What is better for search engine optimization, blogs or "non blog" websites - test results here

[webber1]

An ironic test would have been to test for "blog"

[jamawebinc]

Originally Posted by Preben Frenning

The test is far from thorough enough to give any usable results.

I thought it was thorough enough to show consistent results.. I tested different niches, general keywords, very focused keywords, and a definite pattern was seen immediately.

Originally Posted by Preben Frenning

I would think there are many reasons for why you saw most non-wordpress sites.

One of them being the age of the sites. Did you check this?
Google often prefers old "established" content over new.

This test was only about putting to the test the generally accepted statements along the lines of "google prefers blogs" etc.

Thus giving people the impression that if they use a blog over a "regular" website it will somehow rank better in google. Or if they use wordpress, they will have great rankings automatically.

Nobody clarifies the statement of the original test and says - "if you use wordpress, and have an established website, and a domain that is 5 years old and over, you will have great seo in google."

The statement that "google prefers established or older domains" is another test to be done.

Originally Posted by Preben Frenning

Like others have stated earlier, there are more "other" sites than wordpress sites on the web now.

Is it now the other way around? With the ease of setting up a blog (one of the biggest benefits of blogging) how do you know there aren't more blogs now than "other" websites?

Originally Posted by Preben Frenning

And in terms of value, you are able to create by far more sites using wordpress, than with a normal html-builder, as well as it's easier to update and add functions to. Not to mention the learning curve. - So earnings compared to the time you spend creating the site is better with wordpress. Though off-topic, I'd still say it counts, as I'm sure people will read this thread to decide whether to use wordpress or not.

Like you said, that has nothing to do with this thread. However, this is just a matter of taste, I actually find a software program like Xsitepro much easier and efficient to use than wordpress.

Originally Posted by Preben Frenning

Another factor of wordpress sites, is the theme, and how clean it is coded. (Regarding CSS for example) Some themes are crap, and others are awesome.

This applies to every type of site, not just blogs.

Originally Posted by Preben Frenning

Try searching for "tech house tracklist" in google.
26,400,000 results, and I'm 5.th.

Also: progressive tracklist (9.th position, 17mill results)
And best of all: tech house track list (43,7 MILL, and I have 4.th and 5.th position)

The site only has a few posts and pages and barely any promo. (The searches was made without quotes btw.)

I'm pretty sure that would never have happened if I built it as a static html site.

According to the google keywords tool

tech house tracklist: has 140 global searches in the google keywords tool.

tech house track list: has 58 global searches

progressive tracklist: has "not enough data"

So your competition is not that big at all.

When google returns a search and it says out of about 12,600,000 that is just the number google has indexed that feels may be possible to have even a tiny bit of relevance to this search term...

but, the search terms are hardly searched for at all thus making it easy to rank for if a page is optimized for it - whether it be regular static html or a wordpress post.

In fact, doing a short test, here were the results for one of the search terms you mentioned.

1 - non blog
2 - non blog (a blog catalog listing)
3 - non blog (forum)
4 - blog (you)
5 - blog (you, indented)
6 - non blog (catalog)
7 - non blog (catalog, indented)
8 - non blog (catalog using datalife cms)
9 - non blog (made with jamroom)
10 - blog (myspace blog)

Originally Posted by Preben Frenning

@jamawebinc - "So, with at least 200 million blogs out there, why don't they dominate search results in google?"

Because:

1. Not all blogs are wordpress
2. Few people know SEO (Of those 200mill)
3. Many of them have junk content
4. Many of them have duplicate content, and are autogenerated
4. Many of them are about nothing. Ex.: "What I did today"

These 5 reasons can be applied to all types of webpages, not just blogs.

When you say, not all blogs are wordpress, does that mean there is some sort of test results that says something like wordpress blogs do 28% better in google than typepad blogs or blogger blogs?

Not all html on static webpages is coded correctly yet a page can still rank high in the search engines.

your other 4 reasons apply to any type of webpage at all, not just blogs.

When someone makes a list of something like 7 Reasons to Use Wordpress or 10 Reasons to have a blog over a regular website...

And one of those reasons listed is consistently something like the following...

"Google prefers blogs"
"Google ranks blogs better than static pages"
"Google loves blogs"

If these statements were true, it would be easy to spot all the blogs in google's search engine results. But the test result in the original post shows this is just not true.

[max922]

Originally Posted by tonygreg

Google likes blogs then static sites due to its SEO frindly structure. That's why I can say Blogs are more profitable.

Yes its true Google Like Blogs Just Because Content update daily or on Weekly Basis.. and also Due to its friendly Structure .. I prefer Blogs.

[waqasnu]

I think blog is best because it is easy to manage