Is Onsite SEO Dying Down?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Am I wrong if I suppose that you will create manually and not automatically doorway pages? Or do you mean 5000 pages which are equally meaningful for searchers?

Doorway pages that are equally meaningful for searchers.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

On a new site I would set it up tabless and move the content to the top of the page. On an old site that was using tables I would see more benefit in adding pages then in changing the current layout.

Let me ask you this. Lets say I want to optimize my site for my business nature terms "seo" and "search engine optimization", right?

And then I make a keyword research and I find 150-200 key terms relevant to my site theme. Then I should build 150-200 pages with keyword rich and meaningful for visitors content?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

Doorway pages that are equally meaningful for searchers.

Is that what you call doorway pages?If they are equally meaningful for serachers, then they are not doorway pages.

Instead of posting a stupid link, I make the reference fully accessible to all audience of this thread:

Originally Posted by http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66355

Doorway pages Doorway pages are typically large sets of poor-quality pages where each page is optimized for a specific keyword or phrase. In many cases, doorway pages are written to rank for a particular phrase and then funnel users to a single destination.
Whether deployed across many domains or established within one domain, doorway pages tend to frustrate users, and are in violation of our webmaster guidelines.
Google's aim is to give our users the most valuable and relevant search results. Therefore, we frown on practices that are designed to manipulate search engines and deceive users by directing them to sites other than the ones they selected, and that provide content solely for the benefit of search engines. Google may take action on doorway sites and other sites making use of these deceptive practice, including removing these sites from the Google index.

[SEO]

Originally Posted by janeth

Doorway pages that are equally meaningful for searchers.

Doorway pages used to work 10 years ago but if you try that trick today you run the risk of having your whole site banned by Google Janeth.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Let me ask you this. Lets say I want to optimize my site for my business nature terms "seo" and "search engine optimization", right?

And then I make a keyword research and I find 150-200 key terms relevant to my site theme. Then I should build 150-200 pages with keyword rich and meaningful for visitors content?

If it was me I would use 10,000 keywords for the long tail linking back to the main page with about 20 different anchor text. Then I would scatter links throughout the site focusing on each page and the main page.

At the same time all this was going on I would be working on getting one way links to the home page.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by SEO

Doorway pages used to work 10 years ago but if you try that trick today you run the risk of having your whole site banned by Google Janeth.

I am talking about each page on the site being designed and set up for the site visitor. No redirects or trying to show the site visitor something different from the search engines.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Is that what you call doorway pages?If they are equally meaningful for serachers, then they are not doorway pages.

Instead of posting a stupid link, I make the reference fully accessible to all audience of this thread:

I should have said landing pages.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

This is not the place for that.

This is not the place for "the factual issues about which you and webnauts disagree, and the precise nature of such disagreements?"

If not here, then where? And, why, then, are they here being aired?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by deepsand

This is not the place for "the factual issues about which you and webnauts disagree, and the precise nature of such disagreements?"

If not here, then where? And, why, then, are they here being aired?

They are being aired out here for the same reason that you keep brining it up here. I'll write you up a blog post about the whole thing if that will work for you.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

If it was me I would use 10,000 keywords for the long tail linking back to the main page with about 20 different anchor text. Then I would scatter links throughout the site focusing on each page and the main page.

At the same time all this was going on I would be working on getting one way links to the home page.

So to resume on-page/site optimization is important after all.
Besides targeting backlinks to your homepage and not to landing pages, it is an out-of-date and unqualified link building process. You would have known that already if you have read the stupid as you called link to the interview of Eric Enge with Matt Cutts.

Once again: Matt Cutts and Eric Enge Discuss Link Building

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

So to resume on-page/site optimization is important after all.
Besides targeting backlinks to your homepage and not to landing pages, it is an out-of-date and unqualified link building process. You would have known that already if you have read the stupid as you called link to the interview of Eric Enge with Matt Cutts.

Once again: Matt Cutts and Eric Enge Discuss Link Building

lol, asking for help and looking for a reason to attack. I read that article the same day it was posted and not by you but onto the site.

And seeing as how you have no idea how I plan to build my links you calling it unqualified is a little stupid, or wouldn't you think?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

lol, asking for help and looking for a reason to attack. I read that article the same day it was posted and not by you but onto the site.

And seeing as how you have no idea how I plan to build my links you calling it unqualified is a little stupid, or wouldn't you think?

I am just referring to a previous statement of yours above:

Originally Posted by Janeth

If it was me I would use 10,000 keywords for the long tail linking back to the main page with about 20 different anchor text. Then I would scatter links throughout the site focusing on each page and the main page.

At the same time all this was going on I would be working on getting one way links to the home page.

Is that what Matt Cutts called quality link building methology?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by janeth

They are being aired out here for the same reason that you keep brining it up here. I'll write you up a blog post about the whole thing if that will work for you.

I asked the question but once.

I asked, not why you & webnauts are publicly disagreeing, but precisely what the disagreement is about. The answer to this question cannot be the same as the reason for its being asked.

My interest here is, not in the underlying reason for the obvious animosity, but rather as to the factual issues in dispute.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

I am just referring to a previous statement of yours above:



Is that what Matt Cutts called quality link building methology?

And it is important that Google tells me how to run my business.

They may be your God but they are not mine but to answer your question the way I build my links is inline with what Matt called quality link building.

Not that it is any of your business.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

And it is important that Google tells me how to run my business.

They may be your God but they are not mine but to answer your question the way I build my links is inline with what Matt called quality link building.

Not that it is any of your business.

1. God is myself. No one else. Just to make something clear here.
2. The link building strategy you mentioned previously is not inline with what Matt Cutts said. I assume you did not read the whole interview threw Janeth.
3. What you do in you business is not my cup of tea. But since you are revealing your methologies in a public forum, you should expect debates if someone would disagree with your tactics, and in addition being backed up from a software engineer of a leading search engine.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

1. God is myself. No one else. Just to make something clear here.

How sad is that. You really need to look for a better God.

Originally Posted by Webnauts

3. What you do in you business is not my cup of tea. But since you are revealing your methologies in a public forum, you should expect debates if someone would disagree with your tactics, and in addition being backed up from a software engineer of a leading search engine.

Is Matt here?

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

1. God is myself.

I've no desire to debate or talk to someone that believes themselves to be a God. Or more so the only God.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I've no desire to debate or talk to someone that believes themselves to be a God. Or more so the only God.

I think you still can debate or talk to me, as I do not believe that I am the only one. And before I will have to look for another God, I would prefer to find a healthy and good psychiatrist.

Disclaimer: The above has nothing to do with any intention to offend any religion, their groups and/or members. I respect all faiths equally to mine.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by espmartin

#I just had to stick up for CSS in regards to this discussion, as this thread is VERY popular, and we need to educate
the Marketers who dabble in web design on this forum.

Ummm, I have been dabbling in HTML markup for 15 years and programming 3 different languages for ten so... the HTML eletists view point became moot for me when I realized the <HTML></HTML> do not matter if they are even in the page. So it's not that I don't know, I do, I've experimented extensively.... it's that I think a lot of the stuff advocated by HTML eletists is poppycock. Doing things without CSS has no repercussions other than I know exactly what it will do. I probably could make CSS work if I thought it was worth the effort... I don't there's always more than one way to do it... your way works for you... don't expect it to work for me, or judge me for thinking it's a waste of time... it's an opinion, sorry if you think I am too hard on CSS for saying it is wonky. IMO, it's the designers who think they are SEOs who need a little educatin'!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by janeth

If it was me I would use 10,000 keywords for the long tail linking back to the main page with about 20 different anchor text. Then I would scatter links throughout the site focusing on each page and the main page.

At the same time all this was going on I would be working on getting one way links to the home page.

Not doorway pages that's called good content development.

What the Google definition doesn't mention is DP's were usually found by crawlers finding hidden/invisible links or multiple crosslinked site schemes. When we started reviewing for SeoPros we found lots of these. Not so much now.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Wordtracker returns 14 searches per day

gets it's data from dogpile hardly a source for KW info for real SE's

Originally Posted by Webnauts

KeywordDiscovery returns 1 search per day, at that one Google

Not believable data. Though WT is lousy data it is usually on the low side

• Originally Posted by Webnauts

  Google rerturns 18 searches a day

  Yahoo returns: 5 searches a day

  MSN returns 2 searches a day

  AdWords returns low searches volume

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Is that a search term where SEO comes into discussion?

hmmm have to wonder why you made a point of putting all the numbers for the above except AdWords which generally returns much higher results because it is also, I believe, counting the modifiers that contain that phrase. So I would say Janeth's plan is solid and will likely return much more traffic then what she expects. That's the problem with targeting the big terms often they don't bring higher quality just more traffic. It is usually an 10/90 scenario where 10% of the KW supply 90% of the traffic and less than 10% of sales... why? Because the person searching for BrandNameHere blue widget 12345 is more likely in buying mode then the guy searching for blue widgets. So trageting the main terms is cool but targeting those early in a campaign is the mistake all newbies make!

[full house]

I read an article about the power of anchor text. It say that you can get in top of google SERP by using anchor text;ei: type "click here" in google.com, the result is adobe is on the top position, notice the words "click here" are not it the content it is because they use click here in most of their post.

I'm just confuse about Onsite SEO.Whats the different from SEO? I think they are all in common!

[pathikbd]

Originally Posted by full house

I'm just confuse about Onsite SEO.Whats the different from SEO? I think they are all in common!

SEO can be dissected into:
1. Onpage SEO
2. Onsite SEO
3. Offsite SEO

XML Sitemap or Robots.txt management s an integral part of SEO. But, you can't call it Onpage SEO. Because, it is literally wrong. It has nothing to do with page. Rather, you can call it Onsite SEO. Onpage SEO involves stuffs that are related to page, coding, design, and development. Again Offsite SEO refers to link building and other offsite factors for SEO.

If we take these 3 in consideration. Onsite SEO strategies will grow. Offsite SEO has already started growing. But, onpage SEO might experience closure, since the search engines will try to get the best sites and just Onpage optimizing might not work in future.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by pathikbd

SEO can be dissected into:
XML Sitemap or Robots.txt management s an integral part of SEO.

Nope integral implys important meaning it doesn't work without it. 15 years... used Robot.txt 1 time for a short period of time and removed it. Geez why did nothing happen? Because it's not important unless it has a purpose i.e. is needed the only reason it is needed is if you want to stop robots from going to specidfic parts of your site... even then it's a cross your fingers solution.

XML sitemaps are used by people who have been brainwashed by SE's and those who are not confident in the sites navigation. If you need a sitemap to get all your pages indexed... you shouldn't call yourself an SEO you're a cookie cutting web designer.

Originally Posted by pathikbd

Onsite SEO strategies will grow.

Are useless and sign of incompetence because they are only needed if you screwed up or have something you want protected. If you want something protected from robots then make it a authenticated area because not even mighty Google always follows the directives in a robots.txt. The reason XML sitemaps were developed was because incompetent developers couldn't build sites with navigation that got all their pages indexed. This was precedceded by the HTML sitemap which does have a purpose (for real users) but was not a scalable solution for SEs.

Originally Posted by pathikbd

Offsite SEO has already started growing.

I guess you haven't seen caffiene! word is links are devalued... and most Social sites are nofollowed. So what this statement is based on has me mystified. Are You an SEO?

Originally Posted by pathikbd

But, onpage SEO might experience closure, since the search engines will try to get the best sites and just Onpage optimizing might not work in future.

BS if you aren't using the onpage factors what are you basing "best sites" on. Who has the most "nofollow" links. Are you talking your book here or what? What I see is a lot of nonsensical definitions and logic.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by full house

I read an article about the power of anchor text. It say that you can get in top of google SERP by using anchor text;ei: type "click here" in google.com, the result is adobe is on the top position, notice the words "click here" are not it the content it is because they use click here in most of their post.

No it's not posts they make. It's because people use "click here" as the text for downloading the Acrobat reader!

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by SEO

Doorway pages used to work 10 years ago but if you try that trick today you run the risk of having your whole site banned by Google Janeth.

Doorway pages are not banned because they are doorways they were banned because they are orphaned pages that were linked to using invisible links or some other technique which got them banned. Doorway pages perse' are not penalized the techniques to get them found were.

[kevsta]

06-24-2008 11:08 AM full house
Re: Is Onsite SEO Dying Down?
I read an article about the power of anchor text. It say that you can get in top of google SERP by using anchor text;ei: type "click here" in google.com, the result is adobe is on the top position, notice the words "click here" are not it the content it is because they use click here in most of their post.

I'm just confuse about Onsite SEO.Whats the different from SEO? I think they are all in common!

Originally Posted by pathikbd

SEO can be dissected into:
1. Onpage SEO
2. Onsite SEO
3. Offsite SEO

XML Sitemap or Robots.txt management s an integral part of SEO. But, you can't call it Onpage SEO. Because, it is literally wrong. It has nothing to do with page. Rather, you can call it Onsite SEO. Onpage SEO involves stuffs that are related to page, coding, design, and development. Again Offsite SEO refers to link building and other offsite factors for SEO.

If we take these 3 in consideration. Onsite SEO strategies will grow. Offsite SEO has already started growing. But, onpage SEO might experience closure, since the search engines will try to get the best sites and just Onpage optimizing might not work in future.

you really need to check dates before necroing 14 month old threads, am pretty sure he wasnt still waiting for an answer.

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

No it's not posts they make. It's because people use "click here" as the text for downloading the Acrobat reader!

and it doesnt apply any more in caffeine anyway

[Feydakin]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Is that what you call doorway pages?If they are equally meaningful for serachers, then they are not doorway pages.

Instead of posting a stupid link, I make the reference fully accessible to all audience of this thread:

Would it make you feel more at ease if we called the landing pages?? And as is normal, I refuse to let Google define anything for me.. They have gone to long efforts to label things that they can't deal with in a negative light.. Doorway pages, landing pages, all the same thing under another name..

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by janeth

I am all for content. Content, content and more content. 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.

Alt attributes, h1 tags, blod texts are primeraly created for users, and not for search engines. If you avoid implementing semantical tags and attributes on your sites, you are obviously not optimizing for users.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by kevsta

and it doesnt apply any more in caffeine anyway

Thanks kevsta! Wow do you ever see some of the new elements of ranking factors in that SERP! Domains, loss of value on inbound link text which is what I was referring to about the loss of value of links. I think it's more the link text than the "link" that has been devalued. i.e. PR no value loss... so PR5 has same value but the link text is not as heavily weighted in the algo... I hope I haven't confused anyone

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Thanks kevsta! Wow do you ever see some of the new elements of ranking factors in that SERP! Domains, loss of value on inbound link text which is what I was referring to about the loss of value of links. I think it's more the link text than the "link" that has been devalued. i.e. PR no value loss... so PR5 has same value but the link text is not as heavily weighted in the algo... I hope I haven't confused anyone

Hey Terry, Caffein is after more semantics? And people are claiming that onsite SEO is dying down?

Check this: http://searchengineland.com/caffeine...ch-index-23823 "Undoubtedly, Google Caffeine will cause quite a kerfluffle in the web developer and search engine optimization world and many will dive in to try and figure out the changes." I am looking forward! But I do not feel like it will be challenging.

And this: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/caffeine-update/ (WATCH THE VIDEO)!!!

[kevsta]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Thanks kevsta! Wow do you ever see some of the new elements of ranking factors in that SERP! Domains, loss of value on inbound link text which is what I was referring to about the loss of value of links. I think it's more the link text than the "link" that has been devalued. i.e. PR no value loss... so PR5 has same value but the link text is not as heavily weighted in the algo... I hope I haven't confused anyone

I would agree, across several test sites we have it looks like the utter reliance on anchor text is fading. whether that's due to Caffeine itself, or the current algo on the new infrastructure or what..?

but yea, "click here" shows the changes pretty well doesn't it, from Adobe with sitelinks to a KID exact match.