Keyword density in articles

Threads like this amaze me. the diversity of answers is just incredible to see. I think to some extent any and all answers are correct. I think what happens in forums such as this one, there is this laser target questioning of a specific element in the complex realm of SEO and the algorithms that govern success or failure.

The over whelming reality in terms of Keyword density is this. You simply can not rank a page, if the keyword is not there. You can have a page with text about "red cars" and not expect it to rank for "blue cars". and before anyone even goes there, I get it... it really could happen with the right amount of inbound anchor text linking in an extremely low competition environment. ( I know this for fact, because I have done it - but it didn't rank well and didn't stay long )

BUT, the above example is implementing other elements of the equation. and when discussing a specific element, that is really an unfair argument.

Keyword density as I see it is one of those base elements that a good solid structure and plan are developed around. Defining a page in terms of context and how it relates to the pages surrounding it, simply is not a bad thing.

The semi over whelming opinion is that it needs to "read naturally" I have a hard time believing that 3% could ever be capable of that. below is a paragraph from above with obvious injected keywords. ( the paragraph is exactly 100 words ) not that it is exactly readable, but imagine doing this 10 times in a 1000 word article.

KEY WORD ONE The over whelming reality in terms of Keyword density is this. You simply can not rank a page, if the keyword is not there. You can have a page with text about "red cars" and not expect it to rank for "blue cars". KEY WORD TWO and before anyone even goes there, I get it... it really could happen with the right amount of inbound anchor text linking in an extremely low competition environment. ( I know this for fact, because I have done it - AND KEY WORD THREE but it didn't rank well and didn't stay long )

there simply is nothing "Natural" about that... again imagine reading 9 more paragraphs like that, I think it would be mind numbing. The less unspoken variable of "keyword proximity" I think would at some point come into play.

What I am about to say hits somewhere in the 80/20 rule category, I think it is more 98/2 to be honest, but for the most part people are targeting long and longer tail keywords that are floating in low comp environments. Much of this stuff that some of us look at and say "Are you kidding me?" probably actually does work.

Its that 20% of us, or the 2% of us that work in more competitive levels that would never even think of such a thing. I gave my density base in a post above... I use a keyword term 3 times per 500 words in text. that's a WHOPPING .6% keyword density as I am reading how people measure this. ( you can read my above post above.. I measure density differently )

That ends up being a 5:1 ratio, between 3% KWD and my poultry .6%. That's BIG stuff. that is how divided this topic is.

Here is where I think the "twist" happens. The sweet spot for Keyword Density changes, as there is the introduction of greater levels of competition. basically the algorithm changes. There becomes more emphasis, not on Keyword Density, but the other ranking variables.

I believe that Keyword Proximity comes into play. Without question the addition of inbound anchor text comes more into play. Terms like CONTEXT become far more valid and understandable as how it may work, on and off page, in a more competitive environment.

Like I eluded to before, I think all of the answers in this thread are valid - in a low comp environment. Its when you bring some of these keyword practices into environments of greater competition that you will find many will fail.