locked
ranking with keywords RRS feed

  • Question

  • It is not urgent, but I wanted to give some feedback.

    I have a private, non-official website on the history of the city where I live. I am historian and I know that the content of the site is good. However the site does not show up high on search results, as it should, as you compare the history-content of my sites with others.

     

    I read all the tips on ranking and have some ‘important’ links to my site, but I guess Live Search depends more on keywords? 

    When I search with the keywords (in Dutch) ‘geschiedenis’ (history) and ‘Den Haag’ (The Hague) I can not find my site with Live Search. Indeed, the occurrence of the words geschiedenis and Den Haag is less on my site than that on the page of for instance historie.denhaag. org. But my problem is that using the same words over and over do not give a good text. Moreover I can write an article under the header ‘400 years New York’ without using the word history. Though the subject is history, the content will only have words like ‘inhabitants’, ‘trade’, ‘Broadstreet’, ‘roads’, ‘Stuyvesant’ or whatever. The word 'history' should not be often in the text.

     

     I am probably not the first who mentions this problem, but I am just wondering if you think of ways to solve this. The best way is to have a team that evaluates websites, but off course this has other disadvantages. One tip: the website of Haags Gemeentearchief should also have a high ranking on the keywords geschiedenis and Den Haag. It is the Municipal Archives of The Hague.

     

    The url of my main page is: http://www.xs4all.nl/~anemaa/ges/geschiedenis_den_haag.htm

     

     

    Thursday, September 18, 2008 3:35 PM

Answers

  • Thank you for the feedback. I think that it is a mixture of using keywords in titles, H1 tags, URLs, etc. that will really increase your relevance. However, using keywords here and there in text is possible to do without sounding repetative. Moderation is the key: too light on the keyword and it's not a keyword, but too heavy = keyword stuffing = don't do it.

     

    Brett

    Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:52 PM

All replies

  • You have raised a very interesting point.  I agree with much of what you said.

     

    There is some debate, though, about your statement that "...using the same words over and over do not give a good text".  It depends on what you mean by "good".  In fiction it is considered good writing not to repeat words or phrases too often, so it is acceptable to use "red", "crimson", "scarlet" and other synonyms to suggest the same color.

     

    However, in non-fiction and in writing that is meant to convey facts or instructions, it has been demonstrated that the repetition of words has the result that readers retain the information more quickly and easily and comprehend the text much better (than when synonyms are used).  It might seem that repeating the words is a search engine gimmick, but in reality the practice increases comprehension by readers.

     

    There are other comprehension techniques that coincide with the the patterns search engine bots look for - headings, for example, that offer a summary of the (short) paragraph to follow.

     

    ...Duane

     

    Friday, September 19, 2008 2:14 AM
  • Hi,

     

    I agree with you.  If you repeat the keyword for many times without any meaningful contents.  The search engine might penalize your site as hacking sites.

     

     

    kchau

    www.fortunecollection.com

     

    Saturday, September 27, 2008 10:07 PM
  • all i can say is more and more search engines are going into LSI. If you are campaigning for the keyword "dog training" for that web page, the search engines are also expecting similar keywords or synonyms or topical keywords like "leash training", "labrador obedience training", "clicker", "agility" etc.

    By letting your webpage contain LSI keywords, you will be ahead of the pack. Others are still focusing on target keywords but having synonyms/related keywords sprinkled on the page.will do wonders for your site, now and in the future.
    Saturday, October 4, 2008 4:20 AM
  • Hi,

     

    I agree with you and some search engines seem to be much better with this. I wanted to point out that Microsoft is not so good in ranking websites by relevance. I know some websites good enough to know their comparative value and when I check their ranking with different search engines Google and Yahoo do a much better job than Microsoft Live Search. It is not that Google and Yahoo are excellent, but they seem to be a ahead with their technology. And I am content with Google, but it would be better to have a choice between some search engines.

     

    Jan

    Saturday, October 4, 2008 8:08 AM
  • Hi Jan,

     

    yeah, Microsoft Live Search seems to be behind a bit Jan.  For example, Microsoft Live Search takes forever to index my website, www.fortunecollection.com.  When it is indexed, it is only 1 page, my homepage.  It says that no block.  However, I put my website into the Live Search.  It does not show my website.  On the other hand, Google or Yahoo indexed my site right away.  So I think that applys to other keywords as well. Microsoft Live Search need to spend more time to keep up. 

     

    Friday, October 10, 2008 6:18 AM
  • Thank you for the feedback. I think that it is a mixture of using keywords in titles, H1 tags, URLs, etc. that will really increase your relevance. However, using keywords here and there in text is possible to do without sounding repetative. Moderation is the key: too light on the keyword and it's not a keyword, but too heavy = keyword stuffing = don't do it.

     

    Brett

    Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:52 PM
  • Hi, what I notice is that msn is set to index sites slower. Maybe this is because they have something in mind and dont want to give new pages a lot of importance. If I was working for them I would do exactly that. New pages are riskier than old established ones.

    For example this site http://www.betting-forum.com/ has a lot of backlinks and nearly 4 months old and even is not indexed in home page, but has 2 indexed pages. Strage if you ask me, but I know it will raise.

     

    Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:35 PM
  • As with what has already been posted, Google is the fastest to index sites. I tend to feel that MSN and Yahoo try to weed out sites that aren't much value. The easiest way to do this is to wait it out. For example, if MSN comes across a new site or a new site is submitted, it is plausible that the time to actually crawl that site could be 30-90 days. I am sure that some sites will get crawled sooner because of the type of site it is. Lets face it, if your site has to do with a keyword that gets searched for in high volumes, it will be important to get those sites crawled and indexed first. The other thing I think is happening is that MSN doesn't have the inherent technology and processing capability yet.

    Emo

    Affordable SEO Solutions
    Friday, November 14, 2008 2:37 AM