are almost nearly "sick" from a user experience as well as a search engine one. (I did pull 9 out of 10 times out of a hat and was using it more as an expression as opposed to actual data or facts.)

There could be an all graphical site that said exactly what it should say, but since the search engines can't read it, they can't find it. However, even in that case, one might argue that the site is indeed sick, because it takes longer to download due to it's graphical nature. Simply making the text be real text might be all that site needs to start ranking high. Better for the search engines, better for the users.

J

#33 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2002 - 07:29 PM

Graphic sites: agreed. Professional website designers would never do that (?) but such sites do exist.

Most sites: I can't agree with you, Jill. Perhaps there are many sites out there that could use some 'user' improvements but most professionally developed sites are perfectly fine for the users. All they lack is some optimisation, and that is not sickness. To imply that sites that are good for users are therefore good for rankings just isn't true. If that were the case, why do SEO copywriters exist? You yourself have descibed how you place the target search terms within a page. You said you target 3 phrases on each page - including within the text. Why do that if a good 'user' site is therefore good for rankings?

No, Jill. A site can be perfectly good for users and it can have exactly the right text for users, but it gets nowhere in the rankings. That's not a sickness of the site. To modify the text to place well in the rankings is to take away some of the perfection of its original, desired text.

Phil.

#34 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 06 October 2002 - 07:48 PM

Obviously, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)

However, I have to look at many, many sites from people interested in my services, or the occasional time that I check out a newsletter subscriber's site. And I see a lot of sick sites!

Unfortunately, what I find is that too many designers/webmasters/client's never use a professional copywriter to begin with and totally forget that a site is not supposed to be the same thing as a brochure, for instance. When a user gets to a site from the search engines, it's not the same thing as knowing exactly where you're going and getting there. (Like typing in a url that you know of.) Therefore, it's imperative to be very, very clear on the site what you've got to. And to top it off, it needs to be very very clear that the site is relevant to how you found it, i.e., the search phrase you used is applicable.

So, let's say that a site that wasn't optimized for a certain keyword phrase ranked high anyway for some reason. If a person gets to that page and the site is not absolutely clear what it's all about (and there are millions of sites out there like this), the user will surf away. It's a sick site. This is what I'm talking about. There are a lot of sick sites out there. And most of them are not optimized for the search engines also. The beauty of doing SEO the way I and many others do it is that fixing up that sickness serves a dual purpose.

Putting that bandaid on it doesn't. The user gets there and is still gonna be confused. We're just lucky that good SEO equals clarity for the users.

DOWN WITH BANDAIDS!!! :!:

Jill

#35 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2002 - 08:16 PM

Jill, my love, we never agree on anything much at all, do we? Even when I said how attractive you are, you thought I was talking about Heather ;) We always end up agreeing to disagree, but you're a lovely lady and I have a lot of respect for you. So I'll take it that "We're just lucky that good SEO equals clarity for the users" wasn't intended to inflame the discussion, although some may seriously object to the implication that "good SEO" is what you do and, therefore, bad SEO is what you don't do. It's so untrue that I'm sure you didn't mean that........did you? :)

There may be a lot of sick sites out there, Jill, but the majority of sites are perfectly clear about what they are and what they offer, and they still don't rank well. They are not sick. Some of them may not be well designed or may not be good in terms of usability, but that's another matter altogether.

Phil.

#36 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 07 October 2002 - 12:06 AM

"We're just lucky that good SEO equals clarity for the users" wasn't intended to inflame the discussion, although some may seriously object to the implication that "good SEO" is what you do and, therefore, bad SEO is what you don't do. It's so untrue that I'm sure you didn't mean that........did you? ;)


Actually, I did mean it! But I say things like that with tongue in cheek. I will always equate my kind of SEO with GOOD SEO, and I'll do my best to convince the world of it too. But it doesn't necessarily mean that all others are bad. Just that mine is good! :splat:

J

#37 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 October 2002 - 07:35 AM

Yes, your SEO method is good, Jill. It has its limitations but it's good. 8)

#38 Advisor

Advisor

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1142 posts

Posted 07 October 2002 - 08:03 AM

Yes, your SEO method is good, Jill. It has its limitations but it's good.  8)

Actually, for those people who are willing to do exactly what I want them to do, there really are no limitations! :squarewink:

J

#39 Guest_PhilC_*

Guest_PhilC_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 October 2002 - 01:10 PM

I'm willing to do what you want me to do to, Jill. It sounds exciting :silly:



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users