Is Onsite SEO Dying Down?

[janeth]

I’ve started playing around a Little the last couple weeks with some new sites as well as a couple blogs and to be totally truthful I’ve not spent much time with onsite SEO. I set the blogs up to pull the title and meta tags from the article header and use the same text in the sites url and that’s about it.
It’s all automated

The sites are getting good traffic and doing what I designed them to do without my having to do onsite SEO.

Then I saw this article Is Onsite SEO Dying Down? and got to thinking about it. I don’t think it is dying but do not feel it is needed either. Maybe a little sprinkle here and there but that is about the extent of it.

Wondering what everyone else thinks about it.

[Peter (IMC)]

The automation you did is actually basic SEO which is often responsible for 80% of the results you get. Since you mostly work on your own websites I guess you don't get to work with many client websites that were build by people that don't know SEO exists. In these cases you'll find that on-site SEO works very very well.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

The automation you did is actually basic SEO which is often responsible for 80% of the results you get. Since you mostly work on your own websites I guess you don't get to work with many client websites that were build by people that don't know SEO exists. In these cases you'll find that on-site SEO works very very well.

In a case where an older site has had zero on site SEO done to it I can see how the site would benefit.

1. If the site has good navigation and has sprinkled a little SEO into it over the years, I don't see getting much benefit from on site SEO.

2. If the site does not have any or very few incoming links, I don't see getting much benefit from on site SEO.

3. If it is a small site with only a couple pages, I don't see getting much benefit from on site SEO.

4. If it is a blog that is set up correctly, I don't see getting much benefit from on site SEO.

[Peter (IMC)]

99% of websites are not optimized,... Probably more.

Onsite SEO is more than just code, structure and links. After that part is done you get to the level of the content optimization. There you can gain as well.

But I have to admit, in few cases you actually get to that point because it requires an understanding that is difficult to transmit to others.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Peter (IMC)

99% of websites are not optimized,... Probably more.

Onsite SEO is more than just code, structure and links. After that part is done you get to the level of the content optimization. There you can gain as well.

But I have to admit, in few cases you actually get to that point because it requires an understanding that is difficult to transmit to others.

My thinking is this.

Good content, good internal links and lots of external links will win out every time.

[ran_dizolph]

Good content, good internal links and lots of external links will win out every time.

Absolutely.

I've long since abandoned trying to stay up on the latest SEO trends, and have focussed my attention on building lean, efficient sites with lots of good content.

[Dinghus]

But good content and good internal links ARE onsite SEO.

Let's face it, if you do anything to your site that will help in the SERPs you are doing SEO. You may not be down and dirty balancing keyword percentages etc etc but you are still doing what needs to be done to rank well.

This is like saying there is no need for good grammar and spelling when writing a book.

[advancedmerchant]

Content is still King. I think the search engines are getting too savvy to the SEO techniques being used, and pay more and more attention to true content.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by janeth

My thinking is this.

Good content, good internal links and lots of external links will win out every time.

Nope you have 2 out of three correct the third is totally overblown. I don't have any trouble placing sites and have never begged for links er... did link development. I can do more with the content on the site then anyone can beggin' links and doing Social Networking and blogs. That kind of content rarely gets links from authority they get a lot of low quality links. I'll take a few quality/authority links over 100's of low traffic IBL's. Take the time you spend begging for links and build content and sticky items that generate links with no effort on your part. If you have to ask then... you don't deserve the link and the benefit will disappear with the next link algo update.

[microtekblue]

On-site SEO is actually still very important. Content can be re-arranged to achieve certain goals. For example depending on which keywords you use in your Title tag, and the order of the keywords can make a big difference when it comes down to rankings.

Also, keyword targeting within your body can also help increase your rankings for certain keywords of your choice.

[bj]

I think you're right to a degree, Janeth. But the phrase "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." occurs to me in relation to client sites. My sites are doing fine. But I have them automated to do what they need to do, and I add content usually a minimum of twice a week, sometimes more. And I'm aware always of keyphrases, and tweak for them as I write.

But telling a client that's what he or she needs to do to succeed doesn't mean the lesson sticks. I give them the tool. They have to USE it.

So, for some clients, having someone do the onsite stuff is the only way their sites will ever get any visibility.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Nope you have 2 out of three correct the third is totally overblown. I don't have any trouble placing sites and have never begged for links er... did link development. I can do more with the content on the site then anyone can beggin' links and doing Social Networking and blogs. That kind of content rarely gets links from authority they get a lot of low quality links. I'll take a few quality/authority links over 100's of low traffic IBL's. Take the time you spend begging for links and build content and sticky items that generate links with no effort on your part. If you have to ask then... you don't deserve the link and the benefit will disappear with the next link algo update.

I do not beg for links. And if you want to test what I am able to do against what you are able to do then just pick the topic.

[chrisJumbo]

I think Peter put it will. You may not have spent too much time, but you did basic on-site SEO. And although the SEs may be savy, they still like well structured sites. If you have a well structured site, quality natural content, and links, you'll do well. Structure and Content are on-site SEO. It doesn't take much more effort to properly structure header tags, images, etc.

A lot may have to do with how competitive the term is, as well.

Also, I'm sure others will point out that on-site SEO includes making sure your site is accesible to everyone. Although, I will have to admit, we haven't gone that far.

[Tig]

I agree, content is king, but how the content is written is vitally important. I work with many different types of business, and they know their business very well, but that doesn't mean they know how to write content for the web very well.
Our SEO business is up about 240% from last year, and much of it is helping clients rewrite their content to match where they want their site to fall in keyword results.
Once we combine that with the rest of the good SEO habits, we can get natural results fairly quickly.
So I believe that Onsite SEO is not only vital, but on the rise.

[ArthurNYC]

Content is still king but they have ti find the content. So I don't buy that Onsite SEO is dying down.

A

[williamc]

Originally Posted by janeth

I do not beg for links. And if you want to test what I am able to do against what you are able to do then just pick the topic.

Sounds like a challenge to me :P

But I already know what you can do Janeth

[claybutler]

There are really only four things that all the major search engines look to form the bulk of their opinion about your site.

1. The Title Tag
2. Page content ( this includes the regular body copy as well as you global achitecture and anchor text)
3. Inbound Links
4. Outound Links

I've been optimizing since 1999 and the basics have alway held true. I pretty much ignore all the latest algorithm chasing and speculation.

As has been pointed out, your automated SEO blog plugin is really a decent SEO tool. Just utilizing that makes your website heads and tails above most websites that have title tags like "Welcome to xyzwebsite.com"...on every single page! Or better yet, "Untiltled".

You could probably do even a bit better by crafting a custom title for each post since quite often a cool catchy post title can be really lacking in decent keywords. That way you have a very literal title tag for the engines AND a more artistic and evocative page title for the readers. Then everyone's happy.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by williamc

Sounds like a challenge to me :P

But I already know what you can do Janeth

He does not seem to want to take me up on it.

[chrisJumbo]

Contests are all the rage. I would love to see Janeth and Terry go at it. I know I would be crushed. :O)

[janeth]

Originally Posted by claybutler

There are really only four things that all the major search engines look to form the bulk of their opinion about your site.

1. The Title Tag
2. Page content ( this includes the regular body copy as well as you global achitecture and anchor text)
3. Inbound Links
4. Outound Links

I've been optimizing since 1999 and the basics have alway held true. I pretty much ignore all the latest algorithm chasing and speculation.

As has been pointed out, your automated SEO blog plugin is really a decent SEO tool. Just utilizing that makes your website heads and tails above most websites that have title tags like "Welcome to xyzwebsite.com"...on every single page! Or better yet, "Untiltled".

You could probably do even a bit better by crafting a custom title for each post since quite often a cool catchy post title can be really lacking in decent keywords. That way you have a very literal title tag for the engines AND a more artistic and evocative page title for the readers. Then everyone's happy.

Yes, and I had it set up to do that but the meta tags kept getting messed up so I decided the heck with it.

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by janeth

I do not beg for links. And if you want to test what I am able to do against what you are able to do then just pick the topic.

Janeth, I SO like your style! =)

[cbosleeds]

The notion that onsite SEO doesn't count scares me a bit. Very strong link building has a bigger impact, but there are dozens of factors to onsite SEO and you need to get them right as much as the webpage/website architecture will allow, as onsite is the groundwork for your link building and can take you a long way in and of itself. With good onsite moreover you need less link building to get there sooner. But if you are clever you can make your presence felt and make good money out of onsite alone.

Content is certainly still of massive importance. The more well-written content you have and the more web pages with well-written content the better you will do. Moreover, the more opportunity you have for relevant link building because you will be covering more subject matter.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by cbosleeds

Content is certainly still of massive importance. The more well-written content you have and the more web pages with well-written content the better you will do. Moreover, the more opportunity you have for relevant link building because you will be covering more subject matter.

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.

[Big Juice]

As the web evolves so do the search engines and the time is coming when optimization will no longer be needed. Myself I compare the evolution of optimization to the evolution of dating from a male perspective.

In the beginning it is all about informing the other person about oneself and if there are some exaggerations, like in SEO, eventually the truths will be whipped out so to speak. At some point very soon the search engines, like a woman in the dating example, will be able to see right through those exaggerations and cut right to the actual angle of the dangle. As such the search engines will rank sites/pages on their actual content and not the little lies we feed them in order to get them interested.

Seriously though - you can't actually think that the search engines are not going to evolve into something more than simple mechanical search?

[zeo]

I agree with Dinghus. Content and internal links ARE onsite SEO. The same thing with your sites, Janeth: pulling the title and meta tags from the header and keyword-based URLs are onsite SEO. Just knowing to do it would put you above the sites that are not optimized. SEO know-how or just basic SEO understanding is still necessary in order to know what "little sprinkles here and there" to use on the site and how to not "over-optimize". You can't do without onsite SEO in very competitive areas, unless everyone loves your site and links to it with the right words - the best of all worlds.

[SemAdvance]

If you're shooting for long tail keywords then of course JanetH way will work.

Try keyword term 'online poker'

Then lets see what the opinion is.

But by all means I think everyone should quit doing any SEO work ;->

[imvain2]

Originally Posted by Big Juice

As the web evolves so do the search engines and the time is coming when optimization will no longer be needed. Myself I compare the evolution of optimization to the evolution of dating from a male perspective.

In the beginning it is all about informing the other person about oneself and if there are some exaggerations, like in SEO, eventually the truths will be whipped out so to speak. At some point very soon the search engines, like a woman in the dating example, will be able to see right through those exaggerations and cut right to the actual angle of the dangle. As such the search engines will rank sites/pages on their actual content and not the little lies we feed them in order to get them interested.

Seriously though - you can't actually think that the search engines are not going to evolve into something more than simple mechanical search?

I think the data analogy is a great one. Because men can skip all the crap if they have money and you can skip the crap with search engines and run PPC ads. Sure they might not be quality or what you are really looking for, but money lets you skip the rest of the pack in a way.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by SemAdvance

If you're shooting for long tail keywords then of course JanetH way will work.

Try keyword term 'online poker'

Then lets see what the opinion is.

But by all means I think everyone should quit doing any SEO work ;->

On site SEO is not going to get you ranked for 'online poker'

[dburdon]

Too many people extrapolate their experiences from uncompetitive categories. To succeed in tough categories requires a balanced approach to on and off page search optimisation.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by dburdon

Too many people extrapolate their experiences from uncompetitive categories. To succeed in tough categories requires a balanced approach to on and off page search optimisation.

If that was true then DELL nor Apple would rank for computers as neither off them use the keyword on their page that is ranking in the top ten for the very, very competitive keyword computers.

I've ranked for both competitive and non-competitive keywords.

[janeth]

For those SEO's that have posted that you can only rank for a competitive search term with on site SEO I'll show this.

First a search for a very competitive search term.

Computers







You can see from the above (which was taken from Google seconds ago) that sitting in the number 1 and number 3 place for this highly competitive search term is Dell and apple.

Then I click on Cached










Notice the little red error where it say this term only appears in links pointing to this page.

And you can see the same thing on Dell's site







That means that those sites rank for that competitive keyword without even using the keyword in the text.

[Terry Van Horne]

Janeth, my apologies it was wrong to post "beggin' for links" in a way that was derogatory. It is evident that I still can't do the forum thing without getting exasperated by the "links are optimization" camp. I'm very old school and just don't get "links are optimization" arguments. I understand it is in the algo and it's weighted (probably more than it should be) but... to me that is the last resort of brochure and unworthy sites. I prefer to find content/applications and niches that create the means to generate content/PR internally, that will in itself get you placed for lesser terms which attracts the authority links so I don't spend boring hours reviewing shitty directories and sites in the hopes they'll join me in a conspiracy to manipulate the SE's. Not to say you conspire just a general feeling I have about "links as optimization".

[SteveWorld]

Here's my challange. Let's see you get geeksonsteroids on to the first page for your title tag "Custom Website Designs" or anwyhere in the top 3 pages on MSN search.

[henrysi]

Life, is not logical. Software can be reliably configured, to work towards one, the other, or anything in between.

Content, determines the difference between a link farm and a directory. Content may in cases of mass or frequent content, determine to some degree whether a site is relatively stagnant.

Content unoptimised, is nothing more than new fodder. How in the name of God, can a bit of software determine the relevance of a document to a human searcher (and advertiser), but by some logical indication that any document is about / or relevant to, a particular query ? Think, not just the global market, but the or any regional market as well. A somewhat global policy, must be taken but with some dedication to the big picture.

Volume, has a place ; but relevance is the goal.

200,000,000.00 pages of new content, will attract attention in the human and non-human prediction that something of worth, may be happening. However, it cannot be assumed that content which has no medium to long term (as well as established and what we may call click through rates), is going to have any longevity).

Seo is about a regional intimacy, a software appreciation, and some understanding that the clinet may have no global concerns.

Content, may ensure a quick response with respect to rapid spidering , but optimised and planned content, may ensure that a page can deliver relevance for any searcher or adveriser. The advertiser is human, too. Unless, human editing can become affordable; then the position of an s.e.o., is likely to remain.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Janeth, my apologies it was wrong to post "beggin' for links" in a way that was derogatory. It is evident that I still can't do the forum thing without getting exasperated by the "links are optimization" camp. I'm very old school and just don't get "links are optimization" arguments. I understand it is in the algo and it's weighted (probably more than it should be) but... to me that is the last resort of brochure and unworthy sites. I prefer to find content/applications and niches that create the means to generate content/PR internally, that will in itself get you placed for lesser terms which attracts the authority links so I don't spend boring hours reviewing shitty directories and sites in the hopes they'll join me in a conspiracy to manipulate the SE's. Not to say you conspire just a general feeling I have about "links as optimization".

I do NOT submit sites to directories and I do NOT do link exchanges. I do believe that getting links to a site helps it to rank but I normally build sites with over 10,000 pages in them to go after the long tail keywords.

However...I also get lots and lots of links to my sites as well.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by SteveWorld

Here's my challange. Let's see you get geeksonsteroids on to the first page for your title tag "Custom Website Designs" or anwyhere in the top 3 pages on MSN search.

I ranked #1 for that term for many years but not a problem. I'll do it again. Give me 7 days.

[jitendraag]

Originally Posted by janeth

I ranked #1 for that term for many years but not a problem. I'll do it again. Give me 7 days.

Wow. that's a good challenge accepted. I would want to see how it goes.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by janeth

For those SEO's that have posted that you can only rank for a competitive search term with on site SEO I'll show this.That means that those sites rank for that competitive keyword without even using the keyword in the text.

The fact they are likely some of the biggest makers of computers means they have awesome amounts of authority links. How many sites are in that position. 1 in 10,000? IMO, not a good comaprison or proof of anything other than the shortcomings of the Google link algo! I have seen that in other competitive SERPs but it was done with paid links... IMO, the only way to do it for competitive terms unless you are one of the 1 in 10,000 sites.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

The fact they are likely some of the biggest makers of computers means they have awesome amounts of authority links. How many sites are in that position. 1 in 10,000? IMO, not a good comaprison or proof of anything other than the shortcomings of the Google link algo! I have seen that in other competitive SERPs but it was done with paid links... IMO, the only way to do it for competitive terms unless you are one of the 1 in 10,000 sites.

It proves that a site can rank for a competitive term without on site optimization. Can you show me a site that ranks for a competitive term without links?

[jitendraag]

I agree with janeth. Infact I believe it's not just the anchor text the surrounding text can also get to you SERPs.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by janeth

It proves that a site can rank for a competitive term without on site optimization. Can you show you a site that ranks for a competitive term without links?

Probably not, but, that only prooves that 1 in [pick a huge random number] can ahieve that. how does that proove anything other than it's easy to promote brand names. I can't optimize what I don't have 100% control over. Link text is a gamble at best and that's the only way you place for competitive terms when the term is not on the page. I've seen a few SEO terms that were using paid links do it ... but never an example that occurs naturally without some form of promotion/manipulation. It happens but the fact they make a point of telling the user it's a result of the links could be an indication that they don't really want that, IMO, it's viewed as an anomoly. ie:unexpected/unwanted result

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

Probably not, but, that only prooves that 1 in [pick a huge random number] can ahieve that. how does that proove anything other than it's easy to promote brand names. I can't optimize what I don't have 100% control over. Link text is a gamble at best and that's the only way you place for competitive terms when the term is not on the page. I've seen a few SEO terms that were using paid links do it ... but never an example that occurs naturally without some form of promotion/manipulation. It happens but the fact they make a point of telling the user it's a result of the links could be an indication that they don't really want that, IMO, it's viewed as an anomoly. ie:unexpected/unwanted result

lol, Ok, you can NOT show an example I can. But mine does not count because you THINK Google did not want that to happen.

[Terry Van Horne]

Originally Posted by janeth

My thinking is this.

Good content, good internal links and lots of external links will win out every time.

I agree with all but the bolded part because lots of external links are not needed if you have enough internal content and have just a handful of authority links Lots is the biggie for me. Replace lots with a few quality links and we can agree. Lotsa' IMO, means lotsa low value activity.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by Terry Van Horne

I agree with all but the bolded part because lots of external links are not needed if you have enough internal content and have just a handful of authority links Lots is the biggie for me. Replace lots with a few quality links and we can agree. Lotsa' IMO, means lotsa low value activity.

I agree with the fact that you only need a few good quality links.

[red]

I have nothing to add that someone else hasn't already said. I want to post simply to say that this has been the BEST "tennis match" I've seen on WPW in quite a while. Hugely entertaining and great ideas back and forth from all. Bravo! (-:

[pervezalam_mzn]

NO, On-page SEO is very import for Ranked in SERPs and for PR, If you will not do it then crawler will not crawl your web page regularly and may be your PR goes down, I have checked it many times, so i will say Onpage seo is very important in SEO and for Page rank.



-----------------------------


Pervez Alam
Website Design and Development Services

[SEO]

here - Google Search

Who ranks number 1 for the search word "here"...?

Adobe

They don't have the word "here" on their page...

They have no onpage SEO for the word "here" whatsoever...


Who wants to try to rank for the keyword "here" using onpage optimization...???


I have heard some authorities claim that they could get a blank page to rank for whatever keyword they want... Some even claim to have tested it and proven that they could outrank other pages with a blank page...

Of course... The best way to get good quality inbound links is to have good quality 'link bait'.

[Faglork]

Hi all,

in all this talk about content and search engines no one seems to care about those who "do the work" - the visitors. Search engines can only *react* to the input of the users. So, even for small sites, it is important to know what your prospective visitors are *really* looking for. This only *seems* to be obvious - I had many cases where the term people searched for was way off from what my clients were thinking that it must be THE search term in their business.

So, for example, it pays to rent access to a good (!) keyword database and check your content against actual search phrases - not against hypothetical search phrases.

For me, SEO is about microcontent - can I re-phrase sentences and headlines in a manner that the content *gains* value AND contains all/most of the "buzzwords"? This requires a lot of work, but the results are very good.

Just my 2 cents ...

[MtraX]

No one's mentioning domain / page / links age here??

[optimalwebsite]

I've just searched for "custome website designs" and found you rank no.10.... so you're on page 1.... congratulations!