1 reply to this topic

[DeValle]

This is my first post. I'd especially like to ask Jill to address this post. Others please join in.

My question is, considering the latest Google reshuffle, what are the best site architecture/design methods to use that will keep one from running afoul of the new Google? Unfortunately I was just about to launch a very large site(s) and, considering G's Florida results, now I'm unsure which way to go. This question is about creating new sites, not rehabilitating existing ones.

1) Which is best? single mega-site vs. multiple domains vs. subdomains.
My subject-- finance-- truly warrants multiple domains, which would probably search better, especially when linked together. Each domain could legitimately be a stand-alone 100 page web site. But is cross-linking regardless of the merits now the Kiss of Death? If on the other hand I build a single mega-site then I risk an tripping some future obscure Google rule or filter and then I'll starve. Or will a subdomain approach search as well as multiple domains? I'm leery of investing hundreds of hours in a single site, even one with subdomains, that puts all my financial eggs in one basket.

2) Where, now, is that magic, invisible line when optimizing a web page's copy such that, if you cross that line, G considers you a spammer and you are bounced to page 100? I had one site that dropped from page 1 to page 9 and which had a ton of useful, original, exclusive material on it. I, like the sites that are now at the top, pointedly used keywords liberally throughout the copy. Yet some of us were bounced while some egregious keyword stuffers are now on the front page of G. I know that to optimize a page it's best to write to the user, not Google, and then Google placement will take care of itself. Yet it's easy to spot blatant keyword crammers above the fold on G's page 1 for many competitive terms. At this point, are they making it on strength of incoming links? I suspect so; some of them appear only to trade among a small select group of webmasters.

3) A dearth of graphics. I've noticed that after Florida many of the top sites in my search terms have only one or two small graphics on the index page and consists of 95% text that contains textual links to internal pages. Is this a wake up call that Google now prefers minimalist pages and we should keep stylish mastheads and designer graphics to a minimum?

4) Do you subscribe to the theory of Google's use of Applied Semantics CIRCA technology in the Florida update? To make a living in future do we all need to write artfully circumspect ad copy that takes into consideration those ontological principles of tokens/terms/meanings as AS sets forth in their technical white paper? Even with G's implementation of CIRCA technology are we now just on a higher plane of SEO whereby, in order to make a living on the Web, it will almost require a linguist or a technical writer to tweak web pages that will fit into G's Vision of How The Web Ought To Be?

5) Is it even possible now to build a totally new commercial web site that's competitive (read, make money) in Google because no established webmaster with high Google PR will risk his livelihood by linking to a new site? Are high PR web sites now going to charge to swap links? Is this an another unintended consequence of Google's vision? Is it going to take 12 months or more to make a site competitive in Google?

I've been an affiliate marketer for years. (Please, before some readers start reflexive character assassination, I believe that knowledgeable people will agree that a well designed and ethical affiliate site serves the public well-- as when the affiliate site brings together in one place many merchants or providers for comparison and contrast so that the user may save hours of tedious trial-and-error searching and learning about the product or service. Now, spamming and unethical SEO practices are quite another issue. Here I want to talk about an ethical, well-designed affiliate site with the user's welfare in mind).

Thanks!

[Jill]

Welcome, DeValle!

From reading your post, imo, you're attacking the building of your Website the wrong way from the start. By worrying too much about Google and what may or may not happen in the future with them, you've paralyzed yourself and no matter what you do, it may or may not be correct.

That's because there is no correct answer to your questions.

Instead of thinking about Google specifically, think about your site, and what its goals are in general. Think about the best way to create your site (or sites if that works best) so that it's going to be one that will stand the test of time regardless of what the search engines may choose to do in the future.

Yes, you have to think about the search engines in the fact that you have to make sure that your site is crawler-friendly, i.e., that the spiders can find and index it all. And you have to think about the search engines in that you make sure you write the copy using the language of your target audience.

But after those things, it's all down to doing things that make your site great for your visitors and those interested in what you offer. Concentrate on making your site as useful and as usable as possible, making sure it has a professional look and feel, along with great marketing copy that converts your visitors into buyers.

I know this all sounds so cliche, but think about what the search engines really want to provide to THEIR users...when you think about it that way, the answers are very clear.

Of course, this method doesn't always work in the short term as evidenced by all the sites that don't do any of that and still rank highly. And in all honesty, you can follow the pack of wolves that chase their tails and their algorithms, or you can free yourself from all of that and not concern yourself with the normal ups and downs of rankings.

Good luck!



Jill