Text in the <noframes> Tag and the Cache Page [Archive] - SEO Best Practices Search Engine Forums

Sharon & Roy

13-08-2001, 09:21/09:21AM

Thank you Jill and Doug for your input.

Okay, went to look at the cached page and found the following ... Google's Cached Page (http://www.google.com/search?q=www.bmfa.org%2Fclubs%2Fclublist.htm)

After comparing the source code of both, they show to be identical.

From this example of a frameset page we can conclude a lot of information that many of our newer readers may have been misinformed about.

Namely that a Page/Site with frames doesn't rank well in the Search Engines.

Well, that is simply an outright fabrication, because had the designer of this page been properly informed about the <noframes> tag, they would have optimized this page for their particular keywords and had a more than decent opportunity to rank quite well in spite of the fact that it's a frameset page.

TIP: Frameset pages should be treated EXACTLY like any other page and you should put inside the <noframes> tag what you would have put inside the <body> tag if that page were not a framset page.

Question: This brings to mind a question that could use some better understanding and clarification. Since Google does not encourage the use of "Doorway Pages" or "Splash Pages" can Google determine the difference between a Doorway or Splash page and a Frameset Page?

Also, with the tiny bit of actual text the above Frameset page contains, does Google assess a penalty to that page and/or the whole Web Site because of it?

And lastly on this, in your opinion, would you not think that since Google does not encourage the use of "Doorway Pages" that if you took the EXACT layout, design and text of a Doorway Page and inserted it into the <noframes> tag of a Frameset Page, that it would still be a "Doorway Page" to YOU, but now, NOT to Google and therefore "acceptable" to them?

Also we found that ... Google does not index image file names (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&imgsafe=off&safe=off&q=bg_bmfa.gif) but Google indexes ALT tags (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&imgsafe=off&safe=off&q=%2B%22Clubs+page%22+%2B%22BMFA+Club+List+-+Frames+capable+browser+required%22&btnG=Google+Search) ... so the next question is, how much "weight" does it carry?

1 ) Equal to that of ordinary "body" text?

2 ) Equal to that of "bold" text?

3 ) Equal to that of "anchor tag" text?

4 ) Equal to that of a size 6 "heading tag" text?

5 ) The least "weight" of any single SEO criterion?

6 ) ???

Oh, and speaking of heading tags, does an <h1> tag receive more "weight" than an <h2>?

Also, does an <h6> tag receive more "weight" than a "bold" tag?

Okay, so while we're on a roll, why don't we come up with some kind of consensus here on a list of the top 10 or so single criterion and the "weight" you think Google places on it? (Let's use a points system with your top rating "weighted" at 100 points.)

We'll start off with the following list (and reserve the right to make some changes after we see what others have to say).

1 ) 100 - Keyword Density between 4% to 7% with at least 250 words of visible text.

2 ) 90 - Acquiring an ongoing set of "inbound" as well as "outbound" links that contain keywords in the Anchor Tag text.

3 ) 85 - Focused Theming - Like writing ongoing keyword rich articles about your products/services and/or topics that interest and attract your target market.

4 ) 80 - HTML Title Tag

5 ) 75 - Keywords in your "Domain Name" and in your "Directory Names" as well as in your "File Names"

6 ) 75 - Placing at least 250 words of visible keyword rich text immediately after the <body> tag. (This involves NOT having the left hand navigation links, images, or any javascript or other code placed BEFORE the 250 or so words. A special table would be used to "switch" the code and text for this.)

7 ) 70 - Heading Tags <H1> (<H2> = 68, <H3> = 66, <H4> = 64, etc.)

8 ) 65 - Anchor Tags (Includes Tags in Drop Down Boxes and the like.)

9 ) 60 - Bold Tags

10 ) 50 - Not Submitting your Site via their Add URL Page, whether manually or via any autosubmit software either on or off the Web. (Allow Google's spider to find your Site all by itself so PageRank can be established. That is why acquiring links from top rated related Sites is so important.)

11 ) 20 - Placing your CSS and javascipt code "OFF the Page"

12 ) 15 - Alt Tags

NR ) 00 - Keyword Meta Tags (They do not help to boost your ranking because they are not even indexed.)

NR ) 00 - Keyword Description Tags (They do not help to boost your ranking because they are not even indexed.)

NR ) 00 - Comment Tags (They do not help to boost your ranking because they are not even indexed.)

NR ) 00 - Ordinary Body Text (Non keyword text, that is.)

Advisor

13-08-2001, 09:37/09:37AM

From this example of a frameset page we can conclude a lot of information that many of our newer readers may have been misinformed about.
Namely that a Page/Site with frames doesn't rank well in the Search Engines

I've always said that there's nothing inherently wrong with framed pages in regards to search engines if you know how to properly optimize them. i.e., use of the noframes tag and navigational links on all of the inner frame pages.

My article at: http://www.rankwrite.com/framedsite.htm
explains in more detail.

As to the rest of your post, in my opinion it's not important to rank all of those things in order of importance. What matters is to know about all of those things and use them on your sites when you can. Some sites will lend themselves to some of the tips you mention, and others will lend themselves to others. The main things to worry about in my opinion are well-written, keyphrase rich copy, a good keyphrase rich Title tag and a good Meta description tag. The rest is just gravy, in my mind.

Jill

Mel

13-08-2001, 09:37/09:37AM

Hi Sharon and Roy:

to add to your list:

Googles' PageRank is more than just link popularity since they consider not only the number of inbound links you have from a page, but how many inbound links that page has, how "important" they are considered to be and if they are on theme.

Lets give this a 90 rating

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 09:51/09:51AM

One thing Google will do every month is tweak their algo a tad. Sometimes more so than other times. Because of this, to give points as to criteria would not be feasible.

I do agree that if a page has qualtiy content relating to what the site is about and using their "targeted" phrases that are researched, the page should do well in Google regardless of what the current algo is.

The rest of your post is great! I love the long questions and comments! :up:

Sharon & Roy

13-08-2001, 10:21/10:21AM

Originally posted by webwhiz

As to the rest of your post, in my opinion it's not important to rank all of those things in order of importance. What matters is to know about all of those things and use them on your sites when you can.

Jill, we agree with you that it's not important to rank them. The main point we wanted to get across is to give folks a visual illustration of the huge misconception that many still have about meta tags being the KEY to boosting their rankings, and as we have so illustrated with the order of importance and "weight", that couldn't be further from the truth.

Besides, you already know we love numbers. <wink> It makes it easier to comprehend and remember for some folks (like us) who learn best through charts and numbers and such.

Originally posted by webwhiz

The main things to worry about in my opinion are well-written, keyphrase rich copy, a good keyphrase rich Title tag and a good Meta description tag.

Yep, couldn't agree with you any more other than to emphasize the ongoing acquisition of high ranking related inbound (as well as outbound) links with keyword anchor tag text. In other words, what Mel said about PageRank. <vbg>

Advisor

13-08-2001, 10:43/10:43AM

Ahh...you people and your numbers... :smart:

Too much work for the lazy likes of me!

Jill

newriver

13-08-2001, 14:20/02:20PM

My site uses frames, and a noframes tag.

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 14:34/02:34PM

hey newriver, you should make a signature for your posts!

newriver

13-08-2001, 15:49/03:49PM

I'm gonna keep it in my profile, i don't want google thinking my site has something to do with seo work.

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 16:41/04:41PM

That is a huge myth. Google simply ignores links from unrelated sites. If anything, any link from here is a good thing as a forum like this could be considered a hub by Google and actually count for you no matter what.

Can not hurt in any case.

Advisor

13-08-2001, 16:59/04:59PM

Doug,

How do you know Google simply ignores links from unrelated sites?

Jill

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 17:02/05:02PM

Because I have many unrelated sites linking to the other site and Google just ignores them. No penalty, just ignores.

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 17:07/05:07PM

Put it this way. Many, many link to www.searchenginewatch.com or www.rankwrite.com

You can be sure that just because those sites might be unrelated to the site linking, it truly does not make a difference.

Now, that being said, if the linking site has text related to the other site in the link, that would be a plus, no matter what kind of site it is. Especially if the site that is linking has a PageRank of any decency.

Further:
If the linking site has text even beside the domain link that is related to the other site, this helps as well. This is no matter what the site is about.

Nothing I can find about linking will hurt you except those FFA link page thingys. Even those for the most part are ignored.

I do think that the number of hits a signature link will get far outweighs all else. :) This forum is not busy yet. Just wait til it is. :cool:

Advisor

13-08-2001, 18:12/06:12PM

Doug, while I agree with you that it probably won't hurt any site to have others link to them even if they're not relevant, I don't think any of us can say "for sure" that they ignore these.

I know there's a whole term vector something or other way of looking at the whole picture (which Detlev Johnson can explain in great detail). People who know more about that might be able to say for sure or not whether or not they ignore those kinds of links, or whether they just are given no weight or whether they hurt you. Intuitively it seems that it would not hurt you, and that's pretty much what I believe also. After all, what about the web designer site that links to their clients sites. It shouldn't punish those sites because your design site isn't relevant. But my argument is simply that I don't think either of us can be 100% certain about this unless Google (or whomever) tells us for sure. Actually, I'm gonna try and remember this and ask Mr. Google this week in SF!

Jill

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 18:15/06:15PM

Maybe I should put it this way. If a site has a decent PageRank, and it links to you, the only thing it could possibly do is help you.

No way could it hurt you.

Advisor

13-08-2001, 18:22/06:22PM

Does seem to make sense. But could it dilute your own pagerank for some other phrase?

J

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 18:26/06:26PM

I would think it would not do that.

I also think too much is written about link pop, etc. It is simply too easy for a competitor to ruin another site's link pop or theme or whatever if regular links had a lot to do with things.

I just do not worry about who might link to me. Anyone can and any kind of site does. All I try to do is get a keyword phrase in the text of the link.

Sharon & Roy

13-08-2001, 20:22/08:22PM

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Maybe I should put it this way. If a site has a decent PageRank, and it links to you, the only thing it could possibly do is help you.

No way could it hurt you.

We are very passionate about learning all we can about this most intriguing aspect (the "weighting/scoring" of various INBOUND links) of SEO when it comes to Google since we believe that this has a GREAT DEAL to do with your ability to gain and hold the TOP spots with an ongoing effort to attain the "best" links to and from your Site.

Having said that, can we explore/discuss and give our opinions on the following scenario?

---------------------<><><><><>-------------------

How does Google determine the Link Popularity, by individual interior Web Pages or by the Home Page only, or a combined total of all Web Pages on the domain?

In other words, let's say my Home Page has 500 inbound links and one of my interior pages on "press releases" has 400 links to it. Now, let's say that the overall theme of my Web Site is "Internet marketing" and my other pages contain info on various types of Internet marketing, like "banners", "newsletters", "writing articles for publicity", etc.

Now let's say that I am offering a free eBook about press release tips and a free press release generator program which are both located on the interior page located in a directory called press-releases ... < http://www.mydomain.com/press-releases/index.htm >

My question is, which page do I want other Web Sites linking to so that I receive the "highest" or "weightiest" Link Popularity "quotient" from Google?

1) My Home Page < http://www.mydomain.com/ >

... or ...

2) My Interior Page < http://www.mydomain.com/press-releases/index.htm >

Or does it matter?

---

Also, along the same lines of thought, now say my Home Page has 1000 inbound links and my interior PR Page has 5000 links. Then let's say that all the outbound links from those two pages are as similar as can be (for illustration purposes) ... Which Page would then produce the "highest" or "weightiest" Link Popularity "quotient for OTHER Web Sites? In other words, if you have a Site that desires a link from my Site, which page would produce the BEST boost in the rankings for you?

1) My Home Page < http://www.mydomain.com/ >

... or ...

2) My Interior Page < http://www.mydomain.com/press-releases/index.htm

---------------------<><><><><>-------------------

Originally posted by webwhiz
Intuitively it seems that it would not hurt you, and that's pretty much what I believe also. After all, what about the web designer site that links to their clients sites. It shouldn't punish those sites because your design site isn't relevant. But my argument is simply that I don't think either of us can be 100% certain about this unless Google (or whomever) tells us for sure. Actually, I'm gonna try and remember this and ask Mr. Google this week in SF!

Jill, intuitively speaking we would have to agree with you on this for sure, and that is exactly our current thinking, but we would just love to have this aspect of SEO somewhat set in stone if at all possible and a bit of feedback from Google themselves would be just TERRIFIC. <wink>

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 20:34/08:34PM

In regards to your first part of the post, the answer will always be the very front page or index page of any site. Outbound, inbound, waybound, forbound, towardbound. :)

I still say to not worry so much about link pop. It just does not figure all that much. If a site has directory links in DMOZ, Looksmart, Yahoo, that is basically all it needs to get good ranks, other than a well optimized site.

In Google, my site has 37 inbound links shown right now. Big deal. Does not seem to matter. I could present a whole list of sites that are ranked with not many inbound links. It is the qualitly of the site linking to you. The PageRank of the site or if the site is a good authority. Regular linking means very, very little.

If it did, many in-the-know webmasters could really do some screwin to their competitors.

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 20:40/08:40PM

Jill, intuitively speaking we would have to agree with you on this for sure, and that is exactly our current thinking, but we would just love to have this aspect of SEO somewhat set in stone if at all possible and a bit of feedback from Google themselves would be just TERRIFIC.

It would seem to me that Google would rather keep us thinking. They would not gain anything at all by letting us "know for sure". All we can do is state what we believe and have found thru experience. That is the best we can do with every situation and question.

Advisor

13-08-2001, 20:47/08:47PM

It would seem to me that Google would rather keep us thinking. They would not gain anything at all by letting us "know for sure".

Really? I don't think so. I can't see why Google would have a problem answering that question. They seem to be very forthright with what they want from a site.

So the question I'm supposed to ask is this:

"If other sites that aren't necessarily relevant to your site, or along the same theme, will it do anything to hurt your pagerank for other keywords that are relevant to your site?"

Is this correct?

And Sharon and Roy, I do believe that I've read in various places that each individual page of a site can generate it's own pagerank. So it isn't always necessarily the main page of the site that will give the best pagerank. In most cases it would be because the main page is the one in most of the major directories. However, this doesn't have to always be true.

By the way, your iwon.net site seems to keep crashing my Netscape 4.7. I know...I really should just get rid of it and use IE like the rest of the world, but it's like an old friend (and the newer version of Netscape was a big ole crash machine!).

Jill

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 20:53/08:53PM

That is a good question for them. But their answer will be no. Even if it is yes, it would still be no. :D

Sharon & Roy

13-08-2001, 21:08/09:08PM

Originally posted by webwhiz
Does seem to make sense. But could it dilute your own pagerank for some other phrase?

Originally posted by ihelpyou
I would think it would not do that.

I also think too much is written about link pop, etc. It is simply too easy for a competitor to ruin another site's link pop or theme or whatever if regular links had a lot to do with things.

Jill, intuitively speaking, we believe that Google has thought about the fact that if a Web Site Owner has NO control over who can and will link to their Site that it will not "dilute your own pagerank" since, as Doug points out, "It is simply too easy for a competitor to ruin another site's link pop or theme or whatever if regular links had a lot to do with things."

We believe that ANY inbound link (aside from Link Farms and the like that is) to your Site for the purpose of illustration will scrore at least TWO points toward your overall "link popularity quotient" or possibly its PageRank.

We also believe that links from your Web Site's interior pages to any other interior pages score at least ONE point and that any links from your Home Page to any interior pages score at least TWO points.

In our ongoing research, we have found enough "intuitive" evidence to be very sure that any link to your Site will carry some "weight" and that Google will not "ignore" the link simply because it is not a "relevant" link.

In our humble opinion, we'd like to think that X amount of non-relevant links to our Site would equal one relevant link, even if X=5 or X=50. We'd hate to think that 50 non-relevant links would be entirely ignored by Google, even a worse thought is if 50,000 non-relevant links would be entirely ignored. <urrrgh>

-- Jill, this would also be nice to find the answer to from Google. <wink>

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 21:18/09:18PM

Maybe they are not totally ignored, but ignored if the linking site does not have much of a PageRank. Another example is in AltaVista, it shows my site has 151 inbound links. In Google, 37 links. This tells me that Google is ignoring lots of links. Or links that have no PageRank.

You are right about the interior linkage of your site, but I believe this has more to do with theming than with link Pop. Google is not going to give a site a higher link pop just because the site has other pages on the site linking to each other.

Sharon & Roy

13-08-2001, 21:20/09:20PM

Originally posted by webwhiz

By the way, your iwon.net site seems to keep crashing my Netscape 4.7

Sorry, Jill, lots of code still in development there. I think what may be causing it is the conflict of having more than one javascript with an onload function. We use NS6 and it works fine at the moment. Again, sorry about that. Most of the Site is still very much in development as well.

Sharon & Roy

13-08-2001, 22:14/10:14PM

Originally posted by ihelpyou

Another example is in AltaVista, it shows my site has 151 inbound links. In Google, 37 links. This tells me that Google is ignoring lots of links. Or links that have no PageRank.

Hi Doug, we respectfully disagree with your "thinking" here and offer up the reason for only 37 links in Google being that 114 of the pages listed in AltaVista are not listed by Google and not ignored by Google, or is that really one in the same thing? <wink>

Here is the #1 listed Site (http://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.tripod.com %2Fffcentral&btnG=Google+Search) linked to your Site in AltaVista which is not listed in Google.

Here is the #2 listed Site (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&imgsafe=off&safe=off&q=www.megahits.nigerian.net%2F&btnG=Google+Search) linked to your Site in AltaVista which is not listed in Google.

Here is the #3 listed Site (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&imgsafe=off&safe=off&q=http%3A%2F%2Fsg.dir.yahoo.com%2FBusiness_and_Economy%2FBusiness_to_Business%2FMarketing_and_Advertising%2FInternet%2FPromotion%2FSearch_Engine_Placement_Improvement&btnG=Google+Search) linked to your Site in AltaVista which is not listed in Google.

Here is the #4 listed Site (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&imgsafe=off&safe=off&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.com%2Fin%2FRice81%2Findex.html&btnG=Google+Search) linked to your Site in AltaVista which IS listed in Google.

So by this small example all that you would need to do is to "submit" those Sites listed in AltaVista which are not listed in Google, to Google and you'll increase/boost your PageRank a few points, in our humble opinion that is IF Google decides to index them. Who knows, they may all have been banned and/or not indexed for whatever reason.

But we just wanted to do the research to give us the "evidence" that if a Site IS listed in Google that links to your Site that it does "count" (if even 1 point) towards boosting your PageRank, and that it is not totally ignored as having 0 points towards boosting your PageRank.

ihelpyou

13-08-2001, 22:20/10:20PM

Well, not entirely true as there use to be about 140 sites that Google showed linking to me. In the last few months they dropped those sites. This has to do with PageRank and the lack thereof.

My point is that the number of sites linking to you makes very little difference. There is not much higher I can go in ranks so more links is not going to help.

Bottom line is we all have our theories as to what Google's priorities are. Not one of us knows anything for sure and not one of us is ever going to be 100% right. All we can do is give our best possible "guesses".

added...

oh yes, that is the point that those sites might have been noticed by Google but have been ignored because they are rerelevant, so more regular links do not hurt, they are simply ignored. Ignored because of lack of PageRank, or ignored because they are not very relevant.

Sharon & Roy

14-08-2001, 05:35/05:35AM

Originally posted by ihelpyou

Well, not entirely true as there use to be about 140 sites that Google showed linking to me. In the last few months they dropped those sites. This has to do with PageRank and the lack thereof.

Hi Doug, we do understand what you are saying, and in doing so, we are examining your "guesses" as we completely understand what you mean by that too, so please do not ever think we are saying that we are disagreeing with you because we have the right answer and you have the wrong guess, as that will NEVER be the case, okay?

All we ever intend to do is offer up our "guess" based on the evidence or lack of it when we do our research. We realize that there is no knowable mathmatical formula for SEO and we will never pretend to offer one. All we can do is discuss and brainstorm why things are the way they are and where there is no logical answer available, we say that Google's algo has a hiccup and things will return to "normal" soon. <wink>

Originally posted by ihelpyou

My point is that the number of sites linking to you makes very little difference. There is not much higher I can go in ranks so more links is not going to help.

Okay, Doug, just want to make sure we are reading you correctly here, okay?

So are you saying that if you had zero links to your Site (instead of the 37 you have now) that you would not drop down in the rankings from your current position at #5?

Are you also saying that say a Site like Jill's (or any other Sites, say even like the one right below you in the #6 spot) who continues to acquire links would never be able to rank higher than yours based solely on link acquisition?

(Doug, no explaination is necessary, just as yes or no for the above questions is fine, thanks.)

Originally posted by ihelpyou

Bottom line is we all have our theories as to what Google's priorities are. Not one of us knows anything for sure and not one of us is ever going to be 100% right. All we can do is give our best possible "guesses".

Agreed.

Originally posted by ihelpyou

oh yes, that is the point that those sites might have been noticed by Google but have been ignored because they are rerelevant, so more regular links do not hurt, they are simply ignored. Ignored because of lack of PageRank, or ignored because they are not very relevant.

Here is the PageRank or the lack thereof for the following Sites ...

#1 on AltaVista : Page has 1% PageRank (http://members.tripod.com/ffcentral/) - (Page on Free Host Service Tripod)

#2 on AltaVista : Page no longer exists (http://www.megahits.nigerian.net/) - (Free Classified FFA and URL Submission Page)

#3 on AltaVista : Page has 18% PageRank (http://sg.dir.yahoo.com/business_and_economy/business_to_business/marketing_and_advertising/internet/promotion/search_engine_placement_improvement/) - (Yahoo Singapore Directory Page)

#4 on AltaVista : Page has 29% PageRank (http://www.angelfire.com/in/Rice81/) - (Click Here To Get 3,368,420 Hits To Your Site Without Any Work Page on Free Host Service Angelfire.)

SIDE NOTE:

We're currently gathering some statistics that we hope will give us all some actual visual evidence as to how Google's algorithm is currently set, and will be gathering these stats for the term ...

search engine optimization (http://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine+optimization&hl=en&safe=off&start=0&sa=N)

And we'll be using our beloved Forum Owner, Doug Heil a.k.a. "ihelpyou" (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=1) and our equally beloved Forum Moderator, Jill Whalen a.k.a. "webwhiz" (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=37) as our guinea pigs to compare their Web Site stats with.

Doug is currently at #5 with freemoneyservices.com (http://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine+optimization&hl=en&safe=off&start=0&sa=N) and Jill at #59 with rankwrite.com (http://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine+optimization&hl=en&safe=off&start=50&sa=N) and #376 with highrankings.com (http://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine+optimization&hl=en&safe=off&start=370&sa=N) (Click Here To View 100 Results Per Page) (http://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine+optimization&num=100&hl=en&safe=off&start=300&sa=N) but we expect to see them both vying for the top spot here real soon, right guys and gals?

So let's cheer on our Forum Leaders ... Ra Ra Ree, hit 'em in the knee ... Ra Ra Rass, hit 'em in the other knee ... G-o-o-o-o Team!!! <applause, applause, jump in the air, kick, kick>

Sharon & Roy

14-08-2001, 07:10/07:10AM

Okay, upon further research it looks like Jill has optimizied her highrankings.com Web Site for guess what ... [Edited out the search term on the advice of MazY & Doug to be on the safe side] (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=4003#post4003) ... <duh, what a surprise> and she did a GREAT job, because it's at #1 ... so I doubt that she'll want to mess with it any to get a higher placement for ... search engine optimization ... as we previously thought, right Jill?

Also would like to mention that her PageRank is at 68% which is a very good rating.

Just to let you know, we use Google's Toolbar (http://services.google.com/navclient/welcome.html) to calculate the PageRank (read: importance or quality) of a page using a percentage figure.

The PageRank bar is 38 pixels wide when the green line is full or 100% so all we do is calculate the percentage of the line length to come up with the PageRank Percentage of a Page. For the Newbies, the higher the PageRank Percentage or the fuller the green line is the more popular or expert the Site is according to Google.

For example, http://www.yahoo.com/ is 100%, the green line is full and for the ODP http://www.dmoz.org/ it's 34/38 or 90%

---------------------<><><><><>-------------------

26/38 = 68% PageRank - http://www.highrankings.com/

30/38 = 79% PageRank - http://www.rankwrite.com/

19/38 = 50% PageRank - http://www.freemoneyservices.com/

---------------------<><><><><>-------------------

And what about rankwrite.com Jill, what do you have it optimized for? ... And would you be working to get a higher ranking for ... search engine optimization?

ihelpyou

14-08-2001, 07:42/07:42AM

lol. When dealing with SE algos, there is not a yes or no answer to almost anything. You have to explain.

I have not meant that links did not matter at all. They just do not figure as highly as you all and everyone else are led to believe, unless they are important ones or ones with a high PageRank. Could I still be ranked with less links?

answer....,,.. Depends on which links were dropped.

I do not believe that Jill will change her site to be ranked on that term just as I would not to be ranked on another term. :)

The content on the page is the Most important for any site and for ANY search engine. All sites should concentrate on this aspect. But also continue to collect solid directory links and links to highly relevant, good sites.

BTW, I did not know the site was at 50% as about 4 months ago it was at 60%. The drop did not affect the ranks at all. Actually, my ranks on many different terms has improved lots over that time.

newriver

14-08-2001, 14:05/02:05PM

I do my best to keep things interesting around here...lol.

One lil comment...then BOOM...off into pagerank and link pop.

Doug, me thinks I like this place!
:thebomb:

ihelpyou

14-08-2001, 14:16/02:16PM

LOL. Unlike other places, I will not be strict with keeping the subject the same for the entire thread. If posts go off in other directions, that is fine with me. It is not done on purpose as this is actually the "nature of the beast".

Just too many aspects involved with the search engines. Limiting threads to one subject only can make for a bunch of short threads. :)

Sharon & Roy

14-08-2001, 14:22/02:22PM

Originally posted by webwhiz

By the way, your iwon.net site seems to keep crashing my Netscape 4.7. I know...I really should just get rid of it and use IE like the rest of the world, but it's like an old friend (and the newer version of Netscape was a big ole crash machine!).

Hi Jill,

You may be interested to learn that NS has just released a new version that they say ... "The upgrade, released Thursday, is expected to enhance the performance and stability of version 6.0 while adding new features"

Article Summary:

Netscape Launches Browser Upgrade

Netscape Communications has released Netscape 6.1, its latest upgrade to the Internet browser, which is expected to address the problems associated with the Netscape 6.0 software released last fall.

Click Here For Full Article (http://www.nytimes.com/thestandard/standard_28655.html?ex=998452800&en=ec523f6e1571b15b&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER)

MazY

14-08-2001, 15:42/03:42PM

Originally posted by Sharon & Roy
Okay, upon further research it looks like Jill has optimizied her highrankings.com Web Site for guess what ... "search term"

Please do excuse what is about to follow but...

I can't help thinking that if Jill wanted that publicising then she would have done so herself. Now, for all I know, she may not mind one bit but as I know she will be preparing for her big meet this week, you may just consider editing that until you hear her own views on it.

Just a thought. All I know is that if it was me, I would be pretty mad about it!

ihelpyou

14-08-2001, 17:49/05:49PM

yea, this could be true as ranks are a personal thing. I do not particularly care with my own, but others may. I don't think it is a big deal but maybe to be on the safe side the actual term should be edited out.

<added>oh my gosh, huge thunderstorm just hit here. gotta go for awhile my fine fellow members. Hold the fort down. :)

Sharon & Roy

15-08-2001, 00:22/12:22AM

Originally posted by MazY

Just a thought. All I know is that if it was me, I would be pretty mad about it!

Hi MazY,

Trying to understand your statement, so would you please be so kind as to explain what you would be pretty mad about? Thank you.

Mel

15-08-2001, 02:05/02:05AM

Hi Sharon and Roy:

I can appreciate you intense interest in deciphering the secrets of Googles Algorithm, but would like to suggest that it is really not susceptible to such detailed analysis since:

1. The Algo changes every so often

2. It is in Googles best interests to keep the exact details secret since otherwise clever fellows who knew the details would soon have a lock on all the keyword rankings regardless of the content.

In my experience, there is a feeling that is gained after working with SEO about what works and what doesn't. When you are stumped on a particular phrase, if you do a lookup for the high rankings for that keyword you can see what works and what doesn't for that keyword.

It also seems to me that there is no precise mathmatical formula and what works in one case may not work in another.

Sharon & Roy

15-08-2001, 06:37/06:37AM

Originally posted by Mel

Hi Sharon and Roy:

I can appreciate you intense interest in deciphering the secrets of Googles Algorithm, but would like to suggest that it is really not susceptible to such detailed analysis

Hi Mel,

A little confused by your post, so we'll attempt to read back to you what we are hearing you say and you can let us know if we heard you correctly, thanks.

First off, you said,

"1. The Algo changes every so often" -- Yes, we are very aware of this "fact."

"2. It is in Googles best interests to keep the exact details secret since otherwise clever fellows who knew the details would soon have a lock on all the keyword rankings regardless of the content." -- Mel, this statement needs more clarification if we are to understand the point you are trying to explain to us. While we agree with you in a "broad" way in your statement ... "keep the exact details secret" we disagree with your statement in certain "specific" ways.

For example, we cannot say just how much exact "weight" Google places on the HTML Title Tag such as 50% or 20% of the entire page or Site, but we can say that aside from the actual keyword density which obviously ranks as the #1 criterion used, we offer up that the HTML Title Tag ranks as the #2 criterion used in "weight", but again, just how much weight is not really knowable.

Thus, if you mean by "keep the exact details secret" to be the actual amount of weight used by Google on the HTML Title Tag then we agree with that.

But if you also mean that it is not knowable that it is the #2 most important criterion used in terms of weight, then we have to disagree with your statement, because that "secret" of SEO is knowable.

Originally posted by Mel

In my experience, there is a feeling that is gained after working with SEO about what works and what doesn't. When you are stumped on a particular phrase, if you do a lookup for the high rankings for that keyword you can see what works and what doesn't for that keyword.

Mel, we are just having a very friendly discussion with you about what we are very passionate about and nothing more, so please don't take anything we say (ever) the wrong way.

When discussing abstract concepts coupled along with unknown variables people will call upon what they know best to come up with varying or similar conclusions, right?

So having said that, here is what you said ... "my experience, there is a feeling"

Well, in our experience we don't go by feeling, we go by facts ... albeit, they may not be the cold hard facts, but as long as they are the somewhat warm soft facts, that's good enough for us.

So you see Mel, while some folks have been blessed with the ability to "just know" the answers by a feeling they have, others (like us) weren't so blessed, therefore we need a more factual basis for our choices and decisions.

It really just boils down to your personality type on how one goes about learning SEO. We are of the school that, if it is a factor, no matter how small or how insignificant, we at least want to KNOW about it, and then we can be much more confident about our final analysis.

Plus, what we do is a lot more work, and some folks just don't desire to go that route is all.

Originally posted by Mel

It also seems to me that there is no precise mathmatical formula and what works in one case may not work in another.

In light of what we have already covered, we will totally agree with your statement that "there is no precise mathmatical formula" but in the same breath also offer the statement that "there IS a mathematical formula" although not a precise one.

MazY

15-08-2001, 07:50/07:50AM

Originally posted by Sharon & Roy

Hi MazY,

Trying to understand your statement, so would you please be so kind as to explain what you would be pretty mad about? Thank you.

Hi, Sharon & Roy

Sorry, yes. I should have perhaps elaborated on that statement a little.

If you take just the profiles of all the members in this forum, then you may note that some members have elected to add their URL and some have not. I am sure that this is for a variety of reasons. I dare to suggest that one of these reasons is that there may be some very successful individuals and companies in here that don't particularly want their site advertising all over and ergo, made more open to competitor scrutiny and investigation than it may be under normal circumstances.

Remember, SEO is a very competitive field to work within. And a lot of SEO (in particular the success of an individual company) must be attributed to what key-phrase(s) that company has managed to focus on. He or she may have managed to stumble on a search phrase that is not so widely known but is reaping rewards for their company. Not overly likely but possible.

Now, the less that people become aware of that particular key-phrase, the better for the individual companies that have managed to detect it and reap the rewards of it. This does not indicate insecurity, but rather annoyance at somewhat wasted efforts in all the investigative work that the company may have done in researching their key-phrase(s).

Of course, many people in here would be able to take a look at almost any site mentioned in here and work out how they are optimising and what for. This does not mean that the owner of the site should or would thank you for making that task any easier.

It could be that I may now go away and think "Right, I shall start making Jill's like a little bit more difficult" and begin to optimise for the search term which you highlighted from Jill's site. Remember, part of beating your competition is thinking of something that they not. In our case, it is often key-phrases. (Amongst other things of course.)

I hope that has clarified things a little.

MazY

15-08-2001, 08:15/08:15AM

Originally posted by Sharon & Roy
Well, in our experience we don't go by feeling, we go by facts ... albeit, they may not be the cold hard facts, but as long as they are the somewhat warm soft facts, that's good enough for us.

Sharon & Roy.

Firstly, I shall kick off by saying that I do admire your 'research'. I admire the mathematical approach that you take to your research and feel that ultimately it will reveal a thing or two that before was perhaps only "guessed at."

However, your statement about "warm soft facts" leaves me a little confused. Being the "wordie" type person that I am, I choose to look at the way people describe things in a literal manner. I will often choose whether to pursue a certain aspect of a statement depending on the statement. "warm" and "soft" are not logical adjectives to use against the word "fact". Logically speaking, either it is fact or it is not. By the very nature of "fact" there are no degrees of it.

It is very easy for an individual to look at a statement such as Mel's "In my experience...." and deduce whether that applies to them in reality or whether it doesn't. However, when you start trying to disguise what is essentially, still researched supposition, then it is not fact. No matter how many adjectives you apply to it. "warm and soft fact" was not fact yesterday, is not fact today and will not be fact tomorrow.

I do not feel that this lessens the value of your research. It does, however, downgrade it from fact to supposition. I am always wary of accepting or indeed reporting "fact" until I am absolutely 100% positive that it is fact. Especially when I am about to pass it on as advice. I think it applies to any of us to keep in mind that any new "fact" we express may well be applied by someone that joins this forum at any time.

ihelpyou

15-08-2001, 09:11/09:11AM

This is very true. Different strokes for different folks. This is also true in different markets and industries.

The densities will vary among the top sites depending on the industry. Actually, all seem to vary no matter what part of any algo you are looking at. This is why I have never looked at the %'s or numbers of anything. First of all, I hate numbers and stats. Second, I feel it is not worth the time involved.

I must say that my way will not and does not work for everyone, it's just my way. I look at a page after researching and picking the keyword phrases to target, then I simply recommend changes the site should make. We hash it over and come up with good combinations of content to enhance and optimize. There is NO checking densities or nothing like that. Heck, in another thread someone mentioned that my front page had a density of 12% for an important phrase. Well, until that post, I had no idea what it was. I assumed it was around 9 or 10, but did not know it was 12. This shows how much attention I pay to keyword density. :eek:

Just not one for numbers. Again, MANY different ways of doing things that accomplish the same goal. That goal being to satisfy the client.

Sharon & Roy

15-08-2001, 20:18/08:18PM

Originally posted by MazY

Hi, Sharon & Roy

Sorry, yes. I should have perhaps elaborated on that statement a little.

Thanks MazY,

Now that we understand your way of thinking, we thank you for that, as we would never have been thinking along those lines at all. It was NEVER our intent to reveal Jill's search phrase (as you put it ... "she may have managed to stumble on a search phrase that is not so widely known but is reaping rewards for their company") so that her competitors could then optimize for that phrase.

We just "assumed" that her phrase was quite obvious and that anyone with just a little bit of SEO knowledge about Google would know that the first phrase you should optimize for is the URL, directory and file name. But maybe our "assumption" is not as obvious as we think it is.

In fact, our thinking was this ...

We are here for only three reasons.

1) To learn about SEO

2) To share, discuss, brainstorm, research and test what we learn and have learned about SEO

3) To encourage (cheerlead, if you will) and help others get their Sites to the top of the list for their chosen keywords.

Now that you have brought this way of thinking to our mindset, we see that it would be best to wait to be asked for help than to just openly and freely give it, because of the "possibility" that other folks may copy the "search term" we post here.

So, MazY, thanks for enlightening us and we won't do that again.

Originally posted by MazY

If you take just the profiles of all the members in this forum, then you may note that some members have elected to add their URL and some have not. I am sure that this is for a variety of reasons. I dare to suggest that one of these reasons is that there may be some very successful individuals and companies in here that don't particularly want their site advertising all over and ergo, made more open to competitor scrutiny and investigation than it may be under normal circumstances.

Yes, we did note what you mentioned and that is why we assumed that it was something that Jill wasn't "hiding" or keeping a "secret."

Originally posted by MazY

Remember, SEO is a very competitive field to work within. And a lot of SEO (in particular the success of an individual company) must be attributed to what key-phrase(s) that company has managed to focus on. He or she may have managed to stumble on a search phrase that is not so widely known but is reaping rewards for their company. Not overly likely but possible.

So are you saying that folks who are SEO professionals should not share what they have used for their search terms?

Originally posted by MazY

Now, the less that people become aware of that particular key-phrase, the better for the individual companies that have managed to detect it and reap the rewards of it. This does not indicate insecurity, but rather annoyance at somewhat wasted efforts in all the investigative work that the company may have done in researching their key-phrase(s).

Yes, MazY, we do understand what you are saying here. It just never dawned on us that revealing an already obvious search term for Jill's #1 Site was going to jeopardize her #1 ranking in any way. (And even if it did, we have enough faith in her as a top SEO professional to be able to tweak this and then tweak that, to be right back in the top spot again.)

And please don't take what we just said the wrong way, as we do not mean this to diminish the importance of your way of thinking one bit. Just sharing our varying (not less important) ideas is all.

To be really open with you here, we think you are really worried about this more than you should be, and the key to it all, will be what Jill will have to say to us about it, so we'll be very thankful that you suggested to us to edit the search term, if she does object, and just as thankful if she doesn't object.

Originally posted by MazY

Of course, many people in here would be able to take a look at almost any site mentioned in here and work out how they are optimising and what for. This does not mean that the owner of the site should or would thank you for making that task any easier.

Agreed.

Originally posted by MazY

It could be that I may now go away and think "Right, I shall start making Jill's like a little bit more difficult" and begin to optimise for the search term which you highlighted from Jill's site. Remember, part of beating your competition is thinking of something that they not. In our case, it is often key-phrases. (Amongst other things of course.)

MazY, sorry if we don't see it this way, but are you saying that Jill is your competition? And if you are, could you also explain what you mean by "competition"?

Originally posted by MazY

I hope that has clarified things a little.

Yes, it sure has, and thank you for replying with your explanation.

Sharon & Roy

15-08-2001, 20:25/08:25PM

Originally posted by MazY

Sharon & Roy.

Firstly, I shall kick off by saying that I do admire your 'research'. I admire the mathematical approach that you take to your research and feel that ultimately it will reveal a thing or two that before was perhaps only "guessed at."

Thank you, MazY, your kind words are very appreciated.

Originally posted by MazY

However, your statement about "warm soft facts" leaves me a little confused.

Sorry about that. It is our way of explaining the following facts in "Search Engine Optimization SPEAK" ...

An example of what we mean by a "cold hard fact" would be ...

The keyword density of a Web Page/Site must have a certain percentage to qualify for a top ranking without being penalized.

An example of what we mean by a "warm soft fact" would be ...

The keyword density of a Web Page/Site must have a 4 to 7 percentage to qualify for a top ranking without being penalized.

Both statements are facts, but when the percentages are changed by Google to say 8 to 12 percent or whatever it happens to be, we then refer to that statement as a "warm soft fact" because the "math" fluxuates. If we take the 'math' part out of the statement, we then refer to it as a "cold hard fact".

Originally posted by MazY

Being the "wordie" type person that I am, I choose to look at the way people describe things in a literal manner. I will often choose whether to pursue a certain aspect of a statement depending on the statement. "warm" and "soft" are not logical adjectives to use against the word "fact". Logically speaking, either it is fact or it is not. By the very nature of "fact" there are no degrees of it.

You are absolutely correct in your thinking, and we are "wrong" to attribute such adjectives to the word, fact, when speaking in grammatically correct and proper English, but this is simply our way of explaining what we really can't explain any easier.

Originally posted by MazY

It is very easy for an individual to look at a statement such as Mel's "In my experience...." and deduce whether that applies to them in reality or whether it doesn't. However, when you start trying to disguise what is essentially, still researched supposition, then it is not fact. No matter how many adjectives you apply to it. "warm and soft fact" was not fact yesterday, is not fact today and will not be fact tomorrow.

Well, you know that when it comes to SEO, what could be considered a fact today, may not be fact any more tomorrow. That is just the way the Search Engines want things. They do not want anything to be etched in stone, so they keep us "guessing" day in and day out.

If we read an article on SEO and it does not have the current date on it, we have to account for the "fact" that some, or all of what the articles says could no longer be true or even was true, if we did not have the time to test it before the algorithms changed.

That is why forums like these exist, so we can post the "facts of the moment", and constantly revise them as we discover the changes. and inform all the new folks of this "SEO REALITY" before they read and apply something that no longer works or applies.

Originally posted by MazY

I do not feel that this lessens the value of your research.

Thank you.

Originally posted by MazY

It does, however, downgrade it from fact to supposition.

MazY, do you still "think" this after reading what we just posted about what we "mean" by a warm soft fact?

(BTW, it's cool if you, we respect your right to think that. We are here to interact and to have FUN and learn, not to create dissension, just so you know that. Our motives are pure.)

Originally posted by MazY

I am always wary of accepting or indeed reporting "fact" until I am absolutely 100% positive that it is fact.

We absolutely agree.

Originally posted by MazY

Especially when I am about to pass it on as advice. I think it applies to any of us to keep in mind that any new "fact" we express may well be applied by someone that joins this forum at any time.

EXACTLY and that is why we desire to discern what fluxuates most in SEO, and that being the 'math' more so than anything else. So if a newbie reads "x=y+7/3x88" today, that they also REALIZE that tomorrow that may not be the case anymore.

A fact today may not be a fact tomorrow is our SEO Battle Cry.

MazY

15-08-2001, 21:55/09:55PM

Originally posted by Sharon & Roy

We just "assumed" that her phrase was quite obvious and that anyone with just a little bit of SEO knowledge about Google would know that the first phrase you should optimize for is the URL, directory and file name. But maybe our "assumption" is not as obvious as we think it is.

Exactly. If things are that easy then why bother to highlight any one site? As for "first phrase you should optimize for is the URL, directory and file name.", I disagree. If your URL is, as mine is, totally unrelated to your line of business, then where would be the point in that? Again, it is these type of "facts" that worry me.

Now that you have brought this way of thinking to our mindset, we see that it would be best to wait to be asked for help than to just openly and freely give it, because of the "possibility" that other folks may copy the "search term" we post here..

Please, don't ever feel curbed on my behalf. I would hope that most people feel free to post whatever they please, whether it is right or wrong. Though I also hope that they are open to question if someone needs clarification.

Yes, we did note what you mentioned and that is why we assumed that it was something that Jill wasn't "hiding" or keeping a "secret."

Not entirely fair. I do not believe anyone has stated that Jill is or was keeing her key-phrase "secret" or indeed hiding it. My point was and is, that she should have that option if she so wished. Now, as it turns out, I briefly spoke to Jill about this and she is not overly concerned.

So are you saying that folks who are SEO professionals should not share what they have used for their search terms?

I am saying that any business is ultimately in business to make money. Now this is strictly my opinion but any SEO who happily reports his or her search-phrases in an open-forum is making his or her task a little more difficult and a little more competitive for his or herself. Of course, it would be lovely to trust everyone and anyone but this is real life. I am all for an open environment but not at the cost of my business which has taken both time and money to build up. That would be financial suicide. However, this choice is ultimately down to the individual.

Yes, MazY, we do understand what you are saying here. It just never dawned on us that revealing an already obvious search term for Jill's #1 Site was going to jeopardize her #1 ranking in any way. (And even if it did, we have enough faith in her as a top SEO professional to be able to tweak this and then tweak that, to be right back in the top spot again.)

I feel we are focusing on Jill too much here who is alas too busy to make her stance known on the issue. Because of this and my respect for Jill, I shall speak more broadly if I may.

Regardless of how good the SEO is and regardless of how well they may well be able to tweak this and tweak that. They should not have to because someone decided that it would be a great idea to reveal their chosen phrase(s) in an open and public forum. Time is money and all that. The time that would or could be spent tweaking to work around the revelation, could be spent reaping new clients, etc.

To be really open with you here, we think you are really worried about this more than you should be

Au contraire. I am merely looking out for the interests of someone that I happen to get along with, until such time that she was/is able to air her own views. I am not worried at all. But then why would I be? It wasn't my phrases that you revealed. That is, of course, assuming that you were even correct. Let me assure you that I rank extremely highly (and yes even a #1) for phrases that I had no intention of getting a high ranking on. It just happened to get lucky that way.

I for one am not about to go trawling through that site to find out whether you are correct. Why? Because I don't need to. I have my own site to focus upon and that is where my time is best spent.

MazY, sorry if we don't see it this way, but are you saying that Jill is your competition? And if you are, could you also explain what you mean by "competition"?

If I got along with all of my competition as well as I do with Jill then I would be a happy man! However, as it is, I just really happen to get along with her. (maybe that "Author thing" that we share.) I saw your posting, knew she wasn't about, asked you to reconsider it until she was able to air her own views. As for whether she is competition. Of course she is. As is JH, as is Doug and so forth. Of course, being in the UK, I am less concerned. But that world market is expanding every day and as it does, I take the compeititon more seriously. Think about it - there is no technical reason why any USA member could not provide SEO services for someone in my home town and vice-versa. So the answer to your question is yes, she is competition but competition that I am more than happy to have. <Waves to Jill> :hi:

MazY

15-08-2001, 22:25/10:25PM

Originally posted by Sharon & Roy
MazY, do you still "think" this after reading what we just posted about what we "mean" by a warm soft fact?

I think at this point, one has to look at personalities. Despite it being a forum, personalities do still shine through and personal traits even more so. I, for example, am very much governed by fact and do not like supposition one bit. Nor do I like my business being run on any degree of "guesswork". I go with what I know and what I have managed to prove. Anything less than that could potentially land me or my company in trouble.

This is why I never read the various virus warnings that we see posted in here lately. The journalism is always so hyped up and written with a degree of "the end of thw world is nigh" that I am better off spending my time doing stuff that will benefit my company as opposed to worrying in order to sate the journalistic fantasies of some over-zealous "writer".

Anyway, I digress. Yes, in my opinion, anything less than 100% certain is not fact. If it was fact yesterday but something has changed today which affects that fact, then it is no longer fact and needs reverification. (Let me assure you I am an absolute git to work for.) But at least I know what I am reading has been researched and verified. I would resent spending my time reading what is little more than SEO gossip.

Whilst others are happy to take what they read (yes, even from Danny Sullivan and Mr. Nielsen) as fact, I am happier looking at what they write with a clear mind and then verifying it for myself. Whilst I have raised the subject of Nielsen, may I just take this opportunity to say what a waste of good web space he is, in my opinion. If the whole world said the sky was blue he would argue that it is green just to get another great Nielsen masterpiece out. (Worse still, many people would believe him because he signs it!) I'm sure many of his points are valid but his web design views are so beyond any real rational thinking that I choose to totally ignore his proclaimed God-like wisdom and would rather listen to someone that isn't stuck in the 1970's. (That rant has been boiling for some time.) :D

ihelpyou

15-08-2001, 22:34/10:34PM

I am happier looking at what they write with a clear mind and then verifying it for myself.

This is good. This is exactly what all visitors and members to these forums should be doing. Nothing that we write can be fact at all when talking about the search engines.

We can research, we can read, we can experiment, but the bottom line is no one has any facts. We should take all the info in and use the parts of it we feel might be good, knowing all too well that everything we do is nothing more than an experiment waiting for the next experiment.

SEO and it's many facets are simply waaay to fun and never boring. :cool:

Sharon & Roy

16-08-2001, 04:11/04:11AM

Originally posted by MazY

As for "first phrase you should optimize for is the URL, directory and file name.", I disagree. If your URL is, as mine is, totally unrelated to your line of business, then where would be the point in that? Again, it is these type of "facts" that worry me.

Hi MazY,

Well, obviously if one did not want or considered to create their domain name to be there search term then don't optimize for IT and there would be no point in that at all. But that is not what we are suggesting anyone do.

We made that statement with the emphasis that if your domain name is not your search phrase then you can use the search phrase in creating a directory and/or file name and that can and CURRENTLY will be extremely effective.

For example let's say the business deals with maternity clothing and because the owner didn't know to give their domain name their primary search phrase to help boost them up in the Search Results, they named their domain, janesplace.com

Well, short of getting a new domain name such as ...

http://www.maternityclothing.com/

They would be wise to create a subdomain like ...
http://maternityclothing.janesplace.com/

Or a directory like ...

http://www..janesplace.com/maternityclothing/

Or a file name like ...

http://www..janesplace.com/maternityclothing/maternityclothing.html

Currently the 'math' on this very important "SEO technique" is incredibly high and may continue to be so for some time, in our humble opinion.

We offer the following to back up our claim.

Our test involves this Web Site http://www.smart-travel-hawaii.com/

It becomes the #1 Ranked Site for ... smart travel hawaii (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&imgsafe=off&safe=off&q=smart+travel+hawaii) ...

After ranking at #227 for ... travel hawaii (http://www.google.com/search?q=travel+hawaii&hl=en&safe=off&start=220) (View 100 Results Per Page Here) (http://www.google.com/search?q=travel+hawaii&num=100&hl=en&safe=off&start=200) ...

Question: How else but by the "tremendous amount of weight" that Google currently places on the fact that a Site contains the (exact) keyword phrase in the URL?

Now Look Here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&imgsafe=off&safe=off&q=travel+hawaii+smart)
If the complete search term is not a phrase it loses "weight" and falls a couple of notches to #3

Now Look Here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&imgsafe=off&safe=off&q=hawaii+travel+smart)
If the search term is not a phrase it loses "weight" and falls a couple of notches to #8
(Note also that the further to the right the first word of the URL is, the further the Site will drop.)

So, deductive reasoning says that an exact match receives the most weight possible (a.k.a. the "math") and in some cases as in the above test, it can boost your rankings a tremendous amount, like from #227 all the way to #1.

Also, even if your URL keyword phrase is not searched for, but yet all words are present there is still enough weight there to take a Site from #227 all the way to #3.

And of course a search for only one or two words of a three word phrase would result in a large decrease in Search Engine Ranking Position (SERP) over the full three word phrase, as also evidenced in the above example.

Mel

16-08-2001, 05:22/05:22AM

Hi Sharon and Roy:

Sorry to be so long answering your post, but am back now.

Well.... thats what makes horse races - different opinions.

An example of what we mean by a "cold hard fact" would be ...

I would disagree that in order to have a top ranking in google you must absolutely have a certain keyword density or even that it is the second most important factor, and thus I, like MazY, cannot accept this as a fact. A fact is sometiung indisputable by my definition.

An example: If my site is the only site to use a particular and obscure keyword I could get a #1 ranking for that keyword no matter what keyword density I used. There must be other factors here and it is likely that none of them can be taken seperately I.E. without consideratin of other factors.

I am sure that somewhere there is a formula that Google uses to Ranks sites (likely residing on one of their very secure servers) and I feel that it is probably a very large many megabyte computer program. It may be composed of mathmatical equations, and/or Boolean Logic functions and/or fuzzy functions, but it will be well written and will probably not have some simple function like "keyword density = X% then = points such and such.

I have no proof of this, but if were a mathmatical equation, It would not take long for a clever programmer to write a program to discover it and then corner the Google SEO market.

Bottom line - A lot of clever fellows have been working on this problem for many years now, and the more experience you get the more you realise that you can get good results based on your experience, and if you have a problem, looking at how a particular site which is ranking highly on an interesting keyword is constructed it will probably give you enough information to get the job done. My only interest is to get the job done and done well.

Viewed in this light, your research to find the holy grail of Google rankings is likely to be very time consuming, and if (when) the Algo has a major shift, you will have to start all over again.

Thus in good conscience I can only suggest that if your interest is to discover Googles Algorithm - more power to you. but in the meantime others will be using rules of thumb to get great rankings and that is what IMO SEO is about.

MazY

16-08-2001, 06:03/06:03AM

Originally posted by Sharon & Roy
If the complete search term is not a phrase it loses "weight" and falls a couple of notches to #3

No, no and thrice, no. :D

That would be perfectly correct in an ideal world where only the URL text was taken into consideration. However, there is also the actual body text to consider, the page title, description (in some cases), alt tags, links, etc.

One cannot pull just one factor and assume that it is that which is giving the ultimate #1 ranking. Unless, of course, one is happy to let madness rule the day.

Now it may be that if any #1 site, despite having the most perfectly matched URL to the search phrase, were to change just one element of their body text for example, then they may slip to #2.

I tend to side with Mel here. Math is good and I still maintain that your research has value. However, I bet those that deal with keyword density a lot (I certainly do) can almost look at a page of text and estimate the keyword density without even counting the words. This comes with experience of writing specific density text over and over again. The eye and the brain evolve and adapt to make life easier.

Take Doug, for example, who openly states that he doesn't even consider measuring the density. Why? Because, I dare to suggest, his brain and eyes have adapted. He instantly knows when it 'looks right'.

When I go to the doctor with a stomach ache, he doesn't need to probe my intestines to work out that I may have eaten something funny. He just knows through past experience and by 'feeling around' that is the most likely cause. The same is with SEO. Now you may say that goes against my "fact only" thinking. It does. Sure, I could be exactly like Doug but it boils down to that 'what works for the individual'.

As it stands, I do guess the density as I am writing, then I verify it afterwards to make sure. To be more specific., I have just developed a new system but that is beyond this post.

So, whilst I respect your math and I do, I cannot help thinking that so much time may be spent doing the math that by the time you have done it, the whole thing has changed again.

As Mel has stated, algos can change in the blink of an eye and us mere mortals shall never be given those algos. So we work with what we know worked last time. If it doesn't work this time, we make adjustments until it does. Eventually, you build a physical and mental catalogue of techniqies and practises which you just know work.

To finalise, Mel's statement: "An example: If my site is the only site to use a particular and obscure keyword I could get a #1 ranking for that keyword no matter what keyword density I used." is a perfect example of how the math gets diluted when you are working with algorithms to which your best guess at being correct may be miles off from fact. So many things can nudge the whole balance.

Sharon & Roy

16-08-2001, 16:13/04:13PM

Originally posted by Mel

Sorry to be so long answering your post, but am back now.

Hi Mel, that's not a problem. The lack of a speedy reply is never an issue for us.

Originally posted by Mel

I would disagree that in order to have a top ranking in google you must absolutely have a certain keyword density or even that it is the second most important factor, and thus I, like MazY, cannot accept this as a fact. A fact is sometiung indisputable by my definition.

Mel, we appreciate your feedback, but you have actually made an "apples and oranges" comparision and that was not what we meant to say was a fact.

Your example of ... "An example: If my site is the only site to use a particular and obscure keyword I could get a #1 ranking for that keyword no matter what keyword density I used."

Obviously you would be #1 out of 1 Site even if you only used the keyword ONCE out of 100 words for a keyword density of 1%.

We are referring to keywords that have LOTS of other pages competing for the top spots.

Here is what we are saying is a fact about keyword density ...

Let's start of by using your "example" but let's add 1 more page to the equation.

Now, lets say that EVERYTHING is exactly the same on the second page, EXCEPT you have added just enough additional keywords to your visible body text only to now give you a keyword density of 6%.

Our question to you, Mel, is which page would you "think" would rank "higher"?

Page #1 with a keyword density of 1%

... or ...

Page #2 with a keyword density of 6%

Okay let's continue and say that EVERYTHING is exactly the same on a #3 page as it is on page #1, EXCEPT you have added just enough additional keywords to your visible body text only to now give you a keyword density of 90%.

Our question to you, Mel, is which page would you "think" would rank "higher" of all 3 pages?

Page #1 with a keyword density of 1%

... or ...

Page #2 with a keyword density of 6%

... or ...

Page #3 with a keyword density of 90%

------<><><>---- • Google SEO Facts & Figures • ---<><><>-------

Here's how we'd put this fact about keyword density into words.

Given that all other things are equal, there is a certain keyword
density (range) that will give you the optimum opportunity to be
ranked at the top of the results.

What that exact density is will be subject to change as Google
sees fit. An excellent starting point we recommend you optimize
for on your first attempt is in the 4% to 7% range to be
safe. If you are a bit more daring and Google's algo is set a bit
higher for it's current indexing then a density of 8% to 12% is
safe. Although pages have been known to carry higher keyword
densities than these and still acquire a top listing, we don't
advise it, due to the fact that evenutally your page will probably
drop and usually drop way down due to the fact that this is a
spamdexing technique referred to as keyword stuffing.

------<><><>---- • Google SEO Facts & Figures • ---<><><>-------

Always Remember: SEO is a PROCESS and not a PROJECT

ihelpyou

16-08-2001, 16:25/04:25PM

hey gals/guys, In your first example with two pages, the keyword density of 1% could still be number 1 if it has more quality links leading to it. If ALL else is the same, including the link pop, PageRank, and all else, then yes, the page with a density of 6% would be number 1. That never will or could happen though, as there are many facets that go into PageRank with keyword density actually being a small part of many small parts. Even if the 1% page had a link from the Yahoo or Looksmart directory and the 6% did not, the 1% still could be ranked number 1.

MazY

16-08-2001, 16:27/04:27PM

So we are not taking outside influences into account any more then? All three of Mel's hypothetical pages can be identical but if page two just happened to be favoured by my site then I may well link to that page from my site. Kindly giving that page an extra boost.

Now, that has nothing to do with Mel's hypothetical SEO technique. As you have already stated, all three pages are the same as far as content are concerned. My concern is that you will now shift the goalposts once more and say "ok then - so let's assume that all link popularities are the same too and look at the scenario again."

I have to confess to losing faith in your research, Sharon & Roy. It almost feels like you are trying to force your answer to fit the question. If you keep whittling things down then eventually, by logic alone, you will 'appear' to be correct. I think what both Mel and myself are trying to put across to you is that there is no simple solution and no simple math formula. Even if there was, it would be out of date before you even calculated half of it.

You, like I, and every other person in here, at some point have to appreciate that there are people in here that have been doing this stuff far longer than you or I. I find it very hard to believe that nobody has tried doing the math before today only to realise that the fruit of the pursuit is somewhat lacking in comparison to the effort required.

MazY

16-08-2001, 16:30/04:30PM

There is a classic example, Sharon & Roy. Both Doug and I instantly saw a flaw in your scenario. (The very same flaw in fact.) How? Because experience tells us that things are not as cut and dried as you seem to want to portray. THere was no math involved at all. Well, not on my part at least. Doug, were you counting? :D

ihelpyou

16-08-2001, 16:37/04:37PM

I find it very hard to believe that nobody has tried doing the math before today

Funny you say that. :) When I started concentrating on this search engine stuff full-time about 3 years ago, I had someone tell me to try and work out the math stuff like this and this and this. Well, I figured I would try. It lasted about 4 hours one day. :ohmy:

I Hate the math that goes into it. I vowed I would never look at it again. BUT, to each his own. It actually gives me a big headache. :eek:

MazY

16-08-2001, 16:53/04:53PM

Originally posted by ihelpyou
I Hate the math that goes into it. I vowed I would never look at it again. BUT, to each his own. It actually gives me a big headache. :eek:

Oh, I agree. My math is worse than useless. Hence I stick to writing. :)

What concerns me about this particular thread, and I mean no disrespect here, Sharon & Roy, but you do appear to shifting the goal-posts each time in the effort to produce a correct result.

I quote "anyone with just a little bit of SEO knowledge about Google would know that the first phrase you should optimize for is the URL, directory and file name. But maybe our 'assumption' is not as obvious as we think it is."

Now, when this fault was highlighted, you shifted the goalposts by saying that of course you meant that if the URL was matched towards the chosen search-phrase. Well, far be it from me, but this is not what you intimated at all. On the contrary. You were quite specific. You intimated that any SEO worth their salts would know instinctively, that regardless of their domain name, they should optimise for it. In fact, you said it was "obvious". Well, it certainly wasn't obvious to me. What was screamingly obvious to me was the fact that your statement, as written, was obviously wrong. Because I don't mind being wrong and I am certainly not afraid to admit to not seeing what is apparently obvious to any good SEO, I was more than happy to ask for validation without fear of being thought of as inexperienced or a little slow.

So, we move on to Mel's very good example about optimising for a particularly obscure word or name, that too would or could produce a #1 ranking. Your response? That Mel had offered an apples and oranges response. Nonsense. Mel, (I imagine) like I, read your statement literally and responded with experience. I hardly think it fair to say that anyone's response is an a "apples and oranges" response simply because they cannot read your minds and figure out exactly what you 'intended' to write.

Then we move on yet again to the last scenario: All three pages being the same in content. Both Doug and I have immediately spotted a flaw in this scenario and so I look forward to reading what you "really meant".

Lastly, and you can take this particular piece as you feel is right, but I am confused. I remember not so long ago, you joined the forum expressing a desire to learn, if my memory serves me well. In that short time, you have now reached the dizzy heights of being able to remind everyone that Always Remember: SEO is a PROCESS and not a PROJECT

I certainly find this a tad patronising and because of my rather honest and direct approach I don't mind saying so at all. (Trust me when I say that I am equally at home receiving harsh criticism as I am in giving it.) Whilst it would be great to believe that you had learned everything there is to learn by observing the quality messages within the forum, I have a hard time believing that to be the case.

Sharon & Roy

16-08-2001, 23:00/11:00PM

Originally posted by ihelpyou

In your first example with two pages, the keyword density of 1% could still be number 1 if it has more quality links leading to it.

Hi Doug,

Yes, you are absolutely correct in saying that ... "IF it has more quality links leading to it." ... and we agree with you on that, Doug, IF that was what we said.

We did not say if the 1% had more links to it, we said ...

"that EVERYTHING is exactly the same on the second page"

Please notice that we said, ON the page, as opposed to "off" the page, as would be the case with "inbound" links which are also referred to as "off the page ranking criteria" in "SEO Speak". For testing and research purposes, let's make it easy and not include any "inbound" links to the pages at all. So if anyone wants to "test" this to see if what we are saying is fact or not, then just set up the 3 pages and the results will then speak for themselves.

Also, to give more clarification as to what was "implied" ...

Mel said, "If my site is the only site to use a particular and obscure keyword I could get a #1 ranking for that keyword no matter what keyword density I used."

Notice Mel indicates where the page is located, on his Site. So in our example, these three pages are on Mel's Site (but they could be on ANY one Site) with the same file names (like ... pagename.htm, pagename.html and pagename.shtml) as well and all located in the same directory (preferably a new special directory for this test, but not necessarily so) ... We're just trying to answer any possible questions ahead of time here.

Originally posted by ihelpyou

If ALL else is the same, including the link pop, PageRank, and all else, then yes, the page with a density of 6% would be number 1.

Thank you Doug! ... This IS EXACTLY what we said. AND that is ALL we said.

We never mentioned or even "implied" that we were "factoring in" any other "SEO techniques" into the "math" for discovering a certain keyword density "range" necessary for the optimum opportunity to acheive a top SERP (Search Engine Ranking Position).

We also never implied (or meant to imply, if some thought we did) that this keyword density range was the ONLY factor you need to use to get a top SERP.

We know it takes more "SEO techniques" than that alone.

And this is our goal, to take each "SEO technique" and apply a "range" (the "math" if you will) to start FROM for our newest readers to have a starting point from which to optimize. We plan to provide a step-by-step process with actual "workable" and researched specifics rather than the "vague" generalities one usually finds in SEO books, reports or articles.

Remember also that the title of our eBook (http://www.iwon.net/articles/seo/google-seo-ebook.shtml) is ...

"Everything That You Always Wanted To Know About Google But Didn't Know To Ask"

... So we hope to be discussing and learning more about areas that may not be the general and most common "SEO techniques", but more so those that are passed over lightly or not discussed much at all.

Please keep in mind that when you ask a question about our research that we are speaking from the point of view that the reader has no idea what SEO is.

That is why we were misunderstood when we said ... "anyone with just a little bit of SEO knowledge about Google would know that the first phrase you should optimize for is the URL, directory and file name. But maybe our 'assumption' is not as obvious as we think it is."

In our Google SEO eBook, one of the first things we will point out to our readers about the various "SEO techniques" Google uses to rank their Sites, will be the fact that since Google is "factoring into their alogorithm" the URL, directory and file names of pages, it would be in their best interest to name their URL, directories and files with their particular search terms, since this will give them a "boost" in the search results and from time to time depending on how much "weight" Google gives this "SEO technique", it can be quite significant as evidenced by our research (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=4076#post4076) above.

We just assumed that anyone involved with SEO for Google would know to get a URL with their "primary" search term as their domain name (or as close to it as possible) and that if they didn't then they did so for a very good reason, such as an already branded company name or the likes.

We do understand that there are lots of folks who get their domain names without this knowledge, and that is why we "implied" that you can still use this "SEO technique" in creating your directory and file, without having to get a new domain. (Of course it won't be as BIG a boost in the rankings as it would be if your domain and search term are one in the same, but in some cases it can make enough of a difference to increase your page enough to be found.)

We simply advise folks to get such a domain, directory or file name right from the start of the optimization process as we assumed all other "SEO students" would too, and I know most forums we have read do not give this "SEO technique" much influence, so it's not really openly talked about, but we assumed that it was at least discussed privately with their paying clients. Plus we also understand that most "SEO students" won't lay all their "SEO cards" on the table for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by MazY

What concerns me about this particular thread, and I mean no disrespect here, Sharon & Roy, but you do appear to shifting the goal-posts each time in the effort to produce a correct result.

I quote "anyone with just a little bit of SEO knowledge about Google would know that the first phrase you should optimize for is the URL, directory and file name. But maybe our 'assumption' is not as obvious as we think it is."

Hi MazY,

No disrespect taken.

We can certainly see your point about how it "appeared" to be that way to you (and maybe others, too) but I hope you can now better understand that we are directing all of our postings to the reader who has NO SEO knowledge at all and who desires to "absorb" most if not all of the various "SEO techniques" that Google factors into how they rank their pages BEFORE they actually start the "blueprints" for designing / optimizing their Web Site and BEFORE they actually give any thought to their domain name, which to us is so very, very important, but that is another chapter all by itself, so will leave it at that for now.

Originally posted by MazY

Lastly, and you can take this particular piece as you feel is right, but I am confused. I remember not so long ago, you joined the forum expressing a desire to learn, if my memory serves me well. In that short time, you have now reached the dizzy heights of being able to remind everyone that Always Remember: SEO is a PROCESS and not a PROJECT

Yes, we do have the desire to learn, an intense desire, and we have learned since joining the forums.

Not quite sure what your implication is though, but if you thought that we did not know anything about SEO for Google before coming here than that is incorrect. There are things that we did know before reading and posting here and there are still just as many if not many, many more things that we "desire" and "need" to learn about Google's algorithms.

We simply added that reminder, because that is one of the first things we learned about SEO, not only for Google but for any Search Engine and just wanted the new folks as well as others reading that did not already know that, to always be mindful of that.

That way they don't get too disapointed if their Web Site doesn't make it to the #1 position (or even the top 30) after they assumed that they did everything they could to place it there the first time (project).

It was added to also "encourage" folks to remember to change a little of this and a little of that on their page(s) that would make a difference and maybe place them in the top spots, and if not, to then try, try again (process).

Top rankings can take a long time to achieve and some folks just don't have the patience, so that was just a gentle reminder to be patient is all, and nothing more.

Mel

17-08-2001, 00:22/12:22AM

HI Sharon and Roy:

Well ..... I admire your persistence and hope you do not take my rather negative comments in the wrong way. The purpose of this forum is to provide members with a vehicle for discussing SEO openly, and to provide all the help we can to others. If I perceive that you are travellig down a long and winding road with probable disappointment looming at the end, I feel it my role as a moderator to point this out to you. You are, of course, not obligated in any way to take that advice. Having said that........

I still must disagree with you, as in order to prove your point you introduce impossible stipulations.

To stipulate that everything else is the same is to deviate from the real world into a realm of the unknown. There is simply no real world possibilty that "everything else is the same" when comparing two or more pages. Even in your example of three pages on the same site they cannot be identical, since duplicate page names are not allowed (and as you point out the URL is one of the factors in the ranking process), and they will certainly have to have different content or they will not be allowed and they will almost always have different links and page ranks.

The other problem I have with your proposed approach is the breaking down of the Algo into components and assuming that each is able to stand on its own. Why must the algo be force fit into these boxes? What makes you suppose that Google programmers used simple numerical formulas rather than boolean for instance?

As long as we are supposing, lets just suppose that the google algo says, (for a hypothetical, but reasonable example) "if competing pages equal>10<100, then do such and such, else if competing pages >100<1000 then do another thing, else if competing pages >1000<10,000 do this else if competing pages>10,000 then do this. And lets further supose that each of those program branches has five more branches based on Page rank, and those 25 branches have five more branches based on keywords and ............."

This IMO is a much more likely scenario (not the exact formula above but the use of boolean operators rather than numerical) and more advanced programming would probably use programs which can change their direction based on a learning process, which would be able to tweak the algo based on changes in the searches.

While there certainly will be some numerical operators in these formulas, each of the individual ranking formulas for, say, keyword density could be totally different based on a hundred or more other factors. I.e. I do not feel it likely at all that there is just ONE formula for say, keyword density, (or for that matter that they do their ranking by using keyword density at all)

I can understand that your concept of breaking things down is an attempt to simplify things in order to make them easier to understand, but to make the assumption that this is a valid approach is taking far too much for granted.

Let me introduce a real world example. There are many others who have tried a similar approach to understanding the
ranking algos. One of the arguably most successful of these is First Place Software, the makers of the WebPosition **** program. They have a feature called page critic, which breaks down the major search engines into categories similiar to what you are suggesting and then provides you with suggestions as to how to improve your page for a particular SE. They back stop this with a comparsion feature of the top ranking "n" pages.

If you compare the top pages for a particular keyword on a particular page, you will find that they almost all fall way outside the parameters that are suggested by this program. You still have to go in and analyze what these top pages are doing to get their ranks. Pleae do not think I am knocking this program, it has its uses, but it must be used knowledgeably if you are to get results.

Now lets look the "Doug Heil" school of SEO. he demonstrates (and freely gives this knowledge to all his readers regularly) how you can get very good results in a very simple and inexpensive fashion. IMO "Nothing succeeds like success" or "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

MazY

17-08-2001, 04:35/04:35AM

Originally posted by Sharon & Roy
For testing and research purposes, let's make it easy and not include any "inbound" links to the pages at all. So if anyone wants to "test" this to see if what we are saying is fact or not, then just set up the 3 pages and the results will then speak for themselves.

Well, of course they will. You are creating an experiment that is strictly engineered to give you the answer that you seek. That is not research. That is stating the obvious. However, as contibutors to this thread have constantly expressed, your perfect scenario is 100% unrealistic in the SEO world.

As a result of your scenarios being totally unrealistic, you simply serve to lessen the credence that your "research" may have had at the offset.

As Mel rightly stated, the possible mathematics of the Google ranking alone could be based on any number of changable factors. It is extremely unlikely that there is a "one size fits all" equation. Hell, for all we know, they could well give an extra ranking for page names with a "D" in them or for those pages that link to pages that do not contain 50% more words than what is on your page. Highly unlikely I grant you but that is the sort of thing that you are up against. The only thing that you can be certain of is that the algo will be complex and based upon a great many factors that, I suspect, could be changed at any given minute.

Mel also cited WPG as a good example of how similar attempts at calculating the Google (and other SEs) algo have been made. Have you used this? As also stated, despite its best efforts, it can produce some horribly incorrect or widely suspect results. The bizarre thing is that one usually only gets to see why they are wrong when one uses the human touch to investigate further. For example, it can tell you that a page is using "invisible text" but it doesn't care to tell you how much effect that invisible text is having on its results. It will tell you that there is Javascript on the page but again, it doesn't tell you how much effect that is having on the results.

Finally, as I fear this thread has already gone around in a loop once, I shall say that I do wish you the best of luck with your "research" but I think that you are treading a fine line between providing logical answers and just shaping the pieces to fit the jigsaw. Your book should certainly make for an interesting read!

Alas, I fear that I should now spend some time on the other threads which I have neglected. Thanks for the topic in the first place!

Sharon & Roy

17-08-2001, 05:57/05:57AM

We wish to sincerely thank you all for the wonderful and insightful feedback and discussion about keyword density.

One last question we have to ask before closing out this thread and that is, would the following be accurate enough to put in the book or how would you word it?

Are the percentages within your own findings to be accurate, do they need to be higher, lower or a larger range? We just feel the need to give the newbies (and all the readers actually) some place to start from. Just saying to repeat your keywords a few times but not too much because then it's spamdexing is just not the kind of book we want to put together, you see what we mean? Thanks again to all who have helped us.

------<><><>---- • Google SEO Facts & Figures • ---<><><>-------

Here's how we'd put this fact about keyword density into words.

Given that all other things are equal, there is a certain keyword
density (range) that will give you the optimum opportunity to be
ranked at the top of the results.

What that exact density is will be subject to change as Google
sees fit. An excellent starting point we recommend you optimize
for on your first attempt is in the 4% to 7% range to be
safe. If you are a bit more daring and Google's algo is set a bit
higher for it's current indexing then a density of 8% to 12% is
safe. Although pages have been known to carry higher keyword
densities than these and still acquire a top listing, we don't
advise it, due to the fact that evenutally your page will probably
drop and usually drop way down due to the fact that this is a
spamdexing technique referred to as keyword stuffing.

------<><><>---- • Google SEO Facts & Figures • ---<><><>-------

MazY

17-08-2001, 06:43/06:43AM

<Puts his editor hat on for a moment>

If it were me then it would be reworded to:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"All things being equal (which they rarely are in SEO) there is a certain keyword density (range) that may help you in getting ranked towards the top of the search results. The exact keyword density range is subject to change at any time by Google and without notice.

An ideal range for starting should be between 4% and 7%. In some cases however, top ranking sites have been known to carry up to a 12% or as little as a 2% keyword density. We do not advise the 12% figure. Not if, like others, having your pages dropped, without notice, by the search engine because of 'keyword stuffing' concerns you. Choosing the 2% may well result in your pages being buried so deep in the rankings that you need a search party to find them!

Experiment. Start at the lower range. Wait. Evaluate your ranking. Adjust if needed until you find the optimum density for your pages to achieve a high ranking position."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

However, all that said, one must keep in mind that not everyone has the access to tools that will measure the density. In which case, you may want to add something about x amount of keywords per xxx amount of words. This is, in actual fact, the way that I work as I write my pages. Generally speaking, it is a very quick way to approximate the density that you are writing. Though one has to keep stemming in mind too. It certainly works for me as a quick and dirty way to keep within the limits that I set for myself. Those with MS Word can always paste the contents into it and use the Statistics to see how many words they have on the page and then use the highlighting tool to get a visual indicator of the density.

The latter is an ideal way to work. You would be amazed how easy it becomes to instantly look at some text when the key-phrases are highlighted and think "SPAM!"

Hope this helps....