39 replies to this topic

[ewo]

I received a Wordtracker newsletter today - I don't remember signing up for it, but I guess I must have done.

In an article entitled, "Three Good Reasons To Target Long-Tail Keywords!", the author writes:

Well the goods [sic]news is that Google likes sites that have more pages. It makes the site look more substantial, more natural, and even more real in the eyes of the world's most popular search engine.

I assume that the author means that Google likes multi-page sites more than single page sites, though it doesn't say quite that. My question is, is that true?

[Michael Martinez]

In an article entitled, "Three Good Reasons To Target Long-Tail Keywords!", the author writes:I assume that the author means that Google likes multi-page sites more than single page sites, though it doesn't say quite that. My question is, is that true?

It's one person's opinion.

Based on your snippet, I could infer that the author is suggesting large content sites perform better in organic rankings, which in my opinion is absolute nonsense.

I've said this before, but I'll say it often again. There are four major factors that affect your performance in search results:

• What you do with your pages (on-page and off-page elements)
• What other people do with their pages (on-page and off-page elements)
• What the search engines do with their data and algorithms
• What people search for

Number of pages on the site, number of inbound links, Toolbar PR, phase of the moon, and who likes you really don't have any impact on actual rankings.

Some queries are more competitive than others, not because of the number of raw hits that are returned but because of what the top-ranked sites do to get their rankings.

Some large content sites do well in many rankings.

Some small content sites do well in a few rankings.

The only advantage having many pages gives you is that you can pursue more queries than with a small number of pages.

[Jill]

I assume that the author means that Google likes multi-page sites more than single page sites, though it doesn't say quite that. My question is, is that true?

Google doesn't have preferences such as that. They simply prefer the pages that they deem the best for the search query at hand.

They use many factors to determine which are the "best," but it's not directly how many pages are contained on that particular domain.

There are indirect factors that can be beneficial with having a larger site, if you take advantage of them.

[gobeyond]

In an article entitled, "Three Good Reasons To Target Long-Tail Keywords!", the author writes:I assume that the author means that Google likes multi-page sites more than single page sites, though it doesn't say quite that. My question is, is that true?

Search engines are looking for relevancy. More pages certainly can make a site more relevant to the subject. If you have a web site selling big screen TVs, it surely helps by adding pages for price comparison, model difference, brand difference, plasma vs lcd, faq, troubleshooting tips etc. All the pages have relevant keywords in them and they all add a bit confidence about the nature of your site.

I'd say as long as all the pages have relevant info, having more pages does help the site's overall rankings.

[hostingcomments]

Yes, definately Long-Tail Keywords are very useful .

[torka]

More pages certainly can make a site more relevant to the subject.

Certainly more pages may mean the site offers more information about a particular subject. (Not necessarily useful information, though, and -- depending on how the pages are organized and written -- it may not even necessarily constitute more information, but I digress.)

The problem is, Google (and the other SEs) don't index or rank sites. They index and rank pages. Your site doesn't show up in the search results -- one or two of your pages do. There's no such thing as your "site's overall rankings" in any search engine.

In my experience working with multi-domain sites and multi-site domains, I've seen no evidence Google's ranking algo even pays much attention to "site" as a concept to start with.

Larger sites allow you to control more content, so you have the opportunity to rank well for a wider variety of target phrases, which might make it appear that Google "likes" these large sites better as their individual pages show up for more search queries. Larger sites also have advantages of increased internal linking and other factors that may ultimately lead to increased rankings, so -- given the choice -- I'd rather organize my content into one large site than a half dozen smaller ones.

But in order for Google to "like" a large site better than a small one, they'd have to be paying attention to what a site is in the first place -- and I just don't see evidence that they're doing this.

My YMMV

--Torka

[St0n3y]

I think there is an inherit advantage to having a larger site. I don't necessarily think that Google has a preference, but the advantages can be pretty significant. The most significant is that bigger sites can usually achieve rankings for more keywords. But ultimately, you need to build a site that meets your audience's needs. A site that is too big and not well constructed can often lead to poor usability and lower conversions.

[BostonScott]

I think there is an inherit advantage to having a larger site. I don't necessarily think that Google has a preference, but the advantages can be pretty significant. The most significant is that bigger sites can usually achieve rankings for more keywords. But ultimately, you need to build a site that meets your audience's needs. A site that is too big and not well constructed can often lead to poor usability and lower conversions.

I agree with that.

A larger site, in and of itself, may not rank better simply because it is bigger... but from an SEO perspective you have more to work with to pursue your goal of demonstrating relevance on a large class of keywords.

All things equal... If the architecture is strong, if there is a good cross-link strategy, a good internal link building strategy, etc., a larger site COULD demonstrate that it has greater authority on a particular keyword/phrase then a smaller site... as long as a large portion of the site's content has a consistent theme, and again, has good architecture/SEO.

Big site won't always beat small site on a particular keyword, but for a class of related keywords, one would expect that it would do much better... especially because a majority of searches are unique and the random distribution of keywords on a large site alone should help the larger site get more long-tail keywords than the smaller site... again, all things equal.

[Keith Cash]

I agree with BostonScott;


Also the more content the website has, the more keywords it gives the spiders to grab a hold of when searching a website.


Cheers

[ewo]

I agree with BostonScott;
Also the more content the website has, the more keywords it gives the spiders to grab a hold of when searching a website.
Cheers

But, surely, if Google only deals in pages, and not sites, how can this be true?

[Randy]

In a perfect world those pages all link to each other ewo. That's how having a larger site can have something of a positive effect.

If I had to guess the article was probably talking more to people who have very small sites and are only optimizing for a dozen or less keyword phrases. Completely ignoring lesser traffic --but still very important-- keyword phrases. In that sense adding more pages to target these 2nd and 3rd level phrases will have a positive impact. But if you're already targeting those dozens and dozens of phrases, adding more content for the sake of doing it is a waste of time.

Real world though, don't worry about it. If the site needs more content, make it larger. If it doesn't, don't.

I have large sites, medium sized sites and small sites. Ranging from a few hundred thousand pages to a couple hundred pages down to a low of a dozen or so pages. Google likes them all equally well for what they are.

[Michael Martinez]

(keithcash @ Jan 2 2007, 04:31 PM)
I agree with BostonScott;
Also the more content the website has, the more keywords it gives the spiders to grab a hold of when searching a website.
Cheers

But, surely, if Google only deals in pages, and not sites, how can this be true?

If you pick 30 pages at random that each get 10 visitors per day for a variety of untargeted queries, think about the value of having all 30 of those pages on one domain versus having them on 30 domains. Your domain gets 300 visitors per day.

The more content pages you put on a Web site, the more likely the Web site is to be found for random, so-called "long tail" queries. It doesn't matter that the search engines are only looking at pages. You, the owner of the domain, have a choice: go with a little bit of content or go with a lot of content.

In the long run, you'll build up your traffic faster with more content. Of course, from a marketing perspective, you want that content to be appropriate for the function of the Web site.

[jehochman]

What do visitors search for? Information.

The more information you provide, the more visitors you'll get. Just remember that content is not the same as information. If your content has high information value, as in lots of signal and little noise, that's better. One well written page is much more effective than ten pages of crap.

[Jill]

Whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of creating content just for content's sake. Your site only needs as many pages as it needs to tell the story.

One of my consulting clients today asked me how many articles they needed to add to their site? 30? 50? more? I told them the same thing, they only need as many articles as they need.

Do your keyword research to see what people are searching for that's related to your site and create content based on that. But don't worry about creating content. Simply having a newsletter each week or month with featured article that gets archived on your site is your content. Or your forum where users are posting threads is your content.

That's all content that is REAL and makes your site truly larger and more comprehensive. Stuff you just write for the search engines is garbage and won't help in the long run.

[ewc21]

The statement is open to different interpretations. Taken literally, it appears that a webmaster could provide content just for the sake if jacking up the number of pages instead of quality of the information provided within the content.

I think in any given day, pages that have more pages don't always rank higher than sites with fewer pages. Perhaps Google meant that it prefers a site to have more quality information and not just plentiful irrelevant content.