site is the same as site's

[Dragonsi]

Does this include "website designer" & "website designer's"??

[janeth]

Does this include "website designer" & "website designer's"??



Yes I would thank so

[ronniethedodger]

If you want to rank well for one or the other you will have to use it in the normal way, but it might be a good idea to make sure you have all three in various places.

That was my main point I was trying to make, Mel.

But...I also wanted to stress that when you do write for the other forms, then it should also be syntatically correct in it's usage. The SE's are getting more sophisticated in text recognition.

I am also thinking that having the words in various forms sprinkled throughout the page, sometimes together - sometimes alone, has a better effect than placing the two-word combo together repeatedly throughout. It may be that you only need to mention it once, then the page is analyzed for content to support that combination - and ignores multiple occurences of the combo itself. It may even go as far as dinging you with minus points and consider it spamming, especially if they are used out of context or are not syntatically correct.

[Mel]

Janeth the easy way to check is just do a search for each term and note the differences in the search results, and in this case the results are much different for ... designers and ...designer's.

In the search for website designers both website and websites are bolded as are design and designers.

In the search for website designer's google suggests that perhaps you have spelled designer's wrong but bolds both website designers and website designer's although the results for each search are different. I interpret this to mean that google does recognize designers as a root of designer's, but ranks one more strongly than the other.

BTW look at the #9 result for website designer's - its a bridal site which does not have that term in the head or on the page, but only in inbound links.

Ron I would have to see some evidence that Google is ranking sites based on Grammer before I am going to spend much time trying to optimze for syntax.

[janeth]

I still think you get more for inbound links then anything you can do to the web site.

[cbp]

Anchor text beats PR

The paper I referenced in another thread, specualtes that 20% of ranking is on-page stuff - the other 80% comes form off-page.

CBP

[Mel]

Anchor text is a powerful ranking tool in Google, but I am seeing some indications that external anchor text is now much more important than internal links between pages on your site.

I personally never concern my self about PR when it comes to analyzing the reasons a page is ranking well.

There are even those who speculate that PR is no longer used by Google as a part of its ranking algo, many of them pointing to the upcoming Google IPO and the fact that the patent for PR is not owned by Google but by Stanford University.

[cbp]

many of them pointing to the upcoming Google IPO and the fact that the patent for PR is not owned by Google but by Stanford University.

Yes - come across those arguments before. Some try to argue that Google has to get rid of PR before the IPO so they are 'unemcumbered' (or whatever the word is) -- I do not not believe this yet. Obviously Stanford licenced the PR patent to Google and still have an interest in it, but we have no idea what the terms of that license are. It is highly likely that there are no problems at all with the patent and the IPO.

This theory was posted in one place (I think at JimsWorld, but I stand to be corrected) as pure speculation (this was acknowledged by the author) - I am surprised how often it comes up as a fact elsewhere.

CBP

[ronniethedodger]

Ron I would have to see some evidence that Google is ranking sites based on Grammer before I am going to spend much time trying to optimze for syntax.

The fact that Google has the word "promotions" displayed in bold in the results for the query "promotional products" shows that they are looking at other forms of the words in the query. It is also showing that they are using those other forms to base those results on.

How much weight they apply to this on-page factor, I cannot say. But the fact is that they do look at it, and it might mean the difference of being on page one or page two. I will take the page one.

I think the variations on words go a lot farther now, than repeating the same form two or three times. And in order for you to use them in the other variations, then you also have to be syntatically correct in that usage....otherwise it will look like crap when a human reads it.

[minstrel]

This theory was posted in one place (I think at JimsWorld, but I stand to be corrected) as pure speculation (this was acknowledged by the author) - I am surprised how often it comes up as a fact elsewhere.

To me, this is one of the fascinating aspects of the psychology of the internet -

Basically, someone, thinking out loud, says "what if?" and the next thing you know it pops up in 10 other places as "did you hear that..."