Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Keywords In Domain Vs. Volume Of Content
Posted 03 August 2009 - 10:03 AM
Just because a high ranking site has a keyword domain name doesn't mean that is the reason it's ranking well.
While you can believe what you want to believe, I wouldn't want any newbies thinking they've messed up by purchasing and building a logical domain name that doesn't have their keywords in it.
If you want to have keywords in your URL, add them as folder names. Same effect.
Posted 03 August 2009 - 10:17 AM
I agree with Scottie 100% here. While buying a domain with your targeted keywords in it is by no means a bad idea or can work against you, it may prove helpful for your visitors as it's a lot easier to remember. If you are unable to purchase a domain with keywords in it, try looking for URL's with dashes or underscores and 301 redirect that URL to your main URL as qwerty mentioned.
No matter what your domain is, if you don't have good quality content on your site, you won't have to worry about ranking well. Quality content = quality links = better search results. Period.
Posted 03 August 2009 - 10:39 AM
As for the question at hand, YES keywords in the domain do help......at this time. But you've got to consider, on the other hand, what you might be loosing if you just go for a keyword in the domain...Branding.
I've heard and read all about the movement to suggest that keywords in the domain don't do anything, but as someone that has domains which do have keywords in them, and which sit on the first page of Google, I'm not going to argue it out here, because I do not have the time to start one of those endless SEO threads.
At the most basic level.
Point 100 links with a keyword in the domain at Google and does this increase your position, YES.
If those links have a keyword in the domain, you don't need to rewrite the link text, it is legit in its natural state.
Therefore if you're domain has keywords in it, will it be beneficial. Yes.
That's basically it.
Now the brand discussion - "you don't build your brand with keywords, you build them with a funny name like bing.com or google.com". YES. But unless you have literally thousands and thousands of pounds to put into branding exercise online it's a complete fallacy that you build a brand. The studies show that the people that are doing well online are very few e-tailers (amazon, ebay etc) and those brands that have migrated from offline stores to online business (for example supermarkets, banks etc) where the transfer of customer loyalty and trust has been achievable because of the offline transactional history. Key message, get positions, registered users and then migrate to a "Brand" once you reach 100,000 users. A business name should always be registered so that it can be tagged to the bottom of a keyword domain as the owner.
Lastly,you can have the best content in the whole wide world, but if you're not getting inbound links and high rankings you might as well just give up because you won't be found. You need to get creative and do mixed methods with Social Media.
Little bit controversial I know.
Posted 03 August 2009 - 11:17 AM
no, i just quote the one finding which is applicable to me as the domain issue is so strong. I've seen it on several others also though, but these sites are not relevant to me.
The title alone (and thats ALL that the authority site has to offer in way of that term, literally) will not overrule all the other sites below it that have better and more relevant links, copy and ALSO title. If you've seen my site in the results, then please note it is not returning the correct landing page (but we cant go over home vs landing page content issue again, as i think i've proved it fairly conclusively so far).
And , if were bringing domain age into it.. mine is older by a year at just over 8, so i'd also win on that count.
c'mon.. i'm savvy enough to know about this and how to avoid it. i'm almost insulted I am doing this job 52 weeks a year you know..
we have to be looking at different sites. In my results number 1 is the brian jepson site? I hope you're on about another one as the brian jepson has near zero ranking factors other than one title tag and a dmoz entry. Would you consider this to be enough to outrank higher authority sites? no, neither would i.
Let me quote another example of why i apparently think this is happening. ...
His domain is strappingmachines.co.uk
He is number 1 for 'strapping machines'.
He is NOWHERE to be seen for the singular 'strapping machine'
Yet, if he was marketing this site effectively to benumber 1 for the plural, ihe would also be found for the singular. I put it to you sir, that the only reason he is there is the domain. Now, please prove otherwise if you can, and i'll admit defeat graciously.
Edited by adibranch, 03 August 2009 - 12:42 PM.
Posted 03 August 2009 - 12:25 PM
Do you have support for this? Have you conducted tests or know of anyone who has? Has there been a test conducted where by simply adding keywords in the domain, the site has jumped up in the search results? Is there documentation for this? I would like to read it if so. If you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it or if you can elaborate more.
On the contrary, I have seen an e-commerce website jump up in the ranks for having keywords in the domain vs query strings. Granted, these terms were not very competitive and the results were better seen in Yahoo vs Google.
Little bit controversial I know.
Hmmm... you will not get the rankings with out the links. You will likely not get the links without the content. So to say this is "little bit controversial" is a bit of an understatement. Not that I am going to get into a pissing match but your methodology seems correct but your path to achieve it is not.
If you throw rubbish onto a website, who is going to link to it? The webamster can look to "spam" by way of blog comments or drill down directories, but we all know that most directory links are not very resourceful SEO-wise. That argument lies within getting the links, which there are numerous methods to doing so, social media certainly being one of them. Certain industries do not have the same benefits as others in the social media market.
The question of the OP was not about link building, but it was about deciding if keywords in domain would be better than content in terms of ranking. I don't think there can be any argument that content is what is going to get you to the top (by way of links) over keyword in domain. A search bot being able to parse the text within a link is arguable. No matter how you slice it, if you don't have something on your site to engage and attract visitors (pictures, videos, e-books, tips, jokes, etc. = content) than you will never be seen, regardless of your domain name.
The reference Adibranch posted is quite interesting at first glance. Again, for non-competitive terms, I can see keywords in domain working, as the reference proves. None of the other sites have any quality links pointing to them either. I'm sure a handful of quality links for any of those other sites would easily boot the # 1 out of that position. The other kicker is that it's a flash site...lol
Posted 03 August 2009 - 12:31 PM
i think the issue here is kewords in the domain itself, and not in the following url (eg domain.com/keywords, which arent an issue or a weight carrier).
exactly... this only seems to occur with some of the less competetive phrases, and it is ultimately and eventually overruled by IBLs and other factors when we start getting into bigger terms and more competitiveness between sites. There is definitely a cut off point. HOWEVER , if were talking bigger terms and if all things were equal among competing sites, the site with the keyword domain would rule, in my humble opinion.
Edited by adibranch, 03 August 2009 - 12:40 PM.
Posted 04 August 2009 - 02:26 AM
Yes I have tested this and sorry but you're getting the output of 10 years working in the field. Take it, leave it or confirm it yourself with some tests.
Posted 04 August 2009 - 11:36 AM
Very well. I can understand your stance here. Not all of us have the abilities to throw up websites just to test theories. I am not an SEO company, just working on a friends site. I thought this was a place to share theories, ideas and help one another understand the non understandable.
Out of any of the research I've conducted (may not be as thorough as others) I have yet to see a keyword in domain outranking any site for a competitive terms. The example that adi mentioned was for a non competitive term. Either way, it's still interesting.
Most SEO's throw out any jargon to make themselves look credible and know what they are talking about. (not a shot at you in any way, just to make a point) Data and support is what builds trust and supports these claims. Personally, I am a hands on guy. I like to see the data/support if possible. Your decision to obstain from providing support for whatever you reason is your decision. I respect that. If you change your mind, I would love to see how a keyword in domain outweighs content.
Posted 04 August 2009 - 12:05 PM
well yes, but its a reasonably competitive term i guess.. around 100 companies in the UK will sell strappinng machines, and most industries use them and need them. Adwords figures state around 15,000 searches per month, so its not that low, its just not that high.
Competitiveness is relative
Edited by adibranch, 04 August 2009 - 12:27 PM.
Posted 04 August 2009 - 04:04 PM
Competitiveness is relative
In this setting, competitiveness refers to how hard the competitors are trying to optimize their sites rather than how many competitors there are.
Posted 05 August 2009 - 02:36 AM
The reality, unfortunately, is that many hide behind these theories, because they seem incapable of analyzing the search engine algo, and instead come out with things like "write good content", something which quite frankly is part and parcel of anything you are trying to sell and communicate, so pretty lame advice in my opinion.
As someone who's been testing this stuff from right back in the days when Altavista was the search engine to rank under, and Google wasn't even around, I have the luxury of experience. I've seen the industry move from positioning and ranking to holistic web marketing services. All good, but its melded together SEO with information architecture/design and created a kind of in-between category that, in my opinion captures about 80% of the industry.
It's for this reason I tend to throw out methodologies rather than vague and all encompassing ideas about what could, might, or should be. I want people to learn SEO properly. I know how to get results, and I've put clients on the first page of Google among 135million results. What do I deliver? 2-400% increase in targeted traffic via organic search.
SEO is not rocket science, it really isn't, but because very few people can break apart the search engines, it's made out to be by the industry at large. With the net effect that the industry is viewed with distrust.
So, get out a little black book and start making notes, you'll be surprised how easy it is.
Posted 05 August 2009 - 03:38 AM
We must be looking at totally different data everywhere adibranch. I don't see anywhere near 15,000 searches per month in the UK, and we're talking about co.uk results right? I see roughly 3,500 local UK searches monthly for the plural and singular version combined. So roughly a touch over 100 searches per day.
And I didn't see anything to indicate the sites themselves were producing anything competitive compared to most markets. Lots of pages with very few direct links pointing to them, not to mention the anchor text on many of those links. Or to put it in terms so many seem to understand, toolbar PageRank values in the 1-2 range are dominating those SERPs. The highest I saw in the top 10 sites was a tPR 4, and none of those PR 4's were among the top 5 when I looked.
Or to put it another way some look at it 366,000 competing pages for the singular broad match and and less than a million for broad match on the plural version. All in title came up to roughly 22,000 pages (Globally, not limited to UK only) for the plural and 52,000 (Globally) or so for the singular all in title. With none of the top 20 in a UK search going to any great extremes to rank, as they probably shouldn't given the decidedly iffy traffic numbers.
Now if you expand it out to Global search numbers in the Google tool there are 15k searches reported each month. But in Global neither of the sites in question is in the top 20 any time I've ever checked when looking at the .com results with my normal US IP number.
So the global phrases may be a bit more competitive, though still not very competitive. In the local UK market I couldn't call either the singular or plural competitive. So it really wouldn't take much for one site to jump over another in the grand scheme of things. For instance say a DMOZ listing that includes the keyword phrase(s) in the link anchor; Having the exact phrase in the <title> of the page; Having the phrase in the description, etc, etc. All of which I might add the #1 site has, and none of the other top 10 have all of, save one site around position #5 that has those things going for them but no other content in their page. (Hint: A single paragraph doesn't count at content.)
I just don't see it as a competitive market at all. It's so non-competitive that it's probably a good thing the traffic numbers aren't there. If the traffic numbers were there someone like yours truly could jump into the market and dominate it in fairly short order. But you're safe because people like me won't bother with such low traffic potential.
The real moral of the story being... Lots of strange and wonderful things can appear to happen when you're dealing with really uncompetitive markets. But these strange and wonderful things don't really mean much until the same sort of result can be proven by / seen in least a moderately competitive market space. Why? Because without the competition it could literally be one unseen link with decent anchor text giving you a completely false positive result.
Posted 05 August 2009 - 04:56 AM
The authority site has zero SEO applied or incoming links, it mentions nothing about strapping machines except in flash, it has no ibls to speak of. Yet, it is there above sites which are plainly about strapping machines (even strapping machine manufacturers !!!!), sites that have more ibl's, and better onsite.
Sorry, but i havent seen anything which explains this, just random guesses about competiveness, sites below it having perhaps not many links (incorrect) or perhaps not targeting the term (incorrect), and people clutching at straws to try and explain it. If no one has any relevant facts for this, just resign yourself to the fact that yes, keywords in domain DO play a major part.
Someone give me a good explanation of HOW that site sits at position 1 except for the domain and i'll accept it, but no one has. Unless you can, i advise against going off on tangents as were getting wildly off the point.
(Randy, yes i was talking global as an example. UK figure are obviously less, but 3500 uk searches is a reasonable figure in my eyes. Under 500 is low)
Edited by adibranch, 05 August 2009 - 05:02 AM.
Posted 05 August 2009 - 06:11 AM
Posted 05 August 2009 - 09:40 AM
I cannot see anything in this thread which suggests otherwise as to why that site is there.. yet I CAN see reasons and findings that suggest it is purely down to keyword domain. Everyone else can see this too, but some do not have an open mind to acknowledge it, and instead try and bluff there way out.. sorry but i'm not convinced.
Edited by adibranch, 05 August 2009 - 09:48 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users