59 replies to this topic

[Randy]

The issue is domain keywords rank over most other factors and in the example i've given it blatantly proves this !!! ... 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.

Again, I respectfully disagree.

The #1 site has the exact phrase in its html <title> tag. And has the exact phrase in its meta description. And has the exact phrase in at least some of the external links pointing towards it since the DMOZ entry has it that way and that one gets emulated all over the place.

None of the other top sites have all of those things going for them. Are you completely discounting the effects of these on page and off page factors in favor of the domain name? Because they do have an effect, especially when only one site in a low competition sector is doing all of them. As it gets more competitive, as mentioned above when you look at Global .com SERPs one needs to do more. But as things stand I can see why it would rank where it ranks for UK searches.

Do domain names have some effect? Yes. Especially in low competition markets and when people link to those sites using the phrase as anchor text. But to say it's a major factor or one that trumps all else is simply disingenuous and faulty reasoning.

[SEO FF]

SEO FF - thanks for your understanding, and I know it might be a bit harsh but you see there's a big problem in the world of SEO, lots of "experts" shovelling a mass of rubbish and inventing great and wonderful theories.

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.

Boy, do I feel like a failure after reading this...lol not totally

I'm not really trying to call you out but I guess it's going to come across that way... what makes you any different from the "many" that hide behind theories? Mind you, this is before I've been able to read your previous posts, which I plan to do if you keep reading. Perhaps I missed something in this thread but I plan to re-read it all to see if I overlooked one of your points.

The first thing I plan to do is go back and read your previous posts and see what I can learn from them. I respect your experience in the field. I don't claim to do everything right. I don't claim to know even a lot about SEO. I do know enough to deliver results and conversion to the few sites I've worked on. I'm sure they could have been achieved in several different ways. Hence, the main reason I visit sites like this. To find out how others are experiencing success and learn from them by applying, testing, repeating.

On many levels your comments are very accurate. If someone has been down the road before (like yourself), they are in a great position to provide valuable and solid advice based on proven techniques and methodologies. What I fail to understand is why it is such a secret. I'm pretty sure nobody is breaking the mold these days as there are various methodologies that work, some better than others. I can only go on what I know, what I've applied and what I've seen work for me and the sites I've worked on. Anyone can spout of theories and numbers (I'm guilty of this too) but nobody can know how genuine some of these theories are without proof. I am certainly not going to jump on board of your methodology simply b/c you say so and b/c you say you've seen it work. For the benefits of the original poster, I think it would help them to understand why one is important vs the other by an example or some sort of credible evidence besides you saying so. This makes it no different than any other "expert shovelling a mass of rubbish." This part of your statement is contradicting. I cant speak for anyone else but I'm not looking to see all of your secret ingredients to success. But I think its fair to ask for something a little more than saying I've seen it done and I've accomplished this. Anything more than that and I think you'll provide benefit to this post. Adi gave a site and supported his theory. I think you can get away with a few specific details and provide benefit.

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.

I respect your experience within this field. It provides a better insight to your comments knowing how long you've been involved in this industry. I have not been around this forum in quite some time. I am all about learning. I don't think I can personally say I will know everything about SEO while I know some people are convinced they have it all. I have done some good things with the few sites I've played around with. I am sure I could have done better and done some things differently. For this reason, I come around forums like this to learn and better myself. I am intrigued by SEO its curveballs and change ups. It is hard to decipher what is rubbish (in some cases) and what is not. There are many different methodologies and I am open to hearing about all of them if people are willing to share. Again, not sure why the secrecy runs so rampant in this industry but it has to be respected I guess.

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.

I'm not going to challange you on your numbers but by looking at it, I can draw several conclusions of my own of course. Numbers are numbers. Showing what got you those numbers is what I am challanging. This again go back to the secrecy thing. Hopefully, somewhere in your 30 some odd posts, I can get an idea of your methodology and learn something from you. I don't want to continue going off course, but I'll send you a PM later.

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.

Are you stalking me? lol I actually get out precisely a little black book and take notes all the time. I've had to graduate recently to a yellow notepad as the marble notebook brought back some bad memories and I ran out of paper.

I am open-minded to seeing new ideas and methodologies. Perhaps I don't know enough to make my own theories or just don't know how to disprove these theories. I sure don't want to be spoon fed (can't speak for anyone else though) but I want to UNDERSTAND what affected the results. I have problem buying into new ideas but you can't expect someone to buy into an idea without support. I'm sure you would wholly agree.

Now, the somewhat contradicting twist.... one site that I worked on has keywords in the domain along with the company name. The site was ranking on the 1st page in Google (US) for the main keywords. Unfortunately, the keywords were not searched for by users very much so yet it was on the 1st page, it was not delivering traffic. I obtained 1 quality link from a blog and sure enough, the site is now #1 for the keywords. Great, its a # 1 ranking but it means little if its not delivering traffic or conversions. Within the last month, it seems to be delivering more traffic than previous months at #1 but the main reason for the top ranking is not keyword in domain, its linking. Although KID was involved, it was not the reason for the # 1 rank. To reiterate, I think that KID has a place but I have not seen any substantial proof or evidence (other than Adi's reference) that it's a major ranking factor. I am surely open to seeing other examples for those willing to share.

2clean, I am not sure if you are trying to lap me into the "self-proclaimed" expert category but an expert I am not. Anyone can spew rubbish as if it's the be all end all. Still, some detail about how the results were derived or data to support this will get people to buy into your methodologies. At least for me. I'm here to learn just like the next person. I don't tout by putting a link to my successful sites in my signature and expect people to click my link to get additional information. I try to give back what I've learned. SEO is a viscous evolution. Methodologies are not always greeted with open arms. Methodologies with support and facts cannot be argued (unless #'s are skewed) There is more than one road to get to the finish line which I understand. My roads aren't the only roads. I hope to understand some of your roads to success one day.

Congratulations for sticking around all these years (and to the end of this novel post) to become a successful SEO. I do envy your experience, contrary to how this post may be interpretted. Hopefully I don't come across too harsh and my point is understood.

Sorry to JSP for aiding in taking this thread somewhat off course. This will be my last public post not related to the original question. By the way, what have you taken from this post so far? I have not seen a reply since your original post.

[2Clean]

eveyone is entitled to their own opinion, why is there this belief that people that work hard to generate a knowledge base should share it everywhere they go. This is valid is SEO more than any other sector.

[adibranch]

oh for chuffs sake randy, all the other sites DO have those things going for them, in greater quanity and better placement within ALL tags and copy (not just the title and description) and with more relevant IBL's. There are even strapping machine manufacturers sites in there, which lets face it is all about strapping machines.. yet one title tag and a paltry mention in a description will overrule them all?

Lets pluck one or two of the other sites at random shall we..
zrtool.com
Better copy, more links, title and description, higher PR (yes, i know), some heading tags thrown in for good measure. A more authoritive site you would agree? Good, so would I.

Lets pluck another..
dynaric.com
same goes.. only more IBL's, title and description, PR, better content, better onsite (what little there is of it), internal linking yada yada.

Now, tell me again about these lower sites..

Edited by adibranch, 05 August 2009 - 11:10 AM.

[1dmf]

I saw less contraversy over the PR-Sculpting debackle than I have on this thread, you certainly get some entertaining reading here on HRF, even if you end up none the wiser

[Say Yebo]

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.

Coincidentally, I recently optimized a site that had a page dedicated to strapping machines.

I named the page www.site.com/strapping-machines.

Not because I think it'll make a huge difference to the rankings, but because I think it's more likely to get clicked on in the SERPS than www.site.com/str4321 or some other meaningless URL.

It has more potential to attract the target audience. Plus, if it's the actual keyword the searcher used, Google will bold it so the listing will attract more attention.

[Jill]

Say Yebo, did it seem to work?

[adibranch]

Coincidentally, I recently optimized a site that had a page dedicated to strapping machines.

yep its weird but i'd never heard of them before, now i've recently taken on two more packaging sites, and all of them sell strapping machines ! Its going to be fun trying to get one above the other

[Jill]

Its going to be fun trying to get one above the other

Easy enough, just be sure you get the right domain for it!

[Say Yebo]

Say Yebo, did it seem to work?

Jill, the site was in such a poor state to begin with (from an SEO point of view) that we could only make it better! :-)

So when their page started getting found for that keyword, it was hard to tell which SEO feature was most responsible.

My guess would be that their new browser title and page content accounted for their fairly decent ranking, and I'm just assuming that their friendly-looking URL may have encouraged some clicks!

It was all done quite recently so I'm still watching with great interest.

[Say Yebo]

yep its weird but i'd never heard of them before, now i've recently taken on two more packaging sites, and all of them sell strapping machines !

Hehe...maybe we should be buying stock in strapping machines!

[Jill]

So when their page started getting found for that keyword, it was hard to tell which SEO feature was most responsible.

Bingo! And that's why when people are so sure it's the domain name, they really shouldn't be.

[Randy]

Now, tell me again about these lower sites..

And what one element I mentioned above, one that is indeed a major one, did you leave completely out of your analysis adibranch?

Good quality external links with the desired keywords in the anchor text.

I hate to say it, but links/anchor text still carries far more power than I'd prefer to see with Google. Which becomes very evident when there's less competition. Personally I think it makes it too easy to manipulate Google for those who choose to do it.

Not that I'm complaining mind you. For most of my niche stuff I can use Google's over reliance on incoming link anchor text to drive my sites to the top of the pile in very short order. Take care of a few on page things, place a few strategic links with smart use of anchor text and *poof* I'm up there whipping sites that have been around for ages. Even if my copy sucked I'd still there.

So it's good for my business.

I'm just not so sure it's good for Google. In fact I'm pretty sure it's not. It's too easy to manipulate in too many market sectors.

Look at the incoming external links to the #1 site, paying special attention to the anchor text. There aren't that many so it's relatively easy to look at. Then look at the incoming external links of those other sites, in the same way with an eye towards the anchor text. I think when you do it'll be a bit of an aha moment.

As an aside, I don't know where you're getting some of your numbers from. The Z site has far more external links pointing to its ranking page than any of the other top 10 I see. (I see the D site at #10 currently.) I'm using Yahoo's Site Explorer thingee. You're not using Google's link: command are you? It's been broken since... well since forever because it's not really broken just doesn't do what it purports to do.

[Dantek]

I saw less contraversy over the PR-Sculpting debackle than I have on this thread, you certainly get some entertaining reading here on HRF, even if you end up none the wiser

...I second that...nevertheless ironically interesting.

[adibranch]

Good quality external links with the desired keywords in the anchor text.

One link in the google report.. and yes i know about the poor quality of the info returned (as i've said, i'm doing this all day every day).
check his results for the term 'brian jepson' as the links to him (reported via google or yahoo) have 'brian jepson strapping machines' in the anchor text.
Found him? he's a good few positions down isnt he.. on a near zero competion term as well.. hmm theres a thought.
I'm not saying the presence of straping machines isnt a contributing factor, it is. Just that its not enough to place him there.

The Z site has far more external links pointing to its ranking page than any of the other top 10 I see

i know.. that was the point. They're better formatted in regards onsite, have more links, and are more relvant to the term than BJ.

Edited by adibranch, 06 August 2009 - 04:34 AM.