6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Better name for SEO? BananaShare vs ShareByLink

by the_cyman
6 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Hi all,

I'm running an open-source file sharing project.

I'm trying to choose between 2 names:
ShareByLink.com (current name)
BananaShare.com

I registered ShareByLink about a year ago. I also own BananaShare.com.
What do you think, from an SEO perspective? (General marketing is another story.)

Current challenge: It seems really hard to get to the top for "share by link". Those words, "share" "by" "link" are very generic. Our project has existed for over 1.5 years, we still don't rank well for "share by link". But maybe it's the perfect name and I'm not being patient enough?
#bananashare #seo #sharebylink
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Originally Posted by the_cyman View Post

    BananaShare.com
    Sounds like a great name for a nudist camp.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10686053].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author chrisjohn93
    BananaShare.com is sounds good. You should go with these domain...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10686144].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by chrisjohn93 View Post

      BananaShare.com is sounds good. You should go with these domain...
      Is he sharing bananas or banana hammocks?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10686156].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author irawr
    Banned
    Originally Posted by the_cyman View Post

    Hi all,

    I'm running an open-source file sharing project.

    I'm trying to choose between 2 names:
    ShareByLink.com (current name)
    BananaShare.com

    I registered ShareByLink about a year ago. I also own BananaShare.com.
    What do you think, from an SEO perspective? (General marketing is another story.)

    Current challenge: It seems really hard to get to the top for "share by link". Those words, "share" "by" "link" are very generic. Our project has existed for over 1.5 years, we still don't rank well for "share by link". But maybe it's the perfect name and I'm not being patient enough?
    Well, seeing as the how one of those domains is an established site and one is not, this is a pretty simple choice.

    I started a bunch of new domains recently (January/February) and I pretty much hate all of those sites to the point where I might just delete them. I would never start over, it would be 1000% easier to just do more work on the SBL brand.

    As far as BS, if it sounds like we might be referring to a penis, it should be about a penis. Pretty sure the first site has nothing to do with that, so I personally wouldn't do it.

    I mean there's about 50 different angles I can think of with the BS site, but I wouldn't re-brand SBL to that.

    Looking at the backlinks and site for SBL, well you need to do way better then that as far as SEO. It's not terrible, but I don't look at that site and think "S E O". I think, "Weird tool, nobody really uses."

    It seems like something with real potential, either do way better with that site, and I really do mean, A LOT better, or sell it to somebody who can do something with it.

    Technically the site you have, would do way better in Google, if the entire site, minus the contact form, was a single page. Google ranks pages, not sites, and the pages on that site are incredibly weak.

    As far as SEO goes, I want your index page to have every single piece of information about that tool on it. Along with videos on youtube showing how easy it is to use, I want to see one of the world's best pieces of software ever created, and I want all of the value in one place, delivered to the user with the best user experience possible. My name is Google.com.

    Your index page has 77 words of content on it. Why do I need to click anywhere to see your "list of file sharing features" which is 165 words of content, what do you think the user can't handle all of that content on one page? I assure you, from experience, Google prefers content that is longer in length, as long as that content is quality. It's at a point where, I wonder, if posting anything below five thousand words, is even worth it. (For me)

    The more value you put on the page, the more valuable it is, and the better Google will rank it. 77 words, man... What kind of value does that really provide?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10686169].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by irawr View Post

      Your index page has 77 words of content on it. Why do I need to click anywhere to see your "list of file sharing features" which is 165 words of content, what do you think the user can't handle all of that content on one page? I assure you, from experience, Google prefers content that is longer in length, as long as that content is quality. It's at a point where, I wonder, if posting anything below five thousand words, is even worth it. (For me)

      The more value you put on the page, the more valuable it is, and the better Google will rank it. 77 words, man... What kind of value does that really provide?


      C'mon now, save the Brian Dean Kool-Aid for a rainy day.

      I run a few download sites that don't need a 25,000 word thesis for the sake of ranking pages. I still rank pages all day long, been doing the same setup for years, no problems.

      In my situation (downloads) the value for traffic is inside the downloadable file and it's still not text or have anything to do with text.

      Look at sites like dafont.com, no original content and zero articles. Still ranking pages for 16 years based solely on their link profile.

      Google could care less how many words are on a page. Matter of fact adding words to please some fictional idea is a shot in the foot diluting the target keywords. Yeah, I know about LSI keywords but there's a point where bloating a page becomes ridiculous considering the attention span of average internet traffic is comparable to a goldfish.

      The end goal should be conversions so cookie cutter word counting is silly. Do whatever your traffic expects, not following the IM herd because they read an over hyped SEO blog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10686214].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author irawr
        Banned
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        C'mon now, save the Brian Dean Kool-Aid for a rainy day.

        I run a few download sites that don't need a 25,000 word thesis for the sake of ranking pages. I still rank pages all day long, been doing the same setup for years, no problems.

        In my situation (downloads) the value for traffic is inside the downloadable file and it's still not text or have anything to do with text.

        Look at sites like dafont.com, no original content and zero articles. Still ranking pages for 16 years based solely on their link profile.

        Google could care less how many words are on a page. Matter of fact adding words to please some fictional idea is a shot in the foot diluting the target keywords. Yeah, I know about LSI keywords but there's a point where bloating a page becomes ridiculous considering the attention span of average internet traffic is comparable to a goldfish.

        The end goal should be conversions so cookie cutter word counting is silly. Do whatever your traffic expects, not following the IM herd because they read an over hyped SEO blog.
        Pretty sure I read it on one of the SEO sites in like 2005. I have a new site I'm willing to expose as a case study (not here obviously), waiting on Google and still setting up some things. As far as diluting it, just make sure it's .5%. That's straight off Jimmie Dean's site.

        As far as that site goes, they are targeting the keyword "Right-click to share any file" in the h2, it's nowhere to be found on that SERP, not even page 20, and the h1 tag is an image ...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10687198].message }}

Trending Topics