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!
More SEO Content
3-page Minimum?
#1
Posted 13 May 2004 - 06:47 AM
Someone told me that a site really had to have a minimum of three pages in order to be ranked well with the SEs. Never heard that before. Do you think this is true?
Karon
#2
Posted 13 May 2004 - 07:38 AM
No, from what I've seen its not true and there is no set rule.
True - sites with lots of content do tend to rank better as there would be more text for optimisation and internal links, which could account for a higher ranking.
However there are pne page sites that have adequate amount of text and external links to give them a high ranking.
Cheers
Matt
#3
Posted 13 May 2004 - 08:02 AM
Bernhard
#4
Posted 13 May 2004 - 11:11 AM
I managed to get a site ranked in the top ten of Google with only one page. The site was stuck there for a few months, then I started adding more pages.
Was it for a competitive phrase?
#5
Posted 13 May 2004 - 11:31 AM
Don't have the url, but the most recent was a usb panel that fits in a drive bay. Very attractive 2 page site, one product w/ a lot of technical info.
#6
Posted 13 May 2004 - 12:51 PM
In general, for real keyword phrases and real sites, I wouldn't touch one that didn't have at least 5 pages.
Jill
#7
Posted 13 May 2004 - 01:27 PM
Lately I havent seen a one page site in any of the really competitive keywords...atelast in my field.
#8
Posted 13 May 2004 - 04:14 PM
I got the "How Come"s regarding the fact that they are not a rich, authority, hub site, etc..
Then I did a little research and found they had about 27,000 incoming links while measuring by the same metric the client site had 14!
#9
Posted 13 May 2004 - 06:57 PM
Your "someone" is completely wrong.Hey,
Someone told me that a site really had to have a minimum of three pages in order to be ranked well with the SEs. Never heard that before. Do you think this is true?
Karon
Hexed
#10
Posted 13 May 2004 - 06:58 PM
Content is not king. Keyword anchors are king.If content is king, and you cant really put lot of content in 1-3 pages
Hexed
#11
Posted 13 May 2004 - 07:13 PM
Care to back up your answer, Hexed, or are you just here to be nasty?Your "someone" is completely wrong.
Hexed
Obviously, Karon was asking because she didn't think it sounded right, so tell us why her "someone" is wrong, in your opinion like the rest of us have already done with our opinions.
Oh, and welcome!
Jill
#12
Posted 14 May 2004 - 04:50 PM
But who said we have to choose one or the other for SEO?Content is not king. Keyword anchors are king.
Saying that either content is king or keyword anchors are king is like asking: Which leg does the walking - the left or the right?
IMO, if you want staying power in the top 10 rankings, rather than a brief sojourn, then use both.
BrianR
#14
Posted 16 May 2004 - 05:36 AM
King of what? A successful website is comprised of several factors each playing their own role. So let me be the first to dethrone your king and say that what is the point of having a good spot in the search engines if you cannot satisfy your users?Content is not king. Keyword anchors are king.
Hexed
#15
Posted 26 May 2004 - 01:25 PM
While no single rule applies to every website in every industry, I'd agree that smaller sites are not ideal. I would say that the main problem with a site 3 pages or less is that either it doesn't offer sufficient information for either search engines or humans, or it tries to put way too much information on just a page or two, and overwhelms the person attempting to read through it.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users








