Ultimate On-Page SEO Tips (by Webnauts)

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by williamc

I did not say not to use them. I always use every possible factor I can. However, the guy you asked to back it up said "not much helpful", which actually goes along with the new data.

William if you read again when and what I wrote about the heading tags, you will see that I did not mention that they are less or very important.

So I did not say anything wrong in the past and my post is still valid, even if Google or I don't know who do not give them so much weight.

And now my question is: What is with Yahoo and MSN?

[williamc]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

So I did not say anything wrong in the past and my post is still valid

Never said you did mate, stop getting defensive, I just replied with evidence backing up the other guys post, that you asked for back up on.

Now, What's with Y and M in what regard?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by williamc

Never said you did mate, stop getting defensive, I just replied with evidence backing up the other guys post, that you asked for back up on.

I know man. I was replying indirectly to the other guys post too.

Originally Posted by williamc

Now, What's with Y and M in what regard?

Do heading tags have value for Y and M? If yes, less or much?

[gaurav061081]

<please start your own thread with regards to particular questions you have about your own site rather that hijacking another thread. Thank You CD>

[CaliBabe]

Is there a restriction as to how many h2 tags can we have on a single webpage.

[goldsteinmedia]

John! I love you posts. I haven't commented before but they are great! I'm glad we connected on Twitter too! You're a great resource Thanks for all your insight!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by CaliBabe

Is there a restriction as to how many h2 tags can we have on a single webpage.

There are some rumors that Hx (heading tags) do not have the same high ranking factor weight as it used to. So, when implementing such tags, do that for users and forget the search engines. Doing so, I can assure you that you will have the appropriate number of heading tags needed for users and search engines.

[m.furqan.latif]

As always, right on.

My only suggestion is to maybe give some examples of what constitutes what. How should the keywords appear, commas between the words of course, but do I need spaces? "Body, Jewelry, non piercing" or "body,jewelry,non piercing,rings" for example, or does it really matter? Do the spaces count against the total number of characters?

Great as usual from a leader in the industry.

Best always,

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by m.furqan.latif

As always, right on.

My only suggestion is to maybe give some examples of what constitutes what. How should the keywords appear, commas between the words of course, but do I need spaces? "Body, Jewelry, non piercing" or "body,jewelry,non piercing,rings" for example, or does it really matter? Do the spaces count against the total number of characters?

Great as usual from a leader in the industry.

Best always,

I would suggest to write your keywords with commas and no spaces, like i.e:

seo,web design, search engine optimization,ecommerce

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

There are some rumors that Hx (heading tags) do not have the same high ranking factor weight as it used to.

Sorry until I see the data that "test" (using test in loosest sense of the word) is based on I say it's hogwash. The test was likely more research of covenience which often comes from that corner of the net. They also just tested if things ranked better with or without <H1>. It should include semantic relationship between Document structure and title and other HTML elements. IMO, that test is hardly a reason to change something I've believed is important since my first attempts at determing factors back in 96/7. You can't prove if it helps with a test because there are so many factors everything is pretty hard to prove definitively especially if it is interplay between html elements.

I won't say it is so important it must be there just... there are a finite number of elements ( my last count was 28 ) that can legitimately be "optimized" so any element that's a possibility should be optimized. Isn't that what we are supposed to do? Why figure out exactly what to optimize... do em all and don't sweat whether you've missed an opportunity. IMO, it can't hurt so.... who the F cares if it's a magic bullet? there are none of those either or someone would have found it by now!

[Webnauts]

Terry I fully agree with you. And I am sure you know me so far to tell that even if the SE will not give them any value at all, I will still use them.

[Terry Van Horne]

Note on the keywords tag... by the HTML spec it can only contain... if memory serves me... 1024 chars. I've believed Google still indexes keywords just not for ranking... big ole red flag...
if too big, too many repeats (it was 3 repeats of any word back in the day). You also don't want the repeated words too close together. Should alsoi note that on Mike Grehan's newsletter he did an interview with a Yahoo! engineer who said they use it, especially for slang, alternate meanings possibly mispellings, multiple spellings etc. That I've tested and it does look to be true but... nothing is written in stone.

[Terry Van Horne]

John my work back in the day indicated a site's directory and link architecture worked well with Google likely because of the way they analyse link text and what's around it. I felt if I had optimized the information architecture with my primary terms the link text from an IBL would be less important because I had optimized the url. You done any research on this?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Note on the keywords tag... by the HTML spec it can only contain... if memory serves me... 1024 chars.

If I remember well too you are right.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

I've believed Google still indexes keywords just not for ranking... big ole red flag...

You are absolutely right! OLE RED FLAG!!!

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

if too big, too many repeats (it was 3 repeats of any word back in the day). You also don't want the repeated words too close together. Should alsoi note that on Mike Grehan's newsletter he did an interview with a Yahoo! engineer who said they use it, especially for slang, alternate meanings possibly mispellings, multiple spellings etc. That I've tested and it does look to be true but... nothing is written in stone.

In 2006, Google came up with a new algorithm called "Phrase Rank", which is a process of indexing including identification of phrases and/or related phrases.

Google possesses a very effective method against manipulation attempts such as with the well known nonsense method "keyword density" or the "dynamically generated" keyword-rich web pages. Having a keyword density which is very high could result in triggering spam filters on a search engine, drastically reducing your chances of getting high rankings.

Good phrases are the ones that occur quite frequently across the indexed documents or have a distinguished appearance.

We should be certain that you have structured themes in your content, and that you include a supporting cast of semantically connected keywords. Reference Google's patent number 7,249,121 — Identification of semantic units from within a search query.

All that said, you should consider placing only targeted keywords found in your page content (NOT WEB SITE CONTENT) into your keywords meta tag in order to achieve 100% relevancy to your page content.

Also a highly respected SEO Eric Enge have made a research and tests and he came to the conclusion that the safest way is to implement only 4 keywords, and if more necessary, no more than 8. And personally I adhere to his findings.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

John my work back in the day indicated a site's directory and link architecture worked well with Google likely because of the way they analyse link text and what's around it. I felt if I had optimized the information architecture with my primary terms the link text from an IBL would be less important because I had optimized the url. You done any research on this?

Terry I think I did understand your question. Can you try to explain that maybe with an example?

[Terry Van Horne]

a new home website would be set up like this www.domain.com/New-homes/toronto/summerhill/clifton-Manor/2028.asp
I'm trying to make the url have as many important terms as possible so if the terms aren't in the IBL link text they are in the URL. Since Google analyses the text around links I think they'd be interested in the url. Therefore even if there is no keywords in the link text there are in the url.

Just wondering if you've looked at keyword optimizing the site architecture

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

a new home website would be set up like this www.domain.com/New-homes/toronto/summerhill/clifton-Manor/2028.asp
I'm trying to make the url have as many important terms as possible so if the terms aren't in the IBL link text they are in the URL. Since Google analyses the text around links I think they'd be interested in the url. Therefore even if there is no keyword(s) in the link text there are in the url.

Just wondering if you've looked at keyword optimizing the site architecture

1. The URL is not accessible, not usable and not search engine friendly. Maybe even spammy. Also that would be an indicator for bad navigation structure or even overall site architecture.

2. The link has PR power even if it is not a text link. If you would have a text link including keyword(s), will be stronger. But to be honest, no matter how the link will look like, it would not have the power if it is not surrounded with relevant content to the text link.

In general I would advice not to target more than one keyword or keyphrase. Having a second keyword will split the power of the text to 50% and 50%.

How about that?

[williamc]

John, are you tired again mate?

1. That url structure is common in most large sites that cater to nationwide or global listings. It is commonly used to seperate state/city/subdivision, is very accessable, and very search engine friendly.

2. Anchor text has all the power regardless of surrounding text. In fact, most people finally gave up on the surrounding text theory a couple years ago. Google can not even determine paid links by itself, and you think they can about surrounding text? Not in this reality.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by williamc

John, are you tired again mate?

1. That url structure is common in most large sites that cater to nationwide or global listings. It is commonly used to seperate state/city/subdivision, is very accessable, and very search engine friendly.

Are you telling that long urls are accessible to search engines? Then yes.
If it comes to the Web Content Accessibility, then no. If you ever used a screenreader and you would hear the url Terry posted above, I don't think you will tell me that it is accessible.

Originally Posted by williamc

2. Anchor text has all the power regardless of surrounding text. In fact, most people finally gave up on the surrounding text theory a couple years ago. Google can not even determine paid links by itself, and you think they can about surrounding text? Not in this reality.

I am sorry, but I have to disagree here. I would agree if you would say that it did not reach the 100% level yet. So there is an additional boost for the link surrounded with relevant content, but I cannot tell how much.

Link lists pages like i.e links.html or /links/index.html etc, commonly as known as ILB (not IBL), do not have the same power they used to. It is not alone about PR. I hope you understand what I mean.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

If you ever used a screenreader and you would hear the url Terry posted above, I don't think you will tell me that it is accessible.

As for screenreaders, I agree it might not be as accessable.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Link lists pages like i.e links.html or /links/index.html etc, commonly as known as ILB (not IBL), do not have the same power they used to. It is not alone about PR. I hope you understand what I mean.

Here we may agree, sorta. However I do not think it has to do with surrounding text. As a coder, I would say it is far easier to use a total links to text ratio to determine this.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by williamc

Here we may agree, sorta. However I do not think it has to do with surrounding text. As a coder, I would say it is far easier to use a total links to text ratio to determine this.

I knew that you are wicked man!

Off-topic: Do you have experience with Drupal?

[williamc]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Off-topic: Do you have experience with Drupal?

Barely. Enough to tell clients to get off it as soon as possible

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

1. The URL is not accessible, not usable and not search engine friendly. Maybe even spammy. Also that would be an indicator for bad navigation structure or even overall site architecture.

John, That's classic directory taxonomy! So I can't agree with one word in that statement especially the spammy part! Have you ever built a site with say... 100,00 pages?

[Terry Van Horne]

Umm... wasn't aware there was an issue with screen readers.. is it a char count or other issue? Just wondering because I do like to be as considerate as possible to these users

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Umm... wasn't aware there was an issue with screen readers.. is it a char count or other issue? Just wondering because I do like to be as considerate as possible to these users

I am talking about usability for screenreader users. They have to hear all that long url every time they visit a page with such long urls. Don't you think that sucks?

[Terry Van Horne]

I think it sucks more if I have a shorter url and 10,000 files in each folder! Those users would get that type of scenario on likely 90% of the sites they went to on that topic. I could have just as easily also included a home style condo, single family detatched, townhome.

Besides not to be ignorant or inconsiderate of the physically challenged... what % of users actually use screen readers? I agree they should be a consideration but... how much should it determine a webmaster's choices. You can't be all things to all people, webmasters spend a lot of time trying to make these decisions.

Lastly I agree it sucks... but it would suck on most of the sites they go to on real estate so... I think they are unfortunately all too familiar with how much that sucks.

[Bernd]

Hi John,
I think the PageRank Sculpting section in your tutorial needs an update.
See mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Bernd

Hi John,
I think the PageRank Sculpting section in your tutorial needs an update.
See mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/

Can you please explain what needs to be updated? I would appreciate that very much.

[Bernd]

Example: Page a links to the pages b, c and d. Only the link to c has a rel="nofollow" attribute.
C still gets no linkjuice. Here nothing has changed. But there's no absolutely boost for the pages b and d, because they do not get the share for c anymore. Now b and d only gain relative to c.
So there is no effect for b and d in relation to the Supplemental Index anymore.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Bernd

Example: Page a links to the pages b, c and d. Only the link to c has a rel="nofollow" attribute.
C still gets no linkjuice. Here nothing has changed. But there's no absolutely boost for the pages b and d, because they do not get the share for c anymore. Now b and d only gain relative to c.
So there is no effect for b and d in relation to the Supplemental Index anymore.

Can you please tell us what are you talking about? What you are saying about the nofollow attribute is officially out-of-date since the 15th of June this month.

Nofollow only works for external links, and not for internal links. And it did not work for almost a year now, but Google finally revealed the truth leading to the Lord.

I just feel so sorry for the "nofollow" followers who were attempting PageRank Sculpting with that fantastic attribute.

I did not look closer to you other points, as it began with a bug!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Bernd

Example: Page a links to the pages b, c and d. Only the link to c has a rel="nofollow" attribute.
C still gets no linkjuice. Here nothing has changed. But there's no absolutely boost for the pages b and d, because they do not get the share for c anymore. Now b and d only gain relative to c.
So there is no effect for b and d in relation to the Supplemental Index anymore.

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh... that's what Google would like you to believe. I won't sculp because I'm not an artist... and there is an art to it. I've seen a few things that indicate the evaporation can't happen see Dan Thies SEOFastStart blog for the full details. the post is below the fold

[Bernd]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I just feel so sorry for the "nofollow" followers who were attempting PageRank Sculpting with that fantastic attribute.

That's all I wanted to point out !

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Bernd

That's all I wanted to point out !

Wait a minute. Am I confused? You said:

Only the link to c has a rel="nofollow" attribute.
C still gets no linkjuice. Here nothing has changed.

How are you pointing out what I said?

[Terry Van Horne]

The Math Behind PageRank Sculpting Dan's video isn't working this is also what I read.... sorry

[hawash]

Hi

Do not forget to follow your competitors links when trying to make backlinks\

also you must take care of search engine differences

While google fucuses more on page rank yahoo and msn focus more on url name title etc

[rctoyhouse]

Originally Posted by hawash

Hi

Do not forget to follow your competitors links when trying to make backlinks\

also you must take care of search engine differences

While google fucuses more on page rank yahoo and msn focus more on url name title etc

What's the best way to find competitor's links?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by rctoyhouse

What's the best way to find competitor's links?

One of my favorite tools is this: Link Diagnosis - examine your link competition

[inertia]

One of my favorite tools is this: Link Diagnosis - examine your link competition

An excellent tool! Kevsta put me onto it about 6 months ago. Although the new version seemed to have a few bugs last time I used it.

[alt09]

I learned a lot through this article.. Thanks webnauts.

[wpkreech]

have you read SEO Made Easy? this is a free ebook and most of what I read in this sticky is in there. If you don't have a copy yet you can search it on Google and download it for free. so you can review and apply it on your websites.

[thicuyec]

hi guy
I have read you posting. I find it so good. Thanks for you posting

[johnalex06]

SEO made Easy is an old ebook but they explain the basics in some details and for getting basic concept this too helpful.

[pervezalam_mzn]

Getting ranked highly on Google is so cheap. Getting a strategy in place is not difficult, and you can do all the work yourself if you like. In fact, for a small amount of time each week you can get a top 3 spot on Google and easily maintain it.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by pervezalam_mzn

Getting ranked highly on Google is so cheap. Getting a strategy in place is not difficult, and you can do all the work yourself if you like. In fact, for a small amount of time each week you can get a top 3 spot on Google and easily maintain it.

Now that sounds strange. And you do know why? I could not find your sites on the 3 top in Google. Or were you kidding us here?

[seopositive2]

This is a very interesting find indeed.Thanks for tips