Newbie Seeks Google Panda Advice

Keyword density is an older kind of concept, it originated around the time that markoving was popular. Markoving was a way to mix the words all up on your page so tha the page looked unique but was basically unreadable.

It is not so important a concept these days. Using related words on your pages is a good idea. This is what LSI words are. Not just synonyms like many folks seem to mistakenly believe, but words that logically go together on your page.

Like if you were writing about grills. Some related words that would be reasonable to see on your page would weber grills, barbecue, long handled fork, patio, charcoal, propane, grill cover. You wouldn't need to use all those on a page, but if you did use some depending on what your content was about, you could probably rank for a number of keyword phrases with less work.

Save your money from buying those software tools. Google has already taken the hammer to Ezine articles and there is no reason to think that any of the other article directories fared any better. Scrapebox is one of those things that tries to give you 1,000 links so that one of them will stick long enough for Google to rank it and maybe the webmaster whose site you used won't notice your link for a while.

There are folks here on the forum who sell SEO services that seem to work really well. One of those might be beneficial to you.

The simple way to look at linkbuilding software is if it would be OK with you if someone used it on your site without your knowledge. If that would be OK with you, then that might be the best choice for you. As far as being effictive post Panda, not so much. Panda 2.2 just rolled out last week and those kinds of links probably even less effective these days.

Thanks a lot for your advice dvduval. I watched an interesting video produced by SEO Moz where the speaker pointed out that website design as such becomes more important since interesting sites will attract visitors to click through and stay longer at your site.

dvduval, Would you concur wit that statement?

Thanks a lot

yes havign good content is one things. Google for me is abour fresh high quality content. If you can provide that you can do well.

but it is easy for some, as most marketers are lazy arses.

Ciel Thanks a lot for your advice. It sounds like Google now starts to see the web even more from a user's perspective.

I think I incorrectly wrote it as Panda 2.0 in my post, it is more like 2.2.

I heard about on a webinar and started looking for some information about it online. Here ar a couple of pretty good articles that seem to be giving as much information as is available.

First Article from WT

Second Article from SEW

In general, it is about as could be expected. A concentration on high quality original content with a devaluation of low quality inbound links, for example from hundreds or thousands of forum profiles or hundreds of blog post comments.

Nothing wrong with forum profiles or blog commenting, except from a numbers point of view. Some of the tactics that consist mostly of attaching thousands of links to profiles from forums which have nothing to do with the site to where they are pointing are in all likelihood on their way out.

Every link won't be devalued all at once, the internet is a pretty big place. And intelligently done blog commenting can always be a boon to your site, not only in terms of links but in relationships or even in adding to your base of knowledge.

It looks like a continuing move towards quality. In terms of content, and in usage factors like time spent on site. I think that a move toward quality is a good idea. I don't know if everything is working on is going to suit my own personal taste, pretty much like anything in life, but I know my sites have not lost traffic and some of the folks I was competing against have disappeared.

I hope that helps a bit, especially the articles.

Good question. I also have some led gen pages, where I would like folks to quickly click to the form page.

I think (always an interesting way to start) that the original idea was that if a page was deemd to be interesting by a number of visitors, they would stay on the site longer and this would indicate that the page had a lot of good content.

This was one of the original ideas sold by folks who wanted to sell you those template sites with the video walls. That if you had the videos embedded on your site and basically called the video but it was your site the visitor was on, you would get credit for them staying longer.

I don't think they care whether anybody stays on your site, more like that time was given some weight in the quality algorithm. More like an indirect measurement as opposed to people writing to google and telling them a particular site is great.

It's not a bad assumption, but there are so many things that have to be factored in to reduce the weight in the final equation, that the difference between a time on site of 20 seconds and 30 seconds is relatively meaningless.

The difference between 20 seconds and 2 minutes could be relatively meaningful depending on things like number of open brwoser windows and little boxes that ask you if you want to stay logged in.