Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Who Says Short Copy Works Best?
Posted 31 August 2003 - 02:25 PM
I'm new to this forum but would just like to make one observation on this topic. On my 800 x 600 screen I have just readr right through with interest the equivalent of 11 pages. If it is interesting readers will click down.
Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:37 PM
The reason that was done on the one page of this particular site is that SEO was THE primary concern of this site owner. As you said... you have to write as much as needs to be written to do the job. That's what I did.... making the page much longer than 250 words.
So, Jill had me optimize the top portion of the page for the engines and then we turned the remainder of the copy into a .gif. This allowed for good optimization, it allowed the message to remain (thus meeting the needs of sales and of the reader).
No difference to the reader in the end. The copy was there, giving the info they needed, but it didn't "overload" the page. Also, as the page went on, it - by necessity - went into some topics that were not easy to insert keywords into. We didn't want to dilute the message by "forcing" keyphrases into the text.
There have been some excellent discussions about this topic, and thank you all for your participation!
Posted 31 August 2003 - 04:50 PM
By the way, I'm intrigued! Karon said this in one of her posts:
What Jill did on one site we worked together on was to have the bottom half of the page created as a graphic. I optimized the 1st 300 words or so and the rest got dumped into a .gif.
May I ask why you did that??
I think I just figured out who you are! (Your cadbury avatar gave you away!)
Regarding your question to Karon, I don't actually remember what site or page she was talking about, but there have been a few cases where a certain page has to have a legal disclaimer, or something to that effect, which can't be edited. I don't want those to dilute the keyword phrase focus we worked so hard to get, so I like to put them in a graphic. Same with a testimonial that isn't naturally keyword-rich. Just change them into a graphic, and no diluted focus!
Posted 31 August 2003 - 05:30 PM
Ok - I think I'm getting there - slowly...
Say the page your were talking about had 300 on-topic words and 300 off-topic words and you were optimising for a single keyphrase.
If you get 6 keyphrase mentions in those first 300 words and you DON'T put the last 300 off-topic words in a graphic, the Google's algo looks at 6 keyphrases over 600 words. But if you DO put them in a graphic then the Google's algo looks at 6 keyphrases over 300 words an gives you a higher score/ ranking - right??
If so, that's a very neat idea - thank you!
Posted 31 August 2003 - 05:37 PM
That's a very good idea. It also gives you an opportunity to increase your keyword density because now your crossheads -- I believe we just refer to them a headers in North America -- can be legitimately repeated twice.
I'll always break up longer pages with plenty of crossheads and then repeat all of the crossheads at the top of the page in a mini-index of html 'jump-down' links.
Very clever. A user friendly device that also adds to the SEO quality of the page.
Posted 31 August 2003 - 06:46 PM
But if half the page was words that were off topic, I'd move them to a new page. If your site shouldn't be ranking for the words in those paragraphs, they really shouldn't be there.
There's not a lot of copy that HAS to be on a page. It's just nice to have a technique you can use when you do run across those few times when it happens.
Posted 31 August 2003 - 11:42 PM
After I finish a web page I always go back and read just the headings and sub-headings. The headings and sub-headings should tell your whole story. This will take care of the "scanners"and there are a LOT (me included) of scanners on the Internet.
Reading the headings and sub-headings is also a good way to see if your page is organized and flows freely.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Posted 01 September 2003 - 06:56 AM
It was the art site. I don't think he'd care if we used him as an example. The URL is here: http://www.interacti...om/promise.html. But it looks like you changed it (or he changed it) to a pop-up instead of the graphic. (The part about more info for people under 13.
Posted 01 September 2003 - 08:37 AM
Again, I wouldn't go putting half your copy into a graphic just because you don't want to make it keyword rich. Doing this sort of thing should be reserved for stuff that you have to have on the page. Not stuff that could be moved elsewhere.
Posted 01 September 2003 - 05:07 PM
Jerry - I'm with you all the way on that - headers are primarily for scanning and for flow.
Compar - thanks for the compliment - I have an enormous ego and all contributions are gratefully accepted!
Posted 01 September 2003 - 11:00 PM
Graphics can't be resized and the color can't be changed, and they can't be read by text-to-speech browsers. All of which can make text contained within graphics pretty much inacessible to the visually handicapped.
Posted 01 September 2003 - 11:03 PM
Posted 02 September 2003 - 09:24 AM
Both pages are optimized as usual for the same keywords. It was said that the 300 word page would work better for Google and the very much longer one would work better for Inktomi. Can anyone confirm this? Given the rumblings at Yahoo, this may be important for us all to know!
Posted 02 September 2003 - 10:51 AM
I think that may be why Jill (or the Web designer) changed the original thought of a graphic to the pop-up idea.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users