Google Optimization Theory.

DrData · #1 (**permalink**) 01-16-2005, 10:29 PM

Google Optimization Theory.

One thing I notice is sites that use a large font heading and then use words like we, our, provide, offer, etc, in the body get better rankings. Any Google SEO experts have any comments on this theory?

cbp · #2 (**permalink**) 01-16-2005, 10:42 PM

I have not seen that.

CBP

**ctabuk** · #3 (**permalink**) 01-17-2005, 05:05 AM

Hi DrData, your site is more than just a little Google orientated, 12 years old? Constantly updated, good PR, no I think you could give us tips!

mlevenhagen · #4 (**permalink**) 01-17-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

One thing I notice is sites that use a large font heading and then use words like we, our, provide, offer, etc, in the body get better rankings. Any Google SEO experts have any comments on this theory?

It wouldn't surprise me... Google takes bold or italics into consideration when ranking a page so it wouldn't surprise me that they wouldn't take Large Fonts as well... Anything that stands out is important...

I believe "we" "our" are stop words...

I'm not sure that it would have anything to do with words in the body unless they are related to the heading somehow.

There may be a certain limit. A lot of sales pages have a lot of bold text and large fonts. So a certain density might work against you...

Just my thoughts,

greeneagle · #5 (**permalink**) 01-17-2005, 01:35 PM

I haven't seen any substantial heirarchy changes in the the GOOGLE algs for a while until this last update. I still can't figure this last one out except to say that it seems to have something to do with strong OBLs (Outbound links).

I haven't seen any changes in priority for large fonts and we have a client that uses extremely large text in the header section as h1s and h2s.

Ken

mlevenhagen · #6 (**permalink**) 01-17-2005, 02:42 PM

Sorry, but this thread has got my mind working a little... This is what I think:

The H1 tag would just establish what the page is about. It's saying hey! I'm about this! It helps establish the hierarchy of the page and makes things easier for the spider.

Font tags might even have the same effect to a lesser or greater degree...

Would either tags help you in the SERPS or are they just a way for the spider to organize information about that page? It might only help from a "this is what I'm about" perspective. It might just catagorize you...

It could help from a perspective of indexing and the ranking is left up to other factors... a spider that finds a page with no tags might find it more difficult to figure out what a page is about and the page would not be indexed properly.

It might be a way to control or help the spider index that page the way it should be. But you might not see a direct relationship to your position in the SERPS.

So I think it would make sense that GBots used tags to define what a page is about, but to what degree it effects ranking you could never figure out for sure. There are to many factors (more important factors) that could skew any results one way or another...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Google have to do two different things:

1) The spider reading the page and figuring out what it's about....

2) The algorithm to establish the position in the SERPs....

If I was in charge at Google, I would not base position in the SERPS on the 1st. There are a lot of sites about "X".

Just like a person, ya need to read all the material first, organize it, then figure out it's imporance based on outside factors...

scallihan · #7 (**permalink**) 01-17-2005, 08:43 PM

"Just like a person, ya need to read all the material first, organize it, then figure out it's imporance based on outside factors..."

Which is exactly what spiders can't do -- they don't read for comprehension. The "semantic Web" is a long way off yet.

I think you have to look at it as a running battle -- the battle is to include what deserves to be included (is relevant to a particular search) while excluding what deserves to be excluded (is not relevant to a particular search). It is a battle because there are lots of people trying to figure out and get to the top of Google, whether they deserve to be there or not. SEO tricks, however, while they might pay off for awhile, seldom work for long, and can become big traps clanging shut later on.

mlevenhagen · #8 (**permalink**) 01-18-2005, 12:23 AM

I'm not saying they weigh anything one way or another, but this thread is about theory.

I agree they don't read for comprehension. But they can use triggers to organize words. They do know if you have an <h1> tag. They do know if a word is in italics, they do know if a word is bold face. Based on that, they can be programmed to pick up on those factors and use the words contained within as they wish...

If they wanted, they could exclude all words in italics from the algo...

They don't comprehend, but they can take orders.

And I agree it is a battle. It has to be...

I am Nick · #9 (**permalink**) 01-18-2005, 01:43 AM

Would it not be expected that the spiders would rank your own keywords according to attribute of text choosen by you, i.e. according to your own idea about what is important and not?

Also, would it not overlook the name of the tag and instead go for the size and other apperances? I mean, today, should we not be able to work entirely in CSS and call our tags whatever, and still get the best result?

The SE are all about delivering the best search results to it's users. I would say only www firms use the "title" appropriate, and hence could not be used as a good selector. You do not have to be a webmaster to provide the best content. This is probably clear to the SE already...

My guess is that headers will take over from titles. Actually I am amazed Google do not appear to have done this already!

Nick

freehits · #10 (**permalink**) 01-18-2005, 04:51 AM

This seems strange to me as CSS does so much of this anyhow. I cant see font size having any effect when it can be controlled in ways google wouldnt see anyhow. I am a solid believer in the heading tags of course as they signify the importance of a phrase to that page for the publisher. The HEADING tag isnt thought of as a "handy" way to make the font "real big", no matter what it looks like the heading is to say this is what counts.

Font size and bold I dont see having any effect on its own since it alone says nothing about what the page if for. I can have a class of text that is 36pt monster font but google wouldnt see it as anything but page type.

This seems beyond unlikely, and I too havnt seen anything to connect it with any on page factor of importance.

Duncan Pollock · #11 (**permalink**) 01-19-2005, 05:04 PM

Rather than having any likely effect on your search position, the right/wrong words are going to have an influence on your conversion rate.
Salespeople are well aware that the key to a presentation is to answer the prospect's question "What's in it for me?" In this respect, there's sense in using the "you" factor rather than the "me" one.
However, the likelihood of the spiders being able to assess this aspect of a site has to be minimal if anything at all.
If some top position sites seem to use "we" etc., it can only be a coincidence.

Duncan

greeneagle · #12 (**permalink**) 01-20-2005, 03:16 AM

Come on, this is real simple!

Software is logical, it's based on logic!

Search Engines and their "ugly algs" are software, right?

Therefore, they are based on "Logic", right?

Let's simplify this --- OK?

You provide "logic channels" for "logical" software to parse your Site, Right?

Am I missing something here, or is it just that simple?

You want to call this thread; "Search Engine Theory"? so be it!

That's all there is to it!

ARRRGGGHHH!

Ken

RichardS · #13 (**permalink**) 01-29-2005, 10:54 PM

<H1> tags are a great start. Also <H2> as well

I have been at odds with google for some time. Tried all kinds of tricks.
Some feel that having everyone and there dog link to you helps. I will go into this in another thread. It can help as well as hurt your ranking
Some feel packing your page with key words..and I mean packing them on at the bottem of the page in small font.
Using "We" or "Us" has no bearing on Google ranking.
Some feel that VOLUME of site traffic. Clicks on your site can increase your ranking. I experimented in the past with this and suprisingly it had a positive result.

I can tell you what I do believe in.
1. Optimizing your HTML so that it is very "Spider friendy" Not having a bunch of JAVA and Flash junk on your front page. When I get the page the way I want it I remove as much space to tighten up my code.
2. Not having 1000 keywords to describe your site. I have been guilty of this (Using upper case and lower case "REALTY and realty". Some search engines (not Google)give you diffrent search results depending on what you use.
3. Have your domain name the same as your search phrase. I wish I would have realized this earlier.
4. Use ALT tags for images, use correct and incorrect spellings of keyword phrases
5.Label your files in relation to keywords related to your site and site content

Oh well that's just scratching the surface and hopefully will help you some.

Cheers

RS[/b]

I am Nick · #14 (**permalink**) 01-30-2005, 10:33 PM

RichardS.

Your thoughts that traffic to your site would have a positive SERP with Google is interesting. Can you provide any more information in that regard?

I have for long been thinking about what really makes it with Google, as some of my sites are sliding downwards. I have tried almost everything. I don't think i have overdone anything as all my pages are vizable to my visitors, and I want them to find what they are looking for at my webpages. I have a few top 5 positions at MSN and Yahoo with my most competitive keywords. Google I lost in the Florida update a year ago

Cheers Nick

cbp · #15 (**permalink**) 01-31-2005, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Clicks on your site can increase your ranking

It has no affect - if it did we would all be sitting here doing it and wasting search engine resources. Can you imageine how much resources searhc engines would have to divert to this? All the spammers would come out with automated software to do this from a range of IP addresses. The only reason they haven't done it, is that it does not work.

CBP

chiron · #16 (**permalink**) 01-31-2005, 01:53 AM

Quote:
Clicks on your site can increase your ranking

Re:
It has no affect

Hmmm... I would have to say I find it highly odd that traffic would not be considered in the algorithms of most engines. Sure, spammers could and would and probably do spam even themselves to gain rank. But as we all know, the algs are complex things, and note that I'm not positing that traffic is all or even a large portion of the SERP ranking one might expect - I simply can't help but think that volume of traffic is a minor if not significant part of any SE algorithm.

RichardS · #17 (**permalink**) 01-31-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiron

Quote:
Clicks on your site can increase your ranking

Re:
It has no affect

Hmmm... I would have to say I find it highly odd that traffic would not be considered in the algorithms of most engines. Sure, spammers could and would and probably do spam even themselves to gain rank. But as we all know, the algs are complex things, and note that I'm not positing that traffic is all or even a large portion of the SERP ranking one might expect - I simply can't help but think that volume of traffic is a minor if not significant part of any SE algorithm.

I still dont know what to think about the volume/click theary. I can tell you what is FACT. I have several web sites on real estate. I decided to advertise one of our properties on E-bay. I put the property on ebay. As per ritual I cahrted my webpage ranking on that one site that week on Google. We were on the second page. I did not alter code nor did I add link exchanges. Traffic increased to the site by about 100 hits a day.
2 weeks later I had jumped from the second page to the first and was in 5th position. After, After, the Advertising was over, and the traffic no longer was comming in the website dropped to 9th position. Can I assume it was the traffic that increased the ranking with no effort on my part? Sorry to many other variables are at play here.

Logically we can assume three things.
1. That other web sites were adjusting there code and as a result messed their own ranking up.
2. That site traffic/volume is one cog in the Google algo wheel of rankings.
3. The "Dead weight theory" with regaurds to link exchange (Not choosing well ranked partners to link to and as a result they can drag you down. During that time period they echanged links with websites that were at the bottom of the sand box, thus pulling them down.

Gimmie 20 years and I will have a conclusive answer.
I stick with what I can control on my end as fact. Code, good site navigation spider friendly stuff.
I have tried several times placing my hands on the computer screen in an effort to read the minds of the Google boys, I just got a headache.
Keep up the good fight.

Cheers

RS

chiron · #18 (**permalink**) 01-31-2005, 03:38 PM

Hmm, I managed to not post a reply somehow, oops. In short, I agreed that I have had enough anecdotal experience in the past with similar results to suggest there is definitely a strong argument to be made that traffic influences SERP placement and the algorithms of several if not all of the SEs - especially out of the lowest realms and in the upper 5M or so sites with more than a couple of hits per day.

SEOforGoogle · #19 (**permalink**) 01-31-2005, 03:54 PM

I think there is a very small part ot the "traffic theory" that applies to the SE's algos. The SE's do track how much traffic goes to the site, but what they track is the stickiness.

Lets stick with Real Estate for this example. For every person who enters "real estate" and chooses the #1 site, this of course will help the SERPS. But, what if on average the SE noticed that 50% of all users who chose the 1st result only stayed on the page for <2 seconds?

This would begin to identify a pattern to the SE that even though the content matched up for the phrase, the user wasn't satisfied with what they were served.
If then, more users chose #3 and "stuck" for longer periods of time, that would indicate relevance for the keyword phrase.

Over time and all things being equal, the #3 site would move up, and the #1 site would be bumped down.

(of course, I have no proof of this, I'm just speculating)

scallihan · #20 (**permalink**) 02-04-2005, 02:33 AM

Quote:

After, the Advertising was over, and the traffic no longer was comming in the website dropped to 9th position. Can I assume it was the traffic that increased the ranking with no effort on my part? Sorry to many other variables are at play here.

More likely, it was the "Advertising".

I can only assume that people linked to your auction's page (or advertisement), which was probably linked to your site, causing it to rise in Google. When the auction's page went away, so did the link to your site, I presume, as well as any help links to that page gave to your site to rank in Google. The traffic dropped for the same reason.

freehits · #21 (**permalink**) 02-04-2005, 02:42 AM

Since this thread NEEDS this tangent since the misleading title is not addressed here....

I would find a click based theory hard to believe, since that only lends to top sites staying at the top, and really is not based on relevence. If the title was right a high ranking blank page would get momentum based on that thought, which lends to the idea that it wouldnt reflect relevence.

Now if you "track the time on the page" before exit...blah...blah,

well now we are trying devise a way to make the theory feasible, and i dont think the influence you decribe sounds important enough for google to spend time following every click to their exit point from the page.

I strongly agreed with the important factors you named above in your approach, very similar line of thought to myself, but the click and rise idea, doesnt float.

Aside from the issues I state, think of the can of worms it would spill if it were proven to be a fact.

Clickomatic spiders and rings 24/7 eating up bandwidth for google and sites. Just seems like a messy line of thought for something not important to relevence or a bottom line.