Posted 12 July 2006 - 03:02 AM
I can't specifically give an optimal keyword density in an article as there's a good chance it will be read months from now when the densities are different. The ideal way to calculate optimal densities is to figure out what the densities of the current top 10 are and target appropriately
Hope that helps
Posted 12 July 2006 - 04:06 AM
Anyway, keyword density is for the machinery. You want to write content for your visitors.
That is, you write whatever you want for your visitors without taking keywords into account, then replace meaningless words (pronouns - it, that, who, etc) with your keywords. This way your website copy retains the original flow and has the right keywords.
Special attention should be paid to human-friendliness, so to speak. Make sure you can read the text without noticing it was written for the search engines.
The described keyword density should be the best variant for keeping your visitors interested, just as well the search engines.
Posted 12 July 2006 - 09:13 AM
Yahoo's keyword density from research done on April of 2006 showed that the top listings always fell between 1% and 8%. Anything more was dangerous for setting off spam filters.
MSN's keyword density from research done at about the same time showed that the top listings always fell between 3.5% to 4%. Outside of this area was forgiven, but not ignored.
Posted 12 July 2006 - 11:05 AM
Google and possibly the other two biggies do semantic analysis. So they'll take account of synonyms of the keywords being searched for.
Keyword density is really more of a metric for you to understand how to write more naturally for the user.
If you're looking for a number, run some keyword density reports on your competitors or well written articles. Then try and emulate that number... but remember you've got to emulate all the numbers for all the symantical keywords....
you're better of just writing a good article... use the above only if you know you're a bad writer or can't afford a good one
Posted 13 July 2006 - 03:12 AM
This can all be ignored of course if you get enough inbounds.
Posted 13 July 2006 - 03:33 AM
Some brain-picking proof by Dr. Garcia - Keyword Density of Non-sense.
To sum up, the assumption that KD values could be taken for estimates of term weights or that these values could be used for optimization purposes amounts to the Keyword Density of Non-Sense.
That being said, I'll happily dive for another school of thought if someone shows some real repetitive results, shown after the Big Daddy update.
Edited by A.N.Onym, 13 July 2006 - 03:40 AM.
Posted 13 July 2006 - 10:04 AM
Posted 13 July 2006 - 01:06 PM
However, it does have good keywords in the links it does have, and while those links are not especially high in PageRank (and most of the competition have more links) the links I do have are on quality sites that are spot-on relevant to the exact same keywords.
SEO just isn't the simple numbers game it used to be unless you talk about vast numbers. These days the numbers in the game are in terms of advanced mathematics used to measure quality and co-citation relevancy.
Posted 13 July 2006 - 05:14 PM
OK back on topic...
I tend not to consider keyword density UNLESS my content seems to be quite repetitive when I read it back. Try using variations of similar keyword phrases (consider looking up semantics on Google) 1and utilise that in your content rather than aiming for a certain percentage of keyword density - I'd say KW density used to work but with the development of s/e algorithms...
Not only will the search engines prefer your content, more importantly so will your visitors for having interesting & refreshing content!
Posted 14 July 2006 - 11:12 AM
I recently did some testing in a highly competitive keyword area
That's not surprising. If you're "testing" pages in a competitive niche (which isn't really a test in the first place since you got too many factors going on at once), I don't expect on-page tinkering to make a dent in the rankings. SEO for Google nowadays is all about links. It comes down to building valuable websites and increasing site visibility. Keyword density has no meaningful place in that process.
Testing with nonsense phrases cannot test the performance of co-citation very easily, and cannot test the performance of relevancy, theme, or hubs/authorities at all.
I agree there are obvious limitations to nonsense phrases - but then again, the results will be the same if the pages were in English. They're not testing co-citation, relevancy, theme, or anything else. Those particular pages are isolating how Google reacts to on-page optimization. What do the results tell me? If you're really worried about on-page optimization, tweak title tags and stuff your articles with keywords - imo a complete waste of time.
Any boost gained by higher keyword density is like a drop in the bucket compared to one link from a relevant, quality site. Keyword density is not a myth, but like all other textbook SEO tactics, the boost you get from on-page tinkering is minimal - unless you're trying to rank higher on MSN or building bottom fishing spam.
Posted 14 July 2006 - 12:16 PM
(01) You cannot write good copy if you have a high density of keywords. Yes you can.
(02) Keyword Density does not count. Yes it counts although not in a simplistic way.
(03) A high keyword density can hurt. Only if very excessive and repetitive. Keywords having a good distributiion up to 13% will not hurt you. Just do not stuff them next to each other.
A little experiment with a keyword density analyzer for new york hotels can substantiate most of the above statements.
Average keyword density for hotel was 4.7 % with the highest being 13.04%.York varied from 3.69% to 11.67%. If one counts semantically similar words the percentages are much higher. Most of the ten websites in the above SERPS are old websites with high pagerank and a high volume of quality backlinks.
Although I agree that one can get a good ranking without even the words appearing in the text, we cannot be sure that a bit of extra on-page optimization would have hurt! Since it is definitely proven that it cannot hurt, if used wisely, I would recommend the following:
(01) Keyword density 4.5 %.
(02) Add at least 2.0% semantically similar words.
In the early days of a website the keywords can give you a bit of an edge.
PS Normally what I do. I just write the copy without any thought for keywords. I then test the keyword density and add sentences with the keywords in until I get close to 4-5%.
Posted 14 July 2006 - 12:32 PM
Yes it counts although not in a simplistic way.
Keyword density I still believe is one of those ranking factors, but since it's been exploited in the past, it has much much less value, but not dead altogether.
Posted 14 July 2006 - 03:00 PM
Looking at the highest ranking pages for an awful lot of SERPs will show you that the robots meta and the revisit-after tags are both highly effective. When you see why, you'll know that using a KWD analyser on pages probably built by people using a KWD analyser is a self-fulfilling prophect as sure as that of any classic Greek tragedy.
Posted 14 July 2006 - 05:31 PM
What should be the exact keyword density in a website?
I'm not sure that keyword density is an approach that many search engines for the web have ever used to create their indices, but term weight may be what you are asking about.
These are fairly simple explanations of term weights compared to some of the other documents on the subject, but they aren't bad. The first one is jointly authored by people from Compaq, Google, and Altavista.
From The Term Vector Database: fast access to indexing terms for Web pages
How a Search Engine Works
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users