Is Onsite SEO Dying Down?

[cbosleeds]

Hi Janeth,

The competing webpages that I'm squashed in the middle of this term for are Whois and Nominet, and the search term is 'find a domain name'. As I mentioned there are dozens of factors involved in doing onsite correctly and the rules haven't changed much in 10 years. Some of what's on the page that looks big hitting doesn't actually count for much, and some of what does count is quite nuanced.

Of course I understand that inbound link text is what counts when it comes to link building, but I have serious doubts that Whois and Nominet are not getting volumes of relevant inbound links with the phrase 'domain name' in there somewhere.

I realise that I have a lot of content on this page and that this is helping also. However, in instances when I do onsite for clients and they won't let me touch much of the content, the norm is to move up from page 10 or 8ish to page 2 to 3 ish on the back of the onsite work which is done before link building commences. Where the term is more competitive we might not move that far up but we always move.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by cbosleeds

Hi Janeth,

The competing webpages that I'm squashed in the middle of this term for are Whois and Nominet,

What is the name of your site as I am not even seeing Nominet on the first page?

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by janeth

Onsite optimization will do little to nothing for a competitive keyword.

Well... that's your experience, not mine. Internal link text is onsite optimization and with enough content you can generate unlimited link text which has just as much value as link text on any other page... since value depends on the value the SE puts on a link from a specific page not site. Off or onsite a link is a link and intenal link text is optimization moreso than directory submission is SEO... not to say you do that! To me site & link architecture, topics and application choices for content is 90% of SEO the rest is for the wannabes and know it alls. If I can generate a 10,000 page site with good link text and contextual linking a few links from a few authority sites and you are good to go... if they are deep links then... you're rockin' it hard! I agree links are a part of the puzzle I just don't see the puzzle as one piece! I'm sure you don't either.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Well... that's your experience, not mine. Internal link text is onsite optimization and with enough content you can generate unlimited link text

Which want count for much as the more links leaving a page cause the links to be worth less and less.

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Off or onsite a link is a link

WRONG a link is not a link. Google does not count all links the same.

But I do agree with building a 10,000 page site and working the links within the site.

[Peter (IMC)]

A link is a link, on-site and off-site, however, the value of internal links depends on the off-site links.

To put it simple: If you don't have any external links, your internal links are worth diddly squad.



The original PR algorithm wouldn't differentiate between internal and external links, but obviously, Google had to make additional algorithms in order to compensate for the spam technique of building huge sites with lots of unnecessary pages.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

A link is a link, on-site and off-site, however, the value of internal links depends on the off-site links.

Or the value of the top level page of the internal linkage. You assume that offsite domains have higher PR

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

The original PR algorithm wouldn't differentiate between internal and external links, but obviously, Google had to make additional algorithms in order to compensate for the spam technique of building huge sites with lots of unnecessary pages.

No way to know that or any information that could be said to indicate that the above is indeed the the case. It is conjecture with nothing factual to back it up beyond your belief they have changed that part of the algo. I have seen nothing that indicates this is true beyond, if ... you use placeholders with no content then yes... that is often found by G and many of the directories that got wacked a while back were doing that. There have also been a few papers out of Stanford on this kind of content spam. They may have been a part of any changes to the algo but... that is conjecture and hard to show that it is actually in play. Not disagreeing Peter just saying that it is a possibility that hasn't IMO, been confirmed beyong the wacking of some directories that had other issues that cloud the results and one's ability to be sure that was the cause.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Or the value of the top level page of the internal linkage. You assume that offsite domains have higher PR

No way to know that or any information that could be said to indicate that the above is indeed the the case. It is conjecture with nothing factual to back it up beyond your belief they have changed that part of the algo. I have seen nothing that indicates this is true beyond, if ... you use placeholders with no content then yes... that is often found by G and many of the directories that got wacked a while back were doing that. There have also been a few papers out of Stanford on this kind of content spam. They may have been a part of any changes to the algo but... that is conjecture and hard to show that it is actually in play. Not disagreeing Peter just saying that it is a possibility that hasn't IMO, been confirmed beyong the wacking of some directories that had other issues that cloud the results and one's ability to be sure that was the cause.

No I do not assume that offsite domains have higher PR. That's got nothing to do with it. Just the simple logic: No links -> Internal links do nothing, explains it all.

And if only things that are proven 100% can be spoken, it will be awefully quiet on this planet. Not that that would be so bad but it makes sense to say the obvious.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

But trying to get alt tags, meta tags, h1 tags, bold text and all the other stuff correct is a waste of time that would be better spent on writing more content and getting more links.

Allow me to disagree here Janeth. Search rank keyword weight based on semantic structure.

Richard: So you would say that Google is already doing that kind of semantic technology, that it's just integrated into the current service you provide?
Matt: Yeah, I would say there's a lot of semantic technology already built in, under the hood of Google.

Source: Interview with Google's Matt Cutts about Next-Generation Search - ReadWriteWeb

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Which want count for much as the more links leaving a page cause the links to be worth less and less.



WRONG a link is not a link. Google does not count all links the same.

But I do agree with building a 10,000 page site and working the links within the site.

Since the discussion turned into link building, I felt the necessity to add very cool resource I was reading today:
Matt Cutts and Eric Enge Discuss Link Building

Seems like link building model have been updated at least for Google!

[SEO]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Since the discussion turned into link building, I felt the necessity to add very cool resource I was reading today:
Matt Cutts and Eric Enge Discuss Link Building

Seems like link building model have been updated at least for Google!

Thanks Webnauts... That was a great post.

[Peter (IMC)]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Since the discussion turned into link building, I felt the necessity to add very cool resource I was reading today:
Matt Cutts and Eric Enge Discuss Link Building

Seems like link building model have been updated at least for Google!

Actually I think Matt finaly could make it clearer what they prefer. Or somebody finally asked the right questions,..

[pathikbd]

Originally Posted by janeth

Not sure what you are looking at but I see lots of links.

link:www.homedepot.com - Google Search

Do you really think that Home Depot does not have any links?

Hi Janeth, please see the quote by SEO:

Originally Posted by SEO

Actually...

The number 1 ranking webpage for the search term ' home ' as at the time of this posting is the Google Finance page for - Home Federal Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ)
home - Google Search

Try doing a search for external backlinks... I can't find 1 (the page doesn't show any PR either).

It does look fairly well optimized though... Both keyword wise and semantically.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

No I do not assume that offsite domains have higher PR. That's got nothing to do with it. Just the simple logic: No links -> Internal links do nothing, explains it all.

My bad, I misunderstood both youself and Janeth. Now I understand what you both meant. I agree that you have to have incoming links, that's a given.

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

And if only things that are proven 100% can be spoken, it will be awefully quiet on this planet. Not that that would be so bad but it makes sense to say the obvious.

I understood you to say that Google had "for sure" changed the algo. That is not a fact and IMO, it is important because there are people trying to learn. They may not understand "what is obvious" to you, I, or the majority on the forum. I guess that is why there is a bit of friction between myself and others on this forum. Conjecture stated as fact leads to prpopegation of "misinformation" and inhibits some people's ability to craft their methodology. Just my opinion if I've stepped on toes or offended then... my apologies. My intentions are good my tone is just exasperation with the disemination of information and obsession with links as optimizarion. It's not it's off site and a different animal. My point here was to just say you can do most of it internally someone who thinks they need to force 100's or 1000's of IBLs doesn't, IMO, get it and is doomed work twice as hard to get half the results that you can with onsite optimization. Onsite SEO isn't dead, dying or anything close to it. The definition/perception of what it is has changed. Most of what is seen as new is just the same old thing with a bigger pipe and larger audience with more community interaction.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Allow me to disagree here Janeth. Search rank keyword weight based on semantic structure.

You make your living as an SEO who does on site optimization. I would be disappointed if you did not disagree. But to disagree with semantic structure?

Semantic structure is a fancy term for an English sentence. Try something better like microformatting or hCard microformatted or Creating KML file.

[Terry Van Horne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webnauts
Allow me to disagree here Janeth. Search rank keyword weight based on semantic structure.

Originally Posted by janeth

You make your living as an SEO who does on site optimization. I would be disappointed if you did not disagree. But to disagree with semantic structure?

Janeth, I agree that is hard core SEO and what real "onsite optimization" is about! I'm now really scratching my head since you started this thread. You definitely get it! What I don't understand is why you think it doesn't work as well now or is "dying down". I am sure it's not just about link text, because as I mentioned you can do that internally and it is, IMO, what the professional onsite optimization/SEO knows is a big part of their "secret sauce".

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webnauts
Allow me to disagree here Janeth. Search rank keyword weight based on semantic structure.

Janeth, I agree that is hard core SEO and what real "onsite optimization" is about! I'm now really scratching my head since you started this thread. You definitely get it! What I don't understand is why you think it doesn't work as well now or is "dying down". I am sure it's not just about link text, because as I mentioned you can do that internally and it is, IMO, what the professional onsite optimization/SEO knows is a big part of their "secret sauce".

I get it but just wanted to see if anyone else does. I totally understand the importance of onsite optimization but feel that a lot of people sell the service that do not.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by pathikbd

Originally Posted by SEO View Post
Actually...

The number 1 ranking webpage for the search term ' home ' as at the time of this posting is the Google Finance page for - Home Federal Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ)
home - Google Search

Try doing a search for external backlinks... I can't find 1 (the page doesn't show any PR either).

It does look fairly well optimized though... Both keyword wise and semantically.

You have to be kidding. You think that site ranks number one because of keywords and semantic structure?

[kgun]

To sum up, we can conclude with this simple SEO rule.

SEO Rule:
Write dynamic quality content, with simple clean code, varied and foccused text in IBL's of optimal lenght and good headings. Be earnest in the message.

SEO when reduced to the least common denominator, will survive as long as content is written on the world wide web.

Related links:
What is SEO?

Cool SEO Tool for FireFox Users

SEOmoz | A Little Piece of the Google Algorithm - Revealed

Simplified by thread starter here:
How does google work?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

You make your living as an SEO who does on site optimization. I would be disappointed if you did not disagree. But to disagree with semantic structure?

Semantic structure is a fancy term for an English sentence. Try something better like microformatting or hCard microformatted or Creating KML file.

I am already playing with microformats for over a year. But those are just plugins/add-ons for well semantically structured web sites.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am already playing with microformats for over a year. But those are just plugins/add-ons for well semantically structured web sites.

For example like my own web site:

Semantic data extraction for "SEO Workers Search Engine Optimization Consulting Company"

or

SEO Workers Search Engine Optimization Consulting Company

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am already playing with microformats for over a year. But those are just plugins/add-ons for well semantically structured web sites.

Microformats are code and has nothing to do with a page needing to be semantically structured.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Microformats are code and has nothing to do with a page needing to be semantically structured.

Designed for humans first and machines second, microformats are a set of simple, open data formats built upon existing and widely adopted standards. Instead of throwing away what works today, microformats intend to solve simpler problems first by adapting to current behaviors and usage patterns (e.g. XHTML, blogging).

More: Microformats | About microformats

And I own this book Amazon.com: Microformats: Empowering Your Markup for Web 2.0: John Allsopp: Books since it have been published.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

More: Microformats | About microformats

And I own this book Amazon.com: Microformats: Empowering Your Markup for Web 2.0: John Allsopp: Books since it have been published.

They have nothing to do with a site needing to be semantically structured.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

They have nothing to do with a site needing to be semantically structured.

Excuse me sister, but if I understood correct, are you claiming here that microformats have nothing to do with semantics?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Excuse me sister, but if I understood correct, are you claiming here that microformats have nothing to do with semantics?

I am not your sister.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I am not your sister.

I apologize for that, but I am still waiting for your answer to my above question.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by janeth

They have nothing to do with a site needing to be semantically structured.

I have a hard time understanding why it is so hard to understand what I had just written.

Semantics is the study of the relationship between words and meanings.

Current microformats allow the encoding and extraction of events, contact information, social relationships and so on.

To say that a site needs to have proper semantics for me to add rel="tag" would be crazy.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I have a hard time understanding why it is so hard to understand what I had just written.

Semantics is the study of the relationship between words and meanings.

Current microformats allow the encoding and extraction of events, contact information, social relationships and so on.

To say that a site needs to have proper semantics for me to add rel="tag" would be crazy.

Thanks for the Wikipedia quotation.

My book begins with this:

Microformats, an evolutionary approach to adding richer semantics to HTML-based markup.... No particular knowledge is assumed: ideas like "Semantic HTML," where important, are introduced and covered in detail in this book...

Is my book for the garbage?

And are microformats only about implementing "rel" attributes? Did I miss something again?

[Webnauts]

On the cover of my book stands:

Use Rich semantics in your markup to make it machine-readable as well as human-readable

Make your web sites "marshup-ready" for a new generation of web applications

Understand this fast-growing technolody through real-world examples, case studies, tools and much more

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Thanks for the Wikipedia quotation.

Thanks for not knowing where it came from.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

My book begins with this:


Is my book for the garbage?

And are microformats only about implementing "rel" attributes? Did I miss something again?

Not sure where your book came from but to see a site needs to be, how did you say it.

"But those are just plugins/add-ons for well semantically structured web sites."

That must mean that I can not use microformats unless the website is "well semantically structured".

Is that correct?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Semantics is the study of the relationship between words and meanings.

Since your brought Wikipedia as a resource, here we go again:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

In computer science, semantics reflects the meaning of programs or functions. In this regard, semantics permits programs to be separated into their syntactical part (grammatical structure) and their semantic part (meaning).

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Since your brought Wikipedia as a resource, here we go again:

I could really careless what it is. I bet I can rank a site without knowing anything about it.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I could really careless what it is. I bet I can rank a site without knowing anything about it.

But how about Social Media?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

But how about Social Media?

What about social media?

And Semantic HTML is nothing more than using tags where that are suppose to be used.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

What about social media?

For example: Hakia - First Meaning-based Search Engine - ReadWriteWeb

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

For example: Hakia - First Meaning-based Search Engine - ReadWriteWeb

Once again,

What about it.

There has been a lot of talk lately about 2007 being the year when we will see companies roll out Semantic Web technologies.

That means it is not being used, but we already knew that.

And once again it is nothing more than using proper code.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

For example: Hakia - First Meaning-based Search Engine - ReadWriteWeb

I find it funny that you guys want to talk about this site and that site ranking because of Semantics. Then you send me a link that talks about the fact that it is coming and then links to an article that says this.

Some people think that the Semantic Web is about AI, some claim that it is more about semantics, while others say that it is about data annotation.

Looks like the guys using the words and writing the articles that you guys are reading do not even know what the hell it is.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I find it funny that you guys want to talk about this site and that site ranking because of Semantics. Then you send me a link that talks about the fact that it is coming and then links to an article that says this.



Looks like the guys using the words and writing the articles that you guys are reading do not even know what the hell it is.

I am impressed! No further comments...

[janeth]

Let me try and explain my understanding of the whole thing.

1. Semantics is the study of the relationship between words and meanings. A lot of people feel the search engines are heading this way. If so then they would be able to better understand what your site is about as well as know if you are sticking words into your text for nothing other than ranking.

2. Semantically structured is nothing more than the old W3C thing with a new twist.

3. And last but not least is microformats. A page does not have to be semantically structured to use microformating.

And I do not mean to come off rude but it seems that when the onsite SEO guys lost the argument about a site needing to be W3C compliant to rank, they just renamed it and kept on going.

And I am not saying that a site being semantically structured or text being semantically written want help it rank. But when a guy who claims to be an SEO points to the word "home" and claims the site is ranking there because it is properly semantically structured I really have to wonder.

The ranking boost you would get for a semantically structured site is not going to be that much and nothing noticeable on a competitive keyword.

That’s my two cents on all the big words.

[Webnauts]

So Eric Enge doesn't know what he is talking about either? Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) and SEO

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

So Eric doesn't know what he is talking about too? Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) and SEO

You post a link to CSS?

If you think that CSS is the same thing as semantically structured then why would you not just say CSS instead of semantically structured?

[Webnauts]

Also Bruce Clay statement is also garbage?

Bruce: When I redid my site, I switched from tables entirely to CSS. I also made it W3C compliant. That may be something that emerges. I was moderating a panel at adTech and Google said that the cleaner the code, chances are the search engines will get a better idea of what your site is about. From that point of view, go to CSS because it's simpler.

Source: Organic Listings Forum: SES, San Jose 2007 » PageTraffic SEO Blog

WOW! I am even more impressed now!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

You post a link to CSS?

Click on the link Janeth. It won't bite you.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

You post a link to CSS?

If you think that CSS is the same thing as semantically structured then why would you not just say CSS instead of semantically structured?

Sorry, I had to be more specific. I am about your statement:

Originally Posted by Janeth

And I do not mean to come off rude but it seems that when the onsite SEO guys lost the argument about a site needing to be W3C compliant to rank, they just renamed it and kept on going.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Also Bruce Clay statement is also garbage?

Source: Organic Listings Forum: SES, San Jose 2007 » PageTraffic SEO Blog

WOW! I am even more impressed now!

Let me understand this.

You think that because Bruce Clay said that made his site W3C complaint because Google said that it was easer to read the site, if the code was clean, that means that it will make him rank better?

You have to be kidding.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Click on the link Janeth. It won't bite you.

I clicked the link, it says that by using CSS you are able to move you code higher on the page and getting a ranking boost.

No big deal there nor any big ranking increases.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Sorry, I had to be more specific. I am about your statement:

Just don't be stupid. If you want to talk about CSS call it CSS and not semantically structured. Because they are not the same thing.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I clicked the link, it says that by using CSS you are able to move you code higher on the page and getting a ranking boost.

No big deal there nor any big ranking increases.

So he is just telling stories created from his imagination? OK Janeth.

One of the reasons I am here at WPW so seldom.

And I am done now.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

So he is just telling stories created from his imagination? OK Janeth.

And I am done for now.

Explain why it took you 20 post to say you were not talking about semantically structured but rather CSS? Your Flip-flopping more than a poltican.

CSS allows you more control over your site. I've built many sites with CSS and I've added CSS to many sites. I have never seen a site jump up in ranking because of CSS alone. Although if the original design and layout was bad enough and you were not going after a competitive keyword I could see it helping. But please do not try and say that you can rank for a competitive keyword because of CSS alone.

I am sorry that I don't believe anything I read on the web, or, for that matter, anything I hear, unless it is consistent with what I already know to be true, or unless I have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to my satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."

[kgun]

May be a natural place to start is here: Creating a Science of the Web | Web Science Research Initiative


We can talk of

1. Sematics generally. Sematic that is meaningful content.
2. Semantic linking. That is meaningful and relevant linking.
3. Semantic markup. That is meaningful markup.

Semantics, pragmatics etc. is a large subject in information science fare more complex than any Wikipedia article.