| Author |
Topic |
n/a |
 Posted - 10/03/2006 : 09:25:29
|
Stumbling across a link Kurt placed on one of his recent posts, I arrived at this page:
http://www.tuelz.com/big-seo.html
I spent 30 minutes of FASCINATING reading - and learned a TON about SEO/SEM, some of which I had known, and much I hadn't.
Oh, and I immediately uninstalled my Google Toolbar!
Thanks, Kurt. And EVERYONE here who does (or wants to do) stuff related to SEO'ing their site MUST check it out. Be sure to clear up some time in your schedule, because a lot of it is concentrated reading.
Hope posting this here helps a few more Warriors.
All success
Dr.Mani |
|
Mike Folsom |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 09:35:44
|
Hi Dr.Mani,
Thanks for the recommending this.
It's a great site.
Mike |
 |
|
Writertiff |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 09:42:09
|
Wow - that is weird! I noticed something the other day about my gmail account. Whenever I open an email from a client or friend, the ad changes to reflect what's in our email exchanges.
For example, an email to my mom generated mom ads. An email to a client generated a rich jerk ad. lol Very weird to realize it's tracking what's in my emails - although I really don't care, so I'm keeping it :)
Thanks for the link, Dr. Mani!
tiff |
|
|
jimbob |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 09:46:52
|
Printed it out and read it last night. Awesome information.
Nice one, Kurt.
James |
|
|
zapseo |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 09:55:03
|
Writertiff -- you didn't know that !?!?!
Yes, Google "reads" your email to show appropriate contextual ads.
Truly the sweet spot of targeted marketing...
Yes -- Google is taking over the world.
The amount of information Google knows about each of us is downright scary;
there's a reason why it is sometimes referred to as "Big Brother".
Live JoyFully!
Judy |
|
|
n/a |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 10:01:33
|
Wow! Some FAST readers in here!
It took me MORE than 30 minutes to digest this stuff - but even if you skimmed it quickly, be sure to keep thinking about it.
Dr.Mani |
|
|
lisaroberson |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 14:41:32
|
30 minutes - I'm gonna need longer than that! wow - that's a lot of information!
Thanks for the heads up, Dr. Mani! |
|
|
John Vaux |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 14:46:26
|
Always good to get a link like this
Thank you
John |
|
|
n/a |
|
n/a |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 14:51:08
|
Great post Mani.. thanks for that link... I have now read some of it... will read the rest for sure..
Thanks again.
Rob |
|
|
David Reed |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 15:00:50
|
| At least none of us doubt the existence of Google. Do we? |
|
|
Starscream |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 15:15:23
|
| I like the graphic of the linking strategy. Does anyone know of other graphics for linking strategies? |
|
|
Kurt |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 16:27:23
|
Thanks a bunch Dr. Mani for the review. I appreciate it.
While Google collecting info about us isn't new, how Google can use the info really hasn't been talked about a lot.
Also, no SEOer (to my knowledge) has taken the next little logical step and made a conclusion that this info could/can/is/will be used for ranking YOUR pages in the engines.
Sure, we all know Google is collecting info, but no one took the next logical leap.
Also, let me make a point or two that isn't related to SEO and is is on topic for this forum.
My conclusion on the Big Page of SEO is a little incomplete.
The future isn't a race to acquire "virtual real estate". That's a false premise in many ways.
The key to super-success is to acquire PEOPLE. By this, I mean folks that will contribute to YOUR site for free. They will write the content, promo, market, etc.
There's a limited number of contributors in any market and the next rush is to get these people, not to build "virtual real estate".
Every attempt should be made to acquire these folks. And they are real folks, not "virtual" anything.
These contributors are what are building the most popular sites on the Net today. Craig's List, YouTube, Technorati are all built by contributors.
Myspace is another, and it was sold for how much?
These sites are the most profitable on the web, not direct marketing. This isn't a knock on direct marketers, as that method is better for most.
However, a million a day once in a while doesn't compare to what is being done by just developing a mega sites built by contributors.
Look at the sites all the major portals are bidding over like FaceBook.
What this means to us is that we can "niche" this. While the "everything" niches are filled, such as YouTube offers videos about everything, the big MAJOR niches are still left unfilled.
While niche marketing now means an ebook about "healthy dog food for big dog breeds", there is a huge niche right now for a "pets" YouTube type site.
Add a forum, a social bookmarking site for pet links only, a Myspace for pet lovers, a blog service for pet owners, and do some serious marketing and promo, and here's a mega network in the making.
But the key is, how many contributors are there for the pet market? There's plenty, but it isn't unlimited.
Those that can reach and keep the "contributors" for their niche can have their members write the newsletters, write forum posts, moderate forum posts, make videos, create doorway pages, update your RSS pheeds, give you ping opportunities, put up personal blogs and profile pages, as well as viral marketing for you, all for free.
This does take some resources, like tech and marketing/buzz skills. But there are some serious niches that are in need of some social sites focused on particular topics.
To me, the race is to identify these niches and acquire the Contributors that are building billion dollar sites for free.
|
|
|
TimPhelan |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 17:16:22
|
Excellent points Kurt. I don't think these people are something that can be "aquiered" though. They will always be able to go to the next new thing at any moment. So there is a limited amount of them, but because they are not tied to a site, they will always be up for grabs.
I do agree the best internet marketers today are those who make these viral sites that have the visitors contributing the content and promoting the sites and not necessarily the ones selling e-books and how to courses to other internet marketers. However, many of the direct marketers know this as well.
Tim
quote:
The key to super-success is to acquire PEOPLE. By this, I mean folks that will contribute to YOUR site for free. They will write the content, promo, market, etc.
There's a limited number of contributors in any market and the next rush is to get these people, not to build "virtual real estate".
Every attempt should be made to acquire these folks. And they are real folks, not "virtual" anything.
These contributors are what are building the most popular sites on the Net today. Craig's List, YouTube, Technorati are all built by contributors.
Myspace is another, and it was sold for how much?
These sites are the most profitable on the web, not direct marketing. This isn't a knock on direct marketers, as that method is better for most.
However, a million a day once in a while doesn't compare to what is being done by just developing a mega sites built by contributors.
|
|
|
Kurt |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 19:05:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by TimPhelan
Excellent points Kurt. I don't think these people are something that can be "aquiered" though. They will always be able to go to the next new thing at any moment. So there is a limited amount of them, but because they are not tied to a site, they will always be up for grabs.
I do agree the best internet marketers today are those who make these viral sites that have the visitors contributing the content and promoting the sites and not necessarily the ones selling e-books and how to courses to other internet marketers. However, many of the direct marketers know this as well.
Tim
Tim...
"Aquired" probably isn't the best vocabulary word. But from a marketing point of view it may be more accurate to say "get addicted to your site".
Everyone...
However, many of the direct marketers know this as well.
This is kind of my point, that there's virtually no one discussing building these types of businesses.
There's plenty of IMers better at the marketing stuff than I am. But if we only focus on the SEO/SEM aspect of this, then I probably have 99.9% of them beat on this one aspect.
And this is really the focus of the article as it applies to SEO, but this would be off topic on this particular thread so I only posted in the most general terms.
But, as this concept applies to SEO is that it is these social network type sites that will pass all aspects of "People Rank", as well as deliver tons of original content. And because of this, these type sites are the only logical conclusion to the spy vs. spy mentality of the engines vs. SEOers.
Listen to the signs...Pay attention to the rumors about forums being ranking higher and higher.
|
|
|
TimPhelan |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 19:16:14
|
I definately need more addicted visitors. :-) That is the hard part isn't it? How do you get them to come back to the site over and over and loving it so much that they promote it on their own?
I am reading the SEO report now Kurt. Dr. Mani is right. Great stuff there.
Tim |
|
|
n/a |
Posted - 10/03/2006 : 19:35:38
|
quote:
The key to super-success is to acquire PEOPLE. By this, I mean folks that will contribute to YOUR site for free. They will write the content, promo, market, etc.
There's a limited number of contributors in any market and the next rush is to get these people, not to build "virtual real estate".
Every attempt should be made to acquire these folks. And they are real folks, not "virtual" anything.
These contributors are what are building the most popular sites on the Net today. Craig's List, YouTube, Technorati are all built by contributors.
Myspace is another, and it was sold for how much?
These sites are the most profitable on the web, not direct marketing. This isn't a knock on direct marketers, as that method is better for most.
However, a million a day once in a while doesn't compare to what is being done by just developing a mega sites built by contributors.
Look at the sites all the major portals are bidding over like FaceBook.
What this means to us is that we can "niche" this. While the "everything" niches are filled, such as YouTube offers videos about everything, the big MAJOR niches are still left unfilled.
While niche marketing now means an ebook about "healthy dog food for big dog breeds", there is a huge niche right now for a "pets" YouTube type site.
Add a forum, a social bookmarking site for pet links only, a Myspace for pet lovers, a blog service for pet owners, and do some serious marketing and promo, and here's a mega network in the making.
But the key is, how many contributors are there for the pet market? There's plenty, but it isn't unlimited.
Those that can reach and keep the "contributors" for their niche can have their members write the newsletters, write forum posts, moderate forum posts, make videos, create doorway pages, update your RSS pheeds, give you ping opportunities, put up personal blogs and profile pages, as well as viral marketing for you, all for free.
This does take some resources, like tech and marketing/buzz skills. But there are some serious niches that are in need of some social sites focused on particular topics.
To me, the race is to identify these niches and acquire the Contributors that are building billion dollar sites for free.
Thanks Kurt....
THAT was priceless!
A fanstic "thinking outside the box" example.. and it sounds as though you are the one who has seen the wood, while we all see the trees!
Great post, great article, thanks Mani for pointing it out.
Take care.
Rob |
|
|
frank117 |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 00:25:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kurt
The future isn't a race to acquire "virtual real estate". That's a false premise in many ways.
The key to super-success is to acquire PEOPLE. By this, I mean folks that will contribute to YOUR site for free. They will write the content, promo, market, etc.
There's a limited number of contributors in any market and the next rush is to get these people, not to build "virtual real estate".
Every attempt should be made to acquire these folks. And they are real folks, not "virtual" anything.
These contributors are what are building the most popular sites on the Net today. Craig's List, YouTube, Technorati are all built by contributors.
Myspace is another, and it was sold for how much?
These sites are the most profitable on the web, not direct marketing. This isn't a knock on direct marketers, as that method is better for most.
However, a million a day once in a while doesn't compare to what is being done by just developing a mega sites built by contributors.
Thanks Kurt!
Could this be the emerging big money making trend!Levearging other people's content and shovel the money into our own bank!How do we go about that? Where can we find the free scripts for these kinds of megasite?
Frank |
|
|
TimPhelan |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 00:44:19
|
quote:
Thanks Kurt!
Could this be the emerging big money making trend!Levearging other people's content and shovel the money into our own bank!How do we go about that? Where can we find the free scripts for these kinds of megasite?
Frank
This has emerged already. I don't know about free scripts, but the best one I have seen for a myspace type social networking is here:
http://affiliates.phpfox.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=290
By the way, we are coming out with a script simular to craig's list soon. Look for a WSO.
Tim
|
|
|
CTABUK |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 04:00:43
|
| Thanks DrMani, it certainly is worth the read. Not saying I'm scrapping my Google toolbar, but I get the message loud and clear. Thanks. David |
|
|
Thebizgirl |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 06:22:29
|
Great post Kurt. Social Networking is definitely something that we will be seeing more of and it will be only a short time before more sites pop up and do extremely well.
I have been thinking about some sites that I think will do well for quite some time, it's just taking the next steps as it is a mammoth and quite daunting task. One that I am extremely interested in partaking in.
quote:
Originally posted by Kurt
Thanks a bunch Dr. Mani for the review. I appreciate it.
While Google collecting info about us isn't new, how Google can use the info really hasn't been talked about a lot.
Also, no SEOer (to my knowledge) has taken the next little logical step and made a conclusion that this info could/can/is/will be used for ranking YOUR pages in the engines.
Sure, we all know Google is collecting info, but no one took the next logical leap.
Also, let me make a point or two that isn't related to SEO and is is on topic for this forum.
My conclusion on the Big Page of SEO is a little incomplete.
The future isn't a race to acquire "virtual real estate". That's a false premise in many ways.
The key to super-success is to acquire PEOPLE. By this, I mean folks that will contribute to YOUR site for free. They will write the content, promo, market, etc.
There's a limited number of contributors in any market and the next rush is to get these people, not to build "virtual real estate".
Every attempt should be made to acquire these folks. And they are real folks, not "virtual" anything.
These contributors are what are building the most popular sites on the Net today. Craig's List, YouTube, Technorati are all built by contributors.
Myspace is another, and it was sold for how much?
These sites are the most profitable on the web, not direct marketing. This isn't a knock on direct marketers, as that method is better for most.
However, a million a day once in a while doesn't compare to what is being done by just developing a mega sites built by contributors.
Look at the sites all the major portals are bidding over like FaceBook.
What this means to us is that we can "niche" this. While the "everything" niches are filled, such as YouTube offers videos about everything, the big MAJOR niches are still left unfilled.
While niche marketing now means an ebook about "healthy dog food for big dog breeds", there is a huge niche right now for a "pets" YouTube type site.
Add a forum, a social bookmarking site for pet links only, a Myspace for pet lovers, a blog service for pet owners, and do some serious marketing and promo, and here's a mega network in the making.
But the key is, how many contributors are there for the pet market? There's plenty, but it isn't unlimited.
Those that can reach and keep the "contributors" for their niche can have their members write the newsletters, write forum posts, moderate forum posts, make videos, create doorway pages, update your RSS pheeds, give you ping opportunities, put up personal blogs and profile pages, as well as viral marketing for you, all for free.
This does take some resources, like tech and marketing/buzz skills. But there are some serious niches that are in need of some social sites focused on particular topics.
To me, the race is to identify these niches and acquire the Contributors that are building billion dollar sites for free.
|
|
|
Zonn King |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 08:35:27
|
| Thanks Dr. Mani. I would have never found this myself. Fantastic report by Kurt. Got me paranoid about google though. Got to delete that Google toolbar. And gmail, its a great service, but saving my mail after I delete it, that's going too far. |
|
|
smnash |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 09:03:03
|
Thanks to Dr Mani and to Kurt (obviously) for the report
- I look forward to reading it ASAP. I've already (slowly)
started thinking about user generated content being the
way forward. And I uninstalled my Google toolbar a couple of
years ago (though I have only just started using Gmail - d'oh!)
Steve |
|
|
Canada |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 11:21:43
|
Thanks for the link, there lots of really great information there. My own SEO efforts have been somewhat haphazard as I bounce from site to site and back again, but Kurt's report makes it sound as if I'm actually doing the right thing by changing strategies throughout my sites.
One thing I meant to ask. Kurt talks about "established traffic". What is that? 50/day? 100/day? Whatever you decide it is? |
|
|
cyndinar |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 12:30:24
|
From the moment i saw that, they know the cursor course and where i stop the cursor each time i visit a page , i knew that they have the size of our underwares.So how we can take that and make work in our advandage?
Check my free report and find the answers!
Basil |
|
|
FaastGuy |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 17:16:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by drmani
Stumbling across a link Kurt placed on one of his recent posts, I arrived at this page:
http://www.tuelz.com/big-seo.html
I spent 30 minutes of FASCINATING reading - and learned a TON about SEO/SEM, some of which I had known, and much I hadn't.
Oh, and I immediately uninstalled my Google Toolbar!
All success
Dr.Mani
Took me longer to read, but it sure is interesting. I agree with you 100% Dr. Mani. Fascinating. |
|
|
moodykitty |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 12:59:10
|
interesting... haven't finished it yet, but did I read this correctly?
re: GOOGLE SANDBOX
Getting sandboxed is when a new site ranks highly for a few weeks? I thought sandboxing meant not being indexed....
"Let's say Google's "SandBox" is really just a "qualifying race", where NEW pages containing certain keywords were given artificially high rankings when first indexed to establish high enough click through numbers to make tracking human behavior on the pages accurate.
("Sandbox" is a term used to describe the way Google seems to rank a new page highly for a couple of weeks, then the page disappears.)
The artificially high initial rankings may be needed to give enough clicks to a page to have a decent sample to use for "people rank", which will be recalculated after the "people rank" data has been collected."
|
|
|
n/a |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 13:09:49
|
| WOW - Thankyou for this Dr Mani. This is amazing :) Appreciate it! |
|
|
Kurt |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 05:09:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by moodykitty
interesting... haven't finished it yet, but did I read this correctly?
re: GOOGLE SANDBOX
Getting sandboxed is when a new site ranks highly for a few weeks? I thought sandboxing meant not being indexed....
"Let's say Google's "SandBox" is really just a "qualifying race", where NEW pages containing certain keywords were given artificially high rankings when first indexed to establish high enough click through numbers to make tracking human behavior on the pages accurate.
("Sandbox" is a term used to describe the way Google seems to rank a new page highly for a couple of weeks, then the page disappears.)
The artificially high initial rankings may be needed to give enough clicks to a page to have a decent sample to use for "people rank", which will be recalculated after the "people rank" data has been collected."
Actually, I wrote that part of the article years ago. Sandboxing has changed just slightly since, but the principles are still the same.
"Sandboxing" is when a site isn't included in the results due to being too new. However, you will also find that pages still will be indexed at first, then dropped, either permanently or temporarily.
Here's another (new) Warrior thread:
http://www.warriorforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=113407
The Google Sandbox is one possibility, as is People Rank, as well as many other options. However, we need to be aware of this dynamic.
|
|
|
theGypsy |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 19:54:53
|
Kurt.. can ya take the pain though? I liked much of it..other parts were, well.. in need of updating let’s say…
Yeah… I am new here and should generally keep my head down but…nnaaaawwwww… Love me or leave me… I am a ranter… ( #3 for SEO Rants I believe ...lol )
I gotta hammer a few here folks…lol
TO start with some verges on outright MFA and Web Spam… jeezzz.. sorry but correct away….
quote:
“that contain a wide variety of keyword densities, so if the engines change you'll likely already have a page with a favorable keyword density.”
quote:
‘how to optimize thousands and thousands of pages’
quote:
“on multiple pages you will often have other pages that meet the new algorithm's preferences”
Now to get a little picky….
Places for keywords;
quote:
‘In Email Addresses: keywords@YourEmail.com ’
Brilliant bloody idea considering the ‘24hr Spam Bots’ that run around collecting emails addys… it really isn’t going to give you the extra weighting to merit the security/bandwidth hassle.
quote:
“HTML Comments Tags <!-- Here's a comment tag with Keyword, another keyword and another keyword. #61664;”
Nope… nada… STUFFING at best, no benefit… another bad idea.
quote:
“Keyword Density, includes in body text, anchor text and various html tags.
Density is simply a ratio comparing the number of times a word/phrase is used on a page (or in a tag), compared to the total number of words on the page. ”
Sorry – Yesterday’s news. No longer very viable. Learn about Latent Semantic Analysis/Indexing and areas such as Phrase Based Indexing and Retrieval. Far better use of brain power in modern Search. KW density is not the deal any more folks…:0)
Which Kurt does ‘touch on’ in clustering…. ½ point for that one!! :0)
quote:
“Size of Page Files”
–Wrong unfortunately. Only if a page was bad enough to time out. That’s about it.
quote:
“Using Good HTML Code”
– Absolutely false. Please see recent Matt Cutts Vidoes for more. I can dig up link if needed
quote:
“Page Load Speed - it could be used as a ranking factor. ”
– Sorry Charlie once again. Same as above. If it timed out and the spider can’t view it ..then sure…but neither would the visitor though….
Page Rank??? Don’t even get me started; http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/24/1358204 or even http://www.huomah.com/forum-news/davs-favs/dave-and-the-tbpr.html
Trust Rank? I thought that was Yahoo? We’re mixing our G’s with our Ys... but I guess that is a little ‘anal;’ he he... I’ll leave it… :0)
Ok.. I am stopping there before I get silly… Point is that it may have a few holes in it. I'd like to see it trimmed down into some better bite sized pieces.. Or Drop the $$$ and grab Aaron's book maybe?…. Or Print out every page from Matt Cutts blog… (lol)… there are some sources… I'd say... (print out Matt's Blog? hmmmmmm )
When did you write/post that K? Recently?
..please no anger there Kurt (what do the young folks say – ‘Don’t be hatin’?)…. Just tryin to help :0) ---- I would even love to chat, always into networking and can give ya a ton of insight. I have made many good friends (and enemies...lol) in the search world… feel free to get in touch
|
|
|
Kurt |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 23:55:59
|
Dave,
To be honest, your post is one of the worst posts I have EVER read from a journalistic point of view. Your ommisions and distortions are so bad that they border on dishonesty.
Please, don't pck and choose selected parts of my report, while leaving out the context of them. Many people may read this thread and not my report and will base their opinions on your inaccuracies.
I've been waiting for som "uppity" SEOer to claim some ficticious moral high ground. Let's take a look at these statments:
quote:
TO start with some verges on outright MFA and Web Spam… jeezzz.. sorry but correct away….
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“that contain a wide variety of keyword densities, so if the engines change you'll likely already have a page with a favorable keyword density.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘how to optimize thousands and thousands of pages’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“on multiple pages you will often have other pages that meet the new algorithm's preferences”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a person buys hosting and pays for domain names, it is THEIR business what they put on their sites, not your's. If any engine doesn't want those pages, then they don't have to include them.
However, I personally don't make spam pages, I make condoor pages, which are part content and part doorway pages. I don't care if I have 200,000 pages as long as the page a user lands on provides value.
Not to mention, I have to chuckle at how you assume that having 10,000's of pages is automatically spam. This very forum has 10,000's of pages that could be archived and that could use some basic SEO en masse. But I guess you'd say performing SEO on multiple pages at once is automatically spam. NOT!
But even so, a person has a right to do what they want on their own domains and equating SE spam with email or blog spam is bogus.
Now you get selective in your quotes and fail to paint the entire picture of my comments:
quote:
Places for keywords;
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘In Email Addresses: keywords@YourEmail.com ’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant bloody idea considering the ‘24hr Spam Bots’ that run around collecting emails addys… it really isn’t going to give you the extra weighting to merit the security/bandwidth hassle.
Why did you ommit my warning for this technique?
Here it is:
Of course, you need to worry about spam email address harvesters, as well as real people may send you an email....
But this type of selective quoting is hardly a one-time deal...Here you go again:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“HTML Comments Tags <!-- Here's a comment tag with Keyword, another keyword and another keyword. #61664;”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope… nada… STUFFING at best, no benefit… another bad idea.
Here's the part you ommited:
WARNING: Due to abuse, it's likely stuffing keywords in comment tags will do more harm than good. However, it is something to keep your eye on, test on a very small percentage of pages, and use the knowledge when examining the SEO of other web pages.
And the bolding for the warning is even included in my report. yet your post makes it seem as if I am encouraging people to stuff keywords. I'd say it isn't my report that is faulty, rather your willingness to tell the ENTIRE truth.
Next we have you saying:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Keyword Density, includes in body text, anchor text and various html tags.
Density is simply a ratio comparing the number of times a word/phrase is used on a page (or in a tag), compared to the total number of words on the page. ”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry – Yesterday’s news. No longer very viable. Learn about Latent Semantic Analysis/Indexing and areas such as Phrase Based Indexing and Retrieval. Far better use of brain power in modern Search. KW density is not the deal any more folks…:0)
While I agree that body density isn't all that important, when considering tags there's probably some merit, as my comments dealt with the entire page, including tags.
Dynamic pages do show that changing densities can produce stable rankings, however to say density isn't relative at all and shouldn't be discussed is either ignorant or dishonest.
To say that density is totally n/a is making a statement that 0 keyword density is "OK". I beg to differ.
And if one has many pages, I suggest to not use the same keyword density on each page, as that is NOT how "natural" pages look to any engine. It would seem pretty strange to have 100 pages, all with the same keyword densities, now wouldn't it.
As far as LSI, I suggest Bombers use my LSI Tuel to gather LSI related keywords. What did LSI resource did you develope? And, assuming you have 100's or even 1,000's of pages ALREADY created, how would you go about adding LSI related words and phrases to those existing pages?
Which brings us to your very next comments:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Size of Page Files”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
–Wrong unfortunately. Only if a page was bad enough to time out. That’s about it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Using Good HTML Code”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
– Absolutely false. Please see recent Matt Cutts Vidoes for more. I can dig up link if needed
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Page Load Speed - it could be used as a ranking factor. ”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
– Sorry Charlie once again. Same as above. If it timed out and the spider can’t view it ..then sure…but neither would the visitor though….
Where do I keep losing you? Is English your first language? Do you notice the word "could" in the sentence above? Are you claiming that it is impossible for Google or every other serach engine to consider page load time?
Or how about using my entire comment, instead of a little snippet that takes my comments completly out of context:
There's reports that having good, valid html could help your rankings.
Excuse me, there ARE reports that good, clean HTML could help your ranking...Not to mention that word "could" again. This word "could" appears to be above your ability to comprehend.
For the sake of ease in the fiture, please give me your definition for "could" so we can avoid these misunderstandings in the future.
Next, there's this "gem":
quote:
Page Rank??? Don’t even get me started; http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/24/1358204 or even http://www.huomah.com/forum-news/davs-favs/dave-and-the-tbpr.html
Ummmm, I mention PageRank only twice on the page in passing. Here's all I have to say about PageRank:
#1
quote:
A little preface...Many modern SEOers believe there are 3 elements to Google ranking, in order of importance:
1. Hilltop and TrustRank
2. External Link Pop, Link Relevancy, PageRank
3. On the Page
And here's the second time I mention PageRank:
quote:
A while back, I posted a question on a forum about which of the following factors would return the most relevant results:
On the Page
Pagerank - External Links
Each of us could make good arguments for either side and both side were debated, resulting in good reasoning for using either/or, or both.
So please, PLEASE tell us what you could possibly find objectionable to my usage of the term PageRank? Please do go ahead and "get started". But explain to the folks what PageRank has to do with On The Page SEO, which is what my report is about.
Now this is a good one...And we should post two of your comments together to get the "impact" of your statements:
First, you say:
quote:
Trust Rank? I thought that was Yahoo? We’re mixing our G’s with our Ys... but I guess that is a little ‘anal;’ he he... I’ll leave it… :0)
Then you say:
quote:
Or Drop the $$$ and grab Aaron's book maybe?….
Now let's see what Aaron himself has to say about the subject:
quote:
TrustRank can be bolted onto PageRank to significantly improve search relevancy.
http://www.seobook.com/archives/000661.shtml
Oooops...It seems Aaron Wall is also associating Trust Rank with Google, albeit indirectly through PageRank...Just checking, PageRank is part of Google? Yes?
So is Aaron wrong for making the association, or are you the one that's wrong for recommending me to read Aaron? Something's got to give.
|
|
|
theGypsy |
Posted - 10/28/2006 : 09:29:31
|
Journalistic? Who gives a a crap ..I am talking about SEO mate... and I said I was trying to help..
If yer gonna be that way then... fine. You are obviously un-informed and you should simply stop giving SEO advice until you get a better grip... this is not about Journalism mate...it's about Search engineering which I am no slouch at.
Your little barbs and flames --- ‘Where do I keep losing you? Is English your first language?’ -- show you to be a typical SEO ego-stroker It is really the best evidence. There are those in SEO that are always interested in ‘finding the truth’ and there are those interested in getting kudos…
There ARE glaring problems with the piece. You should be more concerned with presenting the correct information than you are about me….
Best of luck with everything…
|
|
|
rickd222 |
Posted - 10/31/2006 : 09:06:14
|
Hey Gypsy
Kurt has given you a point by point refutation of your arguments and instead of coming back with some counterpoints you start attacking the man and declare that he is "obviously un-informed and you should simply stop giving SEO advice until you get a better grip".
Well this "un-informed" man helped me earn over $100,000 in adsense and affiliate income through the use of his tactics and just 2 of his scripts. You have really provided nothing so far (not to say that you won't in the future) while Kurt has given back freely many many times.
Re-reading your posts in this thread, you clearly sound like the SEO ego-stroker that you claim Kurt to be.
Rick |
|
|
Kurt |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 05:43:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by theGypsy
Journalistic? Who gives a a crap ..I am talking about SEO mate... and I said I was trying to help..
If yer gonna be that way then... fine. You are obviously un-informed and you should simply stop giving SEO advice until you get a better grip... this is not about Journalism mate...it's about Search engineering which I am no slouch at.
Your little barbs and flames --- ‘Where do I keep losing you? Is English your first language?’ -- show you to be a typical SEO ego-stroker It is really the best evidence. There are those in SEO that are always interested in ‘finding the truth’ and there are those interested in getting kudos…
There ARE glaring problems with the piece. You should be more concerned with presenting the correct information than you are about me….
Best of luck with everything…
This gypsy post has eaten at me for a while...First, my use of "journalistic integrity" is simply my way of politely saying, "you're a liar". But I now longer feel like being polite.
Basically, every point you made in your original post you took totally out of context in an attempt to "build" yourself up. You intentionally left out elements, "cherry picking" others in an attempt to distort what was REALLY written.
And to intentionally distort what I wrote, as you clearly did in your original post, is lying with total disregard of the actual context of which my points were made.
And your inability to conprehend the majority of the article for what it is, shows your lack of reading comprehension.
I gave very little concrete advice in the article, rather the vast majority of the content was to get folks to think about various SEO possibilities. SEO is every-changin and the articles shows some of the various ways that SEs may think.
As far as results, my customers and followers have made 6 and 7 figures a year following my advice, I don't need approval from some high-brow blow hard trying to sell his SEO services, to confirm my abilities.
And I'm anything but typical...By the way, my "You Rank" was also theorized just by Planet Ocean, in last month's issue. Although they are quite a few months behind me, they are very respected.
Also, I theorized on this very forum about "People Rank", months before the Google patent application concerning similar concepts was made public.
I'm sorry, but the actual FACTS just don't match the gypsy's accusations.
|
|
|
Kurt |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 06:43:35
|
Let me get this thread back on a positive note...Or at least a constructive one...
There's a lot of talk about LSI and even PAIR, but both of these strategies also have weaknesses.
Then both try to anticipate what phrases/words should appear with others, based on probability which is BACKWARD looking.
By this, a year ago we wouldn't expect "britney spears" to appear on pages that also include "detox". But times changes, as do words and phrases that will often be used with each other.
A year ago, we wouldn't associate "david beckham" with "los angeles".
This is a real weakness with any strategy that tries to determine relevancy based on past references.
The real purpose of LSI and Pair is to determine writing that is "natural". By analyzing and optimizing for either LSI or Pair, then writing based on this analysis in reality defeats the purpose of using either/or, which is actually very ironic.
Another point to be made is that the most popular searches for any engine are "pop culture/news" related searches. These searches make up a big chunk of the total searches, and because they are new they are also dynamic, making it very tough for a formula to predict what phrases should co-exist with others.
For example, one day "Dick Cheney" may be associated with "vice president", but just a day later, "shot in the face" may be more accurate. Both LSI and PAIR need to make these adjustments, and they must do them virtually "instantly".
Really, the point of both is the find natural human writing...
The next point is that as searchers are becoming more sophisticated, they are using longer, multi-word phrases in the search box. These unique, one of a kind searches make it tough for the engines to find ANY results.
In these instances, things like LSI, PAIR and even PageRank become less and less effective, as the engines often struggle to find ANYTHING relevant to the search query.
And the truth is, many experts estimate that these unique search queries make up between 40-60% of all searches...This means, a lot of what we read about LSI, PAIR and even PageRank becomes all but useless for about half of all search engine traffic.
IMO, the main function of LSI and/or PAIR will be to detect spam pages, not in the relevancy of the page in question.
A big part of SE relevancy is to "cut the crap", THEN rank the relevancy of the remaining pages based on the query.
Now, if we assume that the engines want natural, non-spam, human written pages and they also can track a number of human activities, such as bookmarks, then the future of SEO is easy to predict:
In the future, engines will give even more weight to forums and other social sites, where users not only write original content, they also visit the same site over and over, using bookmarks or typing in the URL.
Again, start a Myspace for your niche or geographical region. It will take work and time, but the pay-off can be huge. Let your readers be your writers....As the "writing is on the wall"...
|
|
|
brunoski |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 09:59:57
|
"Now, if we assume that the engines want natural, non-spam, human written pages and they also can track a number of human activities, such as bookmarks, then the future of SEO is easy to predict:
In the future, engines will give even more weight to forums and other social sites, where users not only write original content, they also visit the same site over and over, using bookmarks or typing in the URL."
Priceless, Kurt. When you really think about search as service/business/"quest for relevance" that seems to be the only way search engines could go: watching what searchers/visitors do and implementing their preferences in serps. And for SEO/SEM specialists: the smarter part of them will start introducing billboard advertising back to their clients. |
|
|
Kurt |
Posted - 04/06/2007 : 17:33:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by brunoski
"Now, if we assume that the engines want natural, non-spam, human written pages and they also can track a number of human activities, such as bookmarks, then the future of SEO is easy to predict:
In the future, engines will give even more weight to forums and other social sites, where users not only write original content, they also visit the same site over and over, using bookmarks or typing in the URL."
Priceless, Kurt. When you really think about search as service/business/"quest for relevance" that seems to be the only way search engines could go: watching what searchers/visitors do and implementing their preferences in serps. And for SEO/SEM specialists: the smarter part of them will start introducing billboard advertising back to their clients.
Thanks Bruno...
Actually, Yahoo published a test a short while back that showed that tracking which sites in the SERPs that got the most clicks was the most the most accurate way to display relevant search results, out performing link pop/PR.
If we assume the reports are correct, then we should also assume the engines either are, or will be, using this type of data in their relevancy algos.
Let me also add to my last post above, where I said we should be creating niche "Myspaces"...This should be taken a step further and include niche Squidoos, niche Youtubes as well as niche forums, if you agree with my conclusion about the future of SEO.
SEO is always changing and too often we aim for where we thing the engines are now, instead of where they will probably be in the future.
It's like trying to hit a moving target, you have to "lead" the target buy some distance in order to get a direct hit.
Too many noobs are too worried about things like meta tags and PR, when they should be more concerned with the future of SEO, instead of the ancient history of SEO.
|
|
|
| Topic |
|
|
|
This SEO 'report' ROCKS! Best 30 min. I've spent