Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Msn ... A Great Tool For Google ?
Posted 27 September 2005 - 09:52 AM
If MSN is focusing so much on "onSite optimization" and shows the results so quickly, it can be a great tool to use when optimizing for Google and even Yahoo?
Here is what I mean .... how do you really know if your On Site changes are good for Google? There is no 100% answer because Google focuses more on Off Site optimization, so the only good way to test is to see how MSN is ranking your content.
If MSN loves it (on site), then you know you've done good On Site, and now it's time to work on Off Site optimization for google.
Tell me if you agree or disagree with this logic.
Posted 27 September 2005 - 10:58 AM
Google doesn't say it focuses more on off-site optimization. That's just what people across scattered SEO sites tell you, and they have no factual foundation for making such assertions.
If you check out Google's Webmaster guidelines, you'll see they emphasize on-site optimization. Yes, they are concerned about link inflation, and naturally have an incentive to discourage people from looking at off-site factors.
But I've been using on-site factors to rank highly on Google for years. The reason on-site optimization works is that you have to establish relevance, and it's easier to do that through on-site optimization than through off-site optimization.
Each search engine looks at the available on-site and off-site data in different ways, but the fundamentals generally work across the board.
I can usually expect one of my sites to rank in the top ten for all four majors (Google, Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask). The rankings are not necessarily identical, but they are usually close. There are some exceptions, where a site that ranks well on 2-3 might rank poorly on 1-2. But most of them hit the top ten across the board.
You don't achieve that kind of consistency by dodging bullets and optimizing for specific algorithms.
Posted 27 September 2005 - 12:57 PM
In our market .... 70% of sites use around 200+ words on home page copy. AND they try to optimize it. The #1 company in our industry that has been around for some time now has the BEST ranking. Home page = 30 words. Their title tags .... very poor. No headlines...
So this is something that I am pushing off of.
The real question was not that Google doesn't consider on site optimization. My question was if the logic I am trying to see in this, is in fact something close to what I notice.
If you do on site changes, you won't necessarily see them working for you on Google in a week. BUT with MSN you do see it.
Posted 27 September 2005 - 01:57 PM
I used to find the same thing with Yahoo - good on-page factors attracted good rankings for certain search strings where Google tended to prefer pages/sites that had less relevance (in terms of on-page content) but stronger linking. It seemed to be especially true with less competitive search phrases, but that's just a personal impression. Lately, Yahoo has been less "Lyn-friendly" than it once was so I'm not sure how to appraise it with respect to your question.
I have no doubt that strong SEO work on all factors will produce good results on all SEs. But I'm sure that you'll see fairly different results on different SEs if your SEO work has focused on one range of factors at the expense of others.
Posted 27 September 2005 - 02:29 PM
I assure you there are doorway pages out there right now which have few words on them but are ranking well above heavily linked Web sites.
Linkage is not nearly as important as people make it out to be. You cannot simply look at what your market does. You have to look at what everyone's market does, because there is far more information out there than what any one market provides.
You could be evaluating 30 hyperoptimized sites that have absolutely no need or justification for relying on inbound linkage (except that they may now have forced themselves into that).
The bottom line is that optimizing for Google is never as cut-and-dried as "all you need are links because that is how everyone else does it".
I have pages that hit number 1 out of 88,000,000 possible hits, and they are zooming past link-heavy major commercial sites that have FAR MORE links coming in than my entire network.
Trust me when I say, I DO see such changes work with Google in a week. And other people do, too. They're just not as vocal and visible as I am. I'm not speaking for the silent masses. I'm speaking about the first-line SEOs who rarely say anything about how they do what they do.
Not all of them are spammers, but quite a few of them are.
Many of them get by on content, too.
Posted 27 September 2005 - 03:33 PM
Posted 27 September 2005 - 03:39 PM
About the doorway pages for our competitor .... I really doubt it. It's a very respected company, 30+ years in business and publicly traded. No doorway pages there. It just has 30000 links while others have about 1100
Posted 27 September 2005 - 04:40 PM
Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't the question was whether you must have links to rank well on Google. It was whether MSN's apparently-more-simplistic algo offers a quick'n'dirty way to see whether your on-page content is up to snuff compared to competitive sites.
I think it could, just because MSN seems to put most of its weight on on-page factors. That doesn't mean Google disregards your on-page work.
Posted 27 September 2005 - 04:46 PM
I make no guarantees about what your content will do for you.
I didn't say your competitor was using doorways.
However, you did specify very little content on competitive pages. That works a lot like doorways.
It doesn't take a lot of content to rank well on Google. Nor does it take a lot of links. That doesn't stop people from using plenty of both or either.
You asked if we agree or disagree with your logic. I disagree, and I do so because I know that I can get new content to rank well on Google with few inbound links.
If you're so convinced that only linkage matters on Google, then why ask for agreement or disagreement?
If you're looking for consensus, it's almost guaranteed that most people in the SEO community believe that links matter more than anything else with Google. Google seems to disagree with them because the Google docs and papers talk about relevance as well as PageRank (two separate topics), and because Google says that PageRank is only one of about 100 factors taken into consideration. The academic community who study search engines and write technical papers on the subject disagree with them. I disagree with them.
Everyone knows that linkage works with Google. I'm not disputing that. But it's not a requirement, except as required by the hypercompetitiveness of a few industries where people have invested heavily in linkage.
Posted 27 September 2005 - 10:11 PM
Pianist, MSN is probably the easiest to rank with via just on-page factors at the moment. I can't say I've studied it very much because I just don't see enough traffic from MSN to really care at the moment.
But the caveat is that from what I understand, you can pretty much keyword stuff on MSN and do well. That doesn't mean you can keyword stuff (and build links) and do well in Yahoo and/or Google. They have much more sophisticated algos that apparently notice certain thresholds. When they are reached, it will effect you negatively as opposed to positively.
MSN is a few years behind Yahoo and Google in that respect.
Posted 28 September 2005 - 06:16 AM
But it never appears in Google until late.
This could be related to Google taking a long time to index.
They don't even take notice until I set up a linking strategy.
But if you type in sugar free paradise into MSN you'll see my testing001 site at #2. Check out #1! and you'll see exactly how MSN works when you view the source code!
Posted 28 September 2005 - 07:22 AM
That and the aging delay.
Posted 28 September 2005 - 08:13 AM
A per the experience in SEO field have some difference in the G and MSN optimize. Its true msn is giving import. on Onpage factor only and thatís the reason it is easy to get the rank in it compare to Google. If you say which one is more important in google Onpage or Offpage. Then definitely my vote will go Offpage. I had seen lot of site that nothing had done on the page but having good quality inbound link got the rank in high serps.
Posted 28 September 2005 - 10:03 AM
My point was that small content can rank well on its own in Google because it is relevant to the search queries for which it ranks well.
Doorway pages prove that is so because they rely on small content and seldom have many inbound links.
So, looking at a competitor's 30-word page and 10,000 links and concluding that the high ranking is due to the links is jumping the gun. You cannot determine on the basis of how many backlinks a site has whether its rankings are due to on-page or off-page factors.
That is what I am trying to say to Pianist.
It's not all about links with Google. It never has been. Maybe in the future it will be, but right now it's not.
Posted 28 September 2005 - 12:33 PM
But you're only partially right about Google. You are right that it's certainly not all about links, but for competitive keyword phrases, links are extremely valuable.
Of course, without supporting content, the links won't generally help either.
Google (like all engines) are about both content AND links.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users