34 replies to this topic

[world33]

Hi All,

I recently searched for google ranking factors in Google and I came across a webpage with a pretty long url and list of ranking factors.

This page includes a table of several On-Page / Off-Page Positive and Negative Ranking Factors with some notes.

I am wondering how up-to-date are these ranking factors and if somebody could possibly tell which Factor # are not accurate.

Would it not be a good idea Jill to create a similar Summary Table of Google Ranking Factors in your leading SEO website? Just a suggestion ...

Thanks for your time ,

Fabio

"The World is a book and those who do not travel read only a page" Saint Augustin

[Jill]

Fabio, you'll never find one of those here because they don't actually exist. You may wish to look at our "myths" thread as that would probably be other people's ranking factors thread...

[world33]

Thanks Jill,

Do you mean that there are no Google ranking factors ?

Where can I find the thread you are referring to?

Cheers

Fabio

[Jill]

Seo Myths

[Randy]

Do you mean that there are no Google ranking factors  ?

Does Google (and Yahoo and MSN) have certain things that they look at when determining rank? Sure.

But that's not what you're really asking for is it?

These sort of lists are really about Formula SEO, which simply does not exist. Yes you can do certain things that some or all of the engines will like. On the other hand, every site is different and every market is different. So there is no foolproof formula you can employ that will guarantee that your site will rank well.

If it were that easy, the SERPs would suck more than they already do in many cases.

[Jill]

...and if you actually did 100 things to your site that you thought were good for SEO, your site would probably be crap for users!

[GaryBradshaw]

Hi Fabio,

I use that list that you found and it is really pretty good. I use that as a check list. The challenge is that the information presented there can and will change at any time, I think the SE's do that on purpose really.

In addition your position is in my opinion is influenced by the other sites you are competing with that the items on the list. What I did was use the list to evaluate the other sites I was competing with to see what they were doing that worked.

And of course what others say here in forum say is that if the visitors do not "convert" the way you want there is no point in being #1. The challenge seems to be balancing "the list", looking at other sites AND writing good copy.

Oh of course usability ranks high as well. as one of the admins here reminded me in a report I purchased.

The problem for us newbies is juggling all four of those items, and that I think is where the pro's can do better. I do ok, but not great

In other words if the balance is not right, you and I will focus on rankings, then when that does not return the results we need to stay in business, we will change the site some and the conversions start but the rankings may slip. Then then the volume of business goes down

Are we having fun yet?

[world33]

Hi GaryBradshaw,

Thank you for your reply.

I am confident that some SE positive and negative ranking factors mentioned in the quoted website are still valid for Search Engine Optimization and not just all myths. That is not to say that there are not many [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15499]Seo Myths[/url] or old practices preached around.

Some of the recommendations included in that website are also contained in Jill's beautiful Nitty-gritty SEO guide. If no factor or recommendation can be considered valid for SEO and all factors included in the listing have to be considered just myths, why should people pay SEO companies for and why do SEO companies exist?

As you said, SE ranking algorithms will change all the time and what is valid today might not be tomorrow. I still think that the listing can be a good starting point to understand what may be good and what may be bad for improving rankings, what may be short-sighted Black Hat SEO practices and what may be long-term SE-friendly optimization practices.

Of course, SEO is not a precise Science, everyhing is relative and no definitive formula can be applied to a website to guarantee high rankings but, I am still convinced that there must be some general accepted recommendations and factors to consider when designing a website.

I wonder how many of the points included in the listing can still be considered up-to-date and valid recommendations ....

Fabio

[Jill]

Fabio,

Which of the myths do you think are actually not myths?

Any of these that Scottie listed:
1) Submitting to the search engines is the way to get listed
2) Meta keywords are the key to optimization
3) Stuffing keywords into alt attributes helps your page to rank well
4) Keyword stuffed comments give your page "an edge"
5) PageRank is a measurement of where my page will rank
6) Rankings are the only goal worth measuring
7) Hiding outbound links will help me to rank better by keeping all my link popularity on my site
8) Elvis is not dead
9) Images are bad for SEO
10) Optimizing for generic words is a great idea.
11. It matters whether you have spaces or commas in your meta keyword tag, and you will be penalized for using the same word more than 3 times
12. Every page must have exactly 250 words on it to be properly optimized.
13. There is a perfect keyword density and if you could only get it right, your page would be #1 for that term.
14. Hidden text is a great way to increase your keyword density.
15. The home page of your site should be optimized for every possible relevant term.
16. Your "site" ranks well for specific terms. (Pages rank for terms, not sites)
17. Everything you put in a header tag is given more weight by the search engines.
18. Coca Cola will rot out your intestines.
19. Google is personally out to get you, and they are messing with your head cause you experimented with invisible text.
20. Google owes you a #1 listing cause you followed all their rules.


All look like myths to me.

[world33]

Which one of these factors, for example, are just [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15499]Seo Myths[/url] and which are useful factors or recommendations to consider for SEO-friendly website design:

1. Website Age
2. Website Size
3. Age of Webpage versus Age of site
4. PageRank
5. Number and Relevance of Incoming links
6. Keywords included in URL(s)
7. Keywords included in Domain Name
8. Keywords included in Title Tag
9. Keyword included in Body Text
10. Keyword Density in Body Text
11. Keywords included in Description Meta Tag
12. Keywords included in Keyword Metatag
13. Keywords included in H1, H2 and H3 Headlines
14. Keyword Font Size
15. Keyword proximity
16. Keyword synonymous presence in the body text
17. Keyword prominence to the top of the webpage
18. Keyword included in alt tag of linking images
19. Keyword included in anchor text
20. Valid (non-broken) links to internal webpages
21. Valid (non-broken) links to external webpages
22. Textual navigation/link structure and menu
23. Links to external leading reference pages for targeted keywords
24. Less than 100 links per webpage
25. Link stability over time
26. Domain Name type (eg .com versus .org)
27. Webpage Size
28. Hyphens versus Underscore in URLs
29. Content Freshness
30. Links Freshness
31. Website Update Frequency and Rate
32. Webpages Update Frequency and Rate
33. Non automatic generated webpages
34. Static versus Dynamic webpages
35. Webpage Theming
36. Keyword stemming
37. URL length


Thanks,

Fabio

[world33]

Oopps,

Sorry Jill. I posted the previous message before reading your detailed reply. That helps. It is good to have a sort of SEO Best Practices Summary List rather than having to read any single forum post to understand all best/useful and worst/worthless SEO practices. This is especially true for novices like me who after reading your leading SEO guide may still need a SEO "Yes or No" Checklist.

Thanks a lot

Fabio

Edited by world33, 22 September 2005 - 08:56 AM.

[Jill]

My previous post were the myths.

Here are my opinions on these:

1. Website Age -Can be a factor definitely
2. Website Size - not a factor in and of itself, but has indirect consequences
3. Age of Webpage versus Age of site - not a factor as far as I know
4. PageRank - not a big factor although does provide weight (not toolbar PR, but real PR)
5. Number and Relevance of Incoming links - is a big factor
6. Keywords included in URL(s) - not really a factor (other than indirectly)
7. Keywords included in Domain Name - not really a factor (other than indirectly)
8. Keywords included in Title Tag - a big factor
9. Keyword included in Body Text - a big factor
10. Keyword Density in Body Text - not a factor (in that there is no magic number)
11. Keywords included in Description Meta Tag - doesn't appear to be a ranking factor
12. Keywords included in Keyword Metatag - not at all a factor for important phrases
13. Keywords included in H1, H2 and H3 Headlines - not an SEO factor, imo.
14. Keyword Font Size - not a factor
15. Keyword proximity - not a factor
16. Keyword synonymous presence in the body text - not a factor at this time (perhaps will come to that)
17. Keyword prominence to the top of the webpage - not a factor
18. Keyword included in alt tag of linking images - a factor in helping the page it points to
19. Keyword included in anchor text - a huge factor
20. Valid (non-broken) links to internal webpages - a big factor is your site architecture
21. Valid (non-broken) links to external webpages - I've never considered this a factor, but it could be.
22. Textual navigation/link structure and menu - Same as #20. (Links don't need to be text though, that's a myth)
23. Links to external leading reference pages for targeted keywords - same as #21
24. Less than 100 links per webpage - important if you want the page completely indexed.
25. Link stability over time - a common sense factor
26. Domain Name type (eg .com versus .org) - not at all a factor
27. Webpage Size - not a factor unless it's over 100k file size
28. Hyphens versus Underscore in URLs - hyphens are parsed, but since URLs aren't a direct factor it doesn't matter.
29. Content Freshness - not a factor other than more frequent spidering and perhaps a spike in rankings for a short period of time.
30. Links Freshness - no idea - don't know what this means.
31. Website Update Frequency and Rate - not a factor for most sites
32. Webpages Update Frequency and Rate - how is this different thatn 31?
33. Non automatic generated webpages - not a factor
34. Static versus Dynamic webpages - not a factor
35. Webpage Theming - not a factor
36. Keyword stemming - not a factor
37. URL length - not a factor unless you have one so long that it can't be indexed or appears to be spammy

[world33]

Thanks Jill,

Very useful reply. I appreciate it.

Fabio

[OldWelshGuy]

Fabio, the other thing you have to take into consideration is that Google use a sliding scale algorithm. Put simple this means that the value of any one or more of the ranking factors can be impacted upon and altered by the others via the euivalent of a simple if/then sort of statements. Google are quoted as saying there are 5 billion variations on the algo. Put into perspective, this means that they can run a different set of values on almost every page in their database.

A clear example would be the age of a site factor tripping the algo into filter mode.

[GaryBradshaw]

See not even SEO pros are right all the time!


"8) Elvis is not dead"


Nope not a myth. I saw him in March of this year!!


(But I was on some pretty strong pain medication, so it could have been that, but I am not sure.)