Well, yes, "should". But when you find that nobody is finding your content, you start to wonder about the SEO "tricks".Quote:
Originally Posted by goodscool
Printable View
Well, yes, "should". But when you find that nobody is finding your content, you start to wonder about the SEO "tricks".Quote:
Originally Posted by goodscool
3oltan's post that started this thread made quite an impression on me. It seemed a sensible plan to find out where my high-ranking competitors had got back-links, and do the same as they did but do it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3oltan
Unfortunately, things have been difficult. There are some sites linking to my competitors' sites. I know the links are there because I can see them in the page source, and they aren't no-follow either. All the same, Google won't disclose them.
I ask Google to tell me "link: www.theirwebsite.com" and I only get told part of the whole answer.
Can anyone help me by suggesting how I discover the back-links that Google is keeping quiet about?
As for what backlinks high PR sites might have, be aware that some of the highest PR sites don't participate in any sort of linking at all. Their site's are high PR for content, and possibly enormously high traffic.Quote:
Originally Posted by C0ldf1re
Go to http://www.sears.com/ (Sears, PR 7) and see if you can find links to anything except more Sears -owned sites.
Go to http://www.si.edu/ (The Smithsonian Instituion, PR 8). What externeal links can you find?
Now, where can you find links TO these sites, rather than FROM them? You'll have to try the "link:www....." again with each site. As to the backlinks Google is keeping quite about? Are you sure they're keeping quite or is it a matter of simply not listing them all?
Isn't "not listing" the same as "not telling", and isn't that the same as "keeping quiet"?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
Of course, your point about backlinks not being essential is valid. I know it. I did a site years ago without trying for any backlinks, because I didn't even know what backlinks were. I just told the search engines about the site, and enough people searched for my content to bring the site up to page rank 3. All the same, perhaps doing SEO would have got the site an even higher rank and visibility.
Unless 3oltan, and lots of other clever people, are deluding themselves, backlinks do help.
Not necessarily. It may be a simple matter of abridgment. I don't see how keeping links a secret could benefit anyone involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by C0ldf1re
Yes, please! (Please use small words to let the n00bs understand.)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
Oh... Am I repeating myself?... Must be getting forgetful in my old age...
Sorry, I missed this the first time.
A few years ago, I got curious as to how Google and the other SEs treated alt tags, since everyone that seemed to know aobut Web page coding insisted that all images should have them. About the same time I noticed a few hits from Google that traced back to images on my sites rather than page urls. So I began experimenting.
Long story short ... I made a few different pages with nothing but images. All of them were as simple as possible code-wise and one in particualr had only images visible on the page. Another was exactly the same but had alt tags to go with the images. Both pages had titles and keywords to match all the alt tags of the one page. Within a month, the page that had the alt tags was drawing visitors from Google Images as well as MSN (later Bing) and Yahoo!. By the end of the second month it was in the top ten SERPs for several of the keywords and shortly after was at #1 in Google and was bouncing arond the top three in MSN and Yahoo! for one keyword in particular.
At first I wasn't sure what I was seeing, but further checking and more experimentation led me to conclude that the SEs were actually indexing the page by reading keywords and counting the alt tagsas content, since the tags the only "visible" code on the page.
I never bothered to check the value of such a strategy for PR for two reasons. 1. I don't care that much about PR and 2. the page in question was of little use to anyone except me and only then to satisfy my curiosity about some things. The pages were taken down long ago.
That's an absolutely brilliant story.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
It must have taken quite a long while to draft your post, and I really appreciate the effort you have made to share your expertise!
That's a new idea to me, and I'm updating my website right now to follow your advice.
Many thanks!
Actually, it only took about 10 or 15 minutes ... with interruptions. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by C0ldf1re
If you are sitting at #23 after doing your SEO work you need to re-evaluate your SEO methodology.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyvegas
It is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyvegas
It is not necessary to build more than one link in order to get top listings, even to a #1 position.
It is not necessary to continually build content to get top listings.
I have sites untouched for years achieving #1 rankings.
The reason to build backlinks should not be for SEO but to place another traffic builder.
A link is an opportunity to get traffic outside of the search engines and thus a good thing.
Although I agree with everything you say, sometimes it does not answer practical needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RegDCP
If you are in competition with lots of other websites, who are getting positions 1-22, you need to find an "edge".
Some people (like me!) are reading these threads in the hope that somebody knows of an edge, and can pass it on.
IMO, the best "edges" are the ones you find or create yourself.
And I agree with RegDCP. If you depend on links for your SEO, you're going to be disappointed. SEO is a never-ending process, at least until you hit that pinnacle. Even then you have to stay on your toes as everyone is trying to take that spot away from you.
That's easy for a clever person like you to say! I just want to copy your edges.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
Expertise in SEO I think lies in optimizing the site both onpage and offpage and then ranking well in Google and having a good converstion rate.
Thanks for the timely reminder! I needed reminding that high serps and high traffic mean nothing... unless your visitors are converting.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramirezhenry55
I've just read this whole thread (it's not often I do that) and just feel that to justify peoples comments they need to give the keywords/phrases they are optimising for. As it would be easy to optimise a page with just one backlink, or just alt and titles for a term such as "toe tapping house music from egypt" as there would be no competition, but if you tried doing the same for "house music" you would fail. It's all relevant to how competitive the keyword is, and not just from the number of results google returns, I mean how many people have optimised for that term.
Great points and well put, Steve.
None - I looked ;)Quote:
I mean how many people have optimised for that term.
I see your point ... to a point. However, what about breaking new ground with keywords/phrases that have not been used, or at least have not been competitive? Afterall, there was time wheen ANY keyword was new. Hence, there's still hope for creating new ones and MAKING them competitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_gts
In that light, I, for one, am not willing to post what words and phrases I've developed. They're easy enough to find out if one is interested and imaginative, but I'm not about to advertise (for free anyway) what has taken a great deal of effort to accomplish.
When I started a few years ago, I tried all the so-called competitive keywords and believe me ... they were super competitive ... to the point I felt I stood no chance breaking the top 1000 in SERPs. That's when I started my campaign to create what I felt others had overlooked. It's worked out very well and I'm not giving it away easily. :)
Well, I tried to uncover your SEO on the plumedarcher. The most noteworthy thing was 1000+ incoming links, all from PR0 sites, mostly with the same anchor text.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
Did you compare keywords/phrases with other related sites ... especially the ones near the top of the SERPs.
Did you notice how that site (mine) performs for some of those words/phrases? Even though most of the other relevant sites have started using the words/phrases I've been working to popularize? ;)
We have other sites where we've done much the same but I won't list them here.
Well, I noticed how you had made one keyphrase "your own", and stuck to it in the first word of your title and description, your main heading, and your back-links. That got you top of serps on that keyphrase out of over 9 million results.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
The sites that trailed you on that keyphrase had not been so single-minded or consistent, and had scattered their resources.
You also were near the top of serps for just O. W's. and W. A. On the first keyphrase, other sites seem to have beaten you by having the plural.
You had ignored incorporating the words "for sale" onto the end of your keyphrase. Although that was a less popular search phrase, it might have brought more exactly targetted visitors.
Thanks for the observations. The one about "for sale" was deliberate but maybe unwise. lol
I don't understand what you mean by "just O. W's. and W. A."
You're good! Keep digging. :)
Meaning "original watercolors" and "watercolor art".Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
Originally I said that you had lots of back-links from PR0 sites. In fact backlinkwatch had reported links from PR0 pages. Many were part of a PR4 forum. Do you think Google would give those PR0 pages' back-links extra weight because of their domain's PR4?
The thing that most struck me was that you had ruthlessly put your keyphrase at the very beginning of your site contents, title, description and keywords. It would make sense for SE's to give greatest weight to words at the beginning of the title and description, but I have never seen anybody else mention it. Have you invented a new SEO tactic?
Sorry. I was being particularly dense yesteday. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by C0ldf1re
Do you think Google would give those PR0 pages' back-links extra weight because of their domain's PR4?[/quote]
That's a very good and interesting question ... and I have no idea. Any ideas how one could/would investigate such a thing to see?
Yes, it was very deliberate. It's my nature. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by C0ldf1re
New tactic? I hope so! That was my intention. What do YOU think? Dare I call it a "new tactic"? Or was it a fluke?
I don't think it is a fluke. It looks more like mathematical precision. When you have found the right formula, it should give the right answer every time. It seems different enough from anything already published to call it a new tactic. The implementation came down to common sense and self-discipline. I remember other sergeants like that! It's time for a smart salute to the Sarge, and a big "Thank You" for teaching me something new!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
Before we celebrate and make our plans to retire rich, we had better be scientific and test it again and again. I am collecting material for a new website, so I can design the site from scratch following these tactics. Cross fingers, and it should go up in a week. I'll keep you posted.
Hope it works, but for now lets not spread it too far or too wide. We should wait til we're far out in front. lol
At any rate ... I don't want to "sell it too cheaply".
That's exactly what I was going to suggest. Or more exactly, I was going to suggest not spreading it at all. There is no practical way of selling a secret that can be explained in one paragraph. All we can do is use it, and attribute our growing wealth to regular attendance at church.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
Not putting keywords first in the title seems to be a really common mistake, I've even seen pretty big sites which have been "SEO'd" have the company name as the first thing in the title on every page (I know the one in my link does, but I don't want that site found yet, I just have a few pages up to age before the work starts). keywords I personally don't think matter, although I still keep the tag and chuck a few in just in case I'm wrong! Description is good though, not so much from optimisation, but it definitely improves click through rates as that's what people will see on your listing, which in turn (apparently) helps your SERP's.Quote:
The thing that most struck me was that you had ruthlessly put your keyphrase at the very beginning of your site contents, title, description and keywords. It would make sense for SE's to give greatest weight to words at the beginning of the title and description, but I have never seen anybody else mention it. Have you invented a new SEO tactic?
But anyway Old Sarge, so what you were saying before, is that it really all comes down to getting your keyword research right to start with so you have a high traffic uncompetitive word to work with? I quite agree, just can't seem to find them myself! lol
I had no trouble finding them. My biggest job was making non-competitive but common words and phrases competitive. Persistence ... and time. It took several months before I saw ANY results and almost two years to get to #1.
All on a PR 2!!
The customer is always right. The owner wants his name in lights. Even if he doesn't, his sales team want to lead in with their sales pitch. Perhaps the SEO people were just made to do a sub-optimal site. If they wanted a job where the customer is always wrong, they should have joined the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_gts
why was the person that generated this thread banned..
I Am looking for someone that can doa SEM SEOare there any recommendations for a clothing store..
Look at my user title. 3oltan changed his title to "Banned" as a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by sweets
LOL!!! i am new here... okay..
Can you help me decided on who to use to design my store front. I found someone called POD1 they did this i think http://www.myla.com/ i would like something like this..
but i still need a cart..can you assist me
No. He really was banned. Trust me. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by C0ldf1re
Of course I trust you! It was just that I remember him still posting after he set his title as "Banned." It was his title that inspired mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Sarge
So you guys dont think that meta keywords are important?
Only for Yahoo at present.Quote:
Originally Posted by EducationLeads
Backlinks have their own place but the website content that will be the best determining factor in your success.
Last time I also try to search backlinks but it does not show the all.
As my mother would say "if everyone was jumping off a bridge, you too?". Ties have their place, but the site content to be the best determining factor in its success.