Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Keyword Stuffing That Seems To Be Allowed...


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 DJKay

DJKay

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:28 PM

Jill,

 

Its been a while since I posted in the forum, although I just saw you at SEMNE.  Anyway, I enjoyed your newsletter article on footer links and I wanted to get your take on this page:

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_2533819.html

 

Specifically, the links just below the video.  Its chock full of links with same anchor text, links to other areas on their site, links to follow twitter feeds specifically on Bengazi.

 

Is this a clear cut case of content curation?  Is this a case of extreme site linking? Is this some sort of content creation platform and those links are being piped in?  Is this a case of a big brand getting away with things that smaller and or not in favor brands would get hosed for?

 

I lean towards content curation and a tinge of a big brand thing.  Opinions appreciated.  Thanks, DJKay

 



#2 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,108 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:25 PM

It's good marketing and promotion,

 

THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT SEARCH ENGINES

 

 

But it DOES get visitors to go EXACTLY where they want them to go!!!



#3 DJKay

DJKay

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:23 AM

I agree.  Personally, I find their style a little exhausting to read because they use lots of caps, bold.  Everything feels like a screaming match.

 

I just think with Panda & Penguin, its an interesting page to put up and discuss.



#4 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,108 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 24 January 2013 - 08:35 AM

Yeah, but "Panda", "Penguin", "Skunk", "Badger" or any other black and white animal that Google choose for code names are only of concern to site owners operators who consider that search referrals are the "be all and end all" of getting visitors.

 

 

I find their style a little exhausting to read because they use lots of caps, bold.

You mean just like a real world "bead tree" newpaper does? :)

 

The Huffington Post is what it is, a newspaper for the virtual world, They do it right, the "call to action" statements leave the readers in no doubt of what to do or where to look next.

 

The editorial content is slap bang in the mid section, their navigation is exactly in "mouse line" for right hand dominant people (70-90% of the population)

 

Their documents are aimed at and created for people, and search engines can do whatever they wish.

 

WHICH is EXACTLY what search engine engineers want everybody to do.



#5 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,009 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:23 AM

Are you kidding Chris? HuffPo is totally spammy with their keyword stuffed tags. It's totally for search engines. 

 

 

 

Is this a case of a big brand getting away with things that smaller and or not in favor brands would get hosed for?

 

Yep. 



#6 DJKay

DJKay

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:11 AM

Chris, you make an interesting point when you say, its "Their documents are aimed at and created for people, and search engines can do whatever they wish."

 

I do feel there is a little bit of the big brand getting away with things.  I guess the question I would ask, is, are the links under the video useful to the user?  And by them being in the middle of the page, right under the video, before the main content area [text area of the story], lend itself more to a curation of sorts...

 

I am debating this kind of thing right now internally as we are doing a redesign of one our major brands.  While its a powerful brand publication in its niche, its not the same gravitas as the Huffington Post.  We are a B2B publisher in various technology verticals.  So the concern is, would we get slapped for doing this kind of thing...hard to know..  but a great discussion.

 

Any other thoughts are appreciated.  Jump on in, the water is fine! :)

 

DJKay



#7 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,108 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:24 PM

So is Wikipedia also "spammy" for linking to other related documents on Wikipedia.

 

MSN.com for it's hundreds of links to other documents?



#8 SelfMade

SelfMade

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:21 PM

So is Wikipedia also "spammy" for linking to other related documents on Wikipedia.

 

MSN.com for it's hundreds of links to other documents?

 

Yeah, fair point. :disguise:


Edited by SelfMade, 24 January 2013 - 07:22 PM.


#9 ElvisH

ElvisH

    HR 2

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 06:41 AM

as great Albert Einstein concluded its all relative :)

you gave an example from one of the alexa top100.
Since the website got a vast types categories and interests. The “FOLLOW” links they've got under the video are one of the only ways to expose the readers to close, related issue(s), besides maybe a direct search.

In this case btw they're doing awfully wrong.
 



#10 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,157 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 28 April 2013 - 01:14 PM

The "Follow" links just appear to be normal "tag" links pointing to other topics on the Website.  I'm no fan of Huffington Post but it's a widespread and commonly accepted practice.  Wordpress.com has been using internal tag links like that for years.

 

Is it "keyword stuffing", though?  What does Google say?

 

http://support.googl...en&answer=66358

 

 

"Keyword stuffing" refers to the practice of loading a webpage with keywords or numbers in an attempt to manipulate a site's ranking in Google search results. Often these keywords appear in a list or group, or out of context (not as natural prose). Filling pages with keywords or numbers results in a negative user experience, and can harm your site's ranking. Focus on creating useful, information-rich content that uses keywords appropriately and in context.

Examples of keyword stuffing include:

That describes something different from using a relatively small blog of keyword-rich tags on a page.

 

Sitewide tag clouds became a problem but this is not a sitewide tag cloud.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!