Guys Take A Look At This Article

[jonnyhardbaked]

I have read this article and I was shocked! You can read it as well and you might find something.

16 SEO Tactics That Will NOT Bring Targeted Google Visitors

[Jack Chase]

That is an interesting article - I agree that meta keywords and keyword stuffing is useless for SEO, but I don't think they are right about this:

"While it's always a good idea to have great headlines on a site that may or may not use a keyword phrase, whether it's wrapped in H-whatever tags is of no consequence to your rankings."

Are they trying to say that heading tags have no SEO value at all? I know it is possible to rank for a keyword that does not even appear on your site (e.g. like with a Google Bomb), but to suggest that having your keywords in the heading tags does not have any SEO benefit sounds wrong to me. What do you think? (I may have misunderstood the article though! )

[jonnyhardbaked]

I still have no opinion for it.

[TroelsJepsen]

It looks interesting, but I don't really know how much of it to believe. Some of what is stated in the article goes directly against, what I've heard from SEO experts on this forum, that I believe deliver very good results for their clients and customers.

[nicktyler]

I've seen this before and thought that a couple of the things don't sound quite right. It's mostly a good article but there are pretty short but sweeping statements to the contrary of what is normally considered common knoweledge. I mean it might be right but there is no evidence presented in this article, just what seems to be written as opinion presented as fact.

[Kay King]

Good advice in the article - people like to argue with several of the points but maybe only because they like to argue. When you find an article like this it's up to you to decide what you will believe and use and what you won't.

In forums, people are not always as expert as they claim - and info tends to get passed around and around as fact when perhaps it is "old fact" and outdated information.

kay

[paulgl]

The thing is, not many people here ever promote that stuff.
For SEO, that is. Most promote more of a cumulative effect from
content, backlinks, and linkbait.

Just because they won't "bring" targeted visitors, does not make
all of them useless.

Meta keywords, sitemap, and search engine submissions are indeed
not needed for anything.

The flip side is adsense. Some of those techniques bring more
targeted ads. While I don't subscribe to all of them, the <h1>
is fairly high up. I'm only bringing adsense in the mix as this is
the part of the forum on adsense and people should be aware
of some things that don't work for SEO, but give a little extra
target for adsense.

But I don't see many people here actively promoting any of that
list for SEO purposes.

Paul

[VladWorks]

Unfortunately I don't have time today to go over all the points in detail but generally when an article is filled with "Nuff Said" you tend to question the credibility of the writer.

I read through many of the points presented and yes you can get away with no meta tags, no h1 tags, and things of that nature and still rank well but you just make your life harder on yourself.

There has already been proof that you can rank a blank page with no content whatsoever but that does not mean you should try it that way and expect good results.

When we do SEO we like to use every advantage we can get since often times that H1 tag could be the difference between two websites. I wouldn't want to be that site that didn't bother to do these simple and valuable SEO changes.

[Kay King]

What makes her such an expert?

Working online since 1995 tends to educate you.

So why - Mr Smith - are you reporting my death in another thread? I don't know you - and you don't know me either.

[mrelosa]

Originally Posted by VladWorks

When we do SEO we like to use every advantage we can get since often times that H1 tag could be the difference between two websites

I agree with you.

[John Durham]

Whew! Thank Kay. Close one!

[kimseo]

Interesting article

[GeorgR.]

I have no reason to believe that H1/H2 tags are not important. Unless otherwise proven to me i consider them very important.

[jonnyhardbaked]

Maybe some of the points are true. But others are doubtful.

[stephencammeron]

Originally Posted by dillpickle

"If your site architecture stinks and important optimized pages are buried too deeply to be easily spidered, an XML site map submitted via Webmaster Tools isn't going to make them show up in the search results for their targeted keywords. "


Then following the last sentence they continue by saying THIS...

"At best it will make Google aware that those pages exist."

HU? Ok..they just totally contradicted their-self..Letting google know your pages EXIST is a HUGE part of getting them indexed.. How do you get indexed if google doesnt know you exist?...DUH

I'm just wondering if you really understand what's with it.
Where on earth did you learn that indexing and getting ranked for targeted keywords are the same?

Showing up a webpage in the search results for their targeted keywords is far different from indexing a webpage. I just hope you do know what are the difference between those two because you certainly talks alot.

Just a piece of advice, better to start practicing "reading between the lines" so get embarrassed when someone questioned your comprehension.

[jonnyhardbaked]

Ok guys. This thread was posted months ago. But I just want to read everyone's point of view about this for the second time. This will be an interesting topic to debate!