If there was only one thing you could change about a Web site, which would you pick: the title tag or the URL?
I would go for the title tag. URLs don’t matter as much as titles.
If there was only one off-page thing you could change about a Web site, which would you choose: double the number of links or add one link to one very specific page?
I would go for the second option because one link can do more for a Web site than 1,000 links. Why do you think I say that? There is a very specific reason. It isn’t “quality matters more than quantity”.
If there was only one change you could make to a Web site’s architecture, which would you choose: add more content (pages) or change all the navigational links?
I would add more content because I can also improve navigation on the new content.
If you could only change either the meta description or the title tag, which would you choose?
I would change the meta description even though it doesn’t appear to have any impact on search engine rankings (which is not entirely true). Why? Because you can work with more characters on the results page through the meta description and you may be able to solve an “Omitted Results” duplicate content filtering issue by changing the meta description.
If you could only get a listing in one directory, which would it be?
I would choose the directory that offers the greatest possible visibility for the Web site. Why? Because I can always build links through a variety of sources, but if for some reason I’m limited in the number of directories I can work with, I’m going to start with the directories that promise the most possible direct referrals.
If you had to optimize for search through Javascript, how would you do that?
I should make you think about that last question because the answer is not nearly as obvious as many people in the SEO industry might think it is.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
tinkerbellchime 10.05.07 at 8:15 pm
You said: “I would add more content because I can also improve navigation on the new content.”
Does having a wiki help a site in the SERPs? I started a wiki yesterday and linked from it back to my website. The domain names match, so I’ve got the set. Will I see much benefit if there isn’t much traffic? I don’t expect a rush anytime soon–I am soooo in the wrong field, but will just having the link from a Wikispace help?
Also, what are the benefits of switching from a free space on Wikispaces to paying $200 per year to be able to add that space to a website without the “.wikispaces” in the URL? Right now I’ve got “mydomain.wikispaces.com.”
Would this be a big benefit or just a small one and not worth the price? My feeling is that it is cool to have a wiki on your own domain, but that is just a perception thing. It would be one way to add more content to a site.
dodito 10.06.07 at 3:42 am
Michael,
You pointed out meta description. I know it’s being used for the text in the search results. Is it good for anything else ? Are meta keywords any good at all ? (I know “everyone” says “no”, but wanted to hear your opinion about this).
Related question: Meta description can help to prevent tripping the “duplicate content” filter.. that is scary. In our case, I see it happen with 2 book pages (ergo: totally different bodies of text) but which have the same page and h1 title tags.
Question: what does changing something small like meta-description say about how well google can analyze on-page relevancy ? If two bodies of text are completely different, and it depends on title, h1, meta description.. to decide “duplicate content yes/no” then.. I think I am missing some important points. Google cannot be that dumb.
Patrick
dodito 10.06.07 at 3:47 am
Why do I say “on-page relevancy”, because I assume the first step is to decide what a page is “about”. Then decide if it is relevant to the search. Now if G. decides page A and B are about the “same” actually ARE the same (duplicate content) then this means it will not serve me page B as a relevant page for my search. It will either serve me page A or not. However if G, makes a mistake about duplicate content, it could very well be that page B IS relevant to my search.
Hence my jump from (meta-description, h1, page title), to duplicate content to google relevancy.
So either these three do not have such a big impact on deciding whether a page is duplicate or not, or.. if they do.. then I think G’s relevance really needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Michael Martinez 10.07.07 at 3:28 am
tinkerbellchime: “Does having a wiki help a site in the SERPs?”
Yes and no. What you really need to do is build brand value so that people search for your brand.
I don’t know how well Wikispaces helps build visibility and traffic. I moved away from Blogger for purely technical reasons as the quality of service had degraded. But free hosting can still be a positive thing for many small site operators.
dodito: “I know it’s being used for the text in the search results. Is it good for anything else ? Are meta keywords any good at all ?”
The meta description is the first place where you can start persuading people that your content is what they are looking for. Part of search engine optimization deals with how your content is presented in the search results. It’s not all about rankings.
dodito: “what does changing something small like meta-description say about how well google can analyze on-page relevancy ?”
Googe is struggling with relevancy right now. In terms of quality their search results lag behind Ask and Microsoft. They are about on par with Yahoo!. They pay too much attention to trying to guess-filter out spam and too little attention to promoting truly relevant content.
That is the direct consequence of their reliance upon link anchor text, which is such a huge gaping vulnerability in their relevance scoring that just about everyone exploits it these days.
In other words, while it may look like I dodged your questions about relevancy, I did not. Google influences relevancy negatively through its duplicate content filters, trust evaluation, and through its Web Apartheid (because some pages cannot pass link anchor text whereas other pages can).
With Google, relevancy is not nearly as important as trust, and trust can be earned by any smarmy Web site more easily than by most honest Web sites. So overcoming algorithmic challenges to relevancy has been more difficult the past few months.
dodito 10.07.07 at 8:27 am
Meta description: good point
Thanks for the explanation about relevancy versus trust. Although I had read a great deal about this, your point about “not nearly as important” brought the message home.
*smile* I guess you wouldn’t want to elaborate on how a smarmy website gains trust faster than many honest websites ?
About anchor text: do you think that will change ?
One sees more and more ecommerce sites that have navigation menus (top and left) with for example: “blue opal engagement rings”, “red garnet engagement rings” etc etc.. a complete nightmare for a user to weed through. The thing is.. if this is the “loophole” and normal sites want normal navigation, it is pretty tough to compete with that. Anchors in footnotes just don’t cut it.
dodito 10.07.07 at 8:32 am
tincherbell: personally I think one has to be a bit careful with the whole “user generated content” story. This is not new: in the 1990’s we had (and still have) forums and discussion lists and newsgroups.
If you talk about “perception”.. remember the discussion lists with 10 postings and 0 comments ? What is the perception of that ? I.e. if you have a wiki.. but just a couple of stubs… don’t forget how spoilt people are with wikipedia. They’d expect to see the same thing. If not.. what does that do to your brand ?
Secondly.. if you have the wiki there: are you basically telling your visitors the thing VC”s are telling their startups: let the users generate the content, it’s cheaper this way ? What does that tell your visitors ?
Michael Martinez 10.07.07 at 5:35 pm
dodito: “About anchor text: do you think that will change ? ”
Not while Google hangs on to its dominant market share.
tinkerbellchime 10.07.07 at 10:30 pm
Michael–Gottcha on the building brand value comment. That will be my new goal. I’m trying to promote the brand as much as possible in as many multiple formats as possible, but I don’t have a brand yet.
What I have now is a website, blog, wiki, and videos on Google and Youtube. I’m including every type of multi-media that I can. I’ll be adding downloadable e-books and interactive quizzes soon. But I don’t have a company, I don’t have a company name, I don’t have any money, and I don’t have an investor. Right now, I’m promoting the website address.
What I have at this moment is a hobby that is out of control. The product I’m producing is better than I ever expected, but it has a long way to go. I’d like the site to have about 1,500 pages.
tinkerbellchime 10.07.07 at 10:46 pm
Dodito, you said: I think one has to be a bit careful with the whole “user generated content†story.
You’re right. It would be a dream to sit back and just facilitate the work of others, but I know that isn’t going to work in the long run for a site like mine. As a political science major, the plantation mentality of it bothers me, too. In other words, others do your work for free while you roll in the dough.
I know what you mean about 10 listings and 0 responses. Hey, you must have peaked at my blog! Unfortunately, that is a very real problem. It does make for a bad impression. I’ll confess my true love is the website; I only have the blog to increase the traffic a little. I’m not a very good blogger. Plus, I’m too tired from just trying to hold the whole thing together part-time and on a shoestring.
As for the wiki, I’m going to mess around and see if I can get a newish concept going for it. Again, I’m only adding it in order to increase traffic to my site. I’ve got to get creative with it.
dodito 10.07.07 at 11:22 pm
I hope Michael doesn’t mind the ongoing conversation here..
We are in exactly the same boat (If that is the proper expression, I am Dutch). About investors: they will come when it’s a proven concept, not much sooner (there are always exceptions: one is if you’ve already worked with them before, successfully). I think the mistake we made was taking on too many projects at the same time. I know it’s easy for others to give a structure of how things should progress, but if you’re running out of time, I think it’s a different story altogether.
In case your site is focused on one topic, and offers different components (which it sounds like) then try to go for sponsorships. Forget adwords (my opinion). It’s ugly, it gives a poor impression, and it takes space on your page which you want to dedicate to the visitor. PLUS if you have this design of leaving “buffers” on the sides for 1024 resolution, you have barely any space to begin with.
Sponsorships require a strong relationship you have to build (so take 6 months for that) and ofcourse a proof of your site’s potential. But…it looks better, you do not immediately need to show huge amounts of traffic, it can actually add value to your site (with the right brand), it takes less space than a whole bunch of adwords, and it probably generates a lot more money.
Ofcourse you really need to be honest with yourself and ask if there is enough interest potentially for what you’re doing, if the market is big enough, or wealthy enough or.. well something special that justifies what you’re doing.. at least to yourself. But ok that is a no-brainer.
Partnerships is another way to go..not only do you build a network around you, but also the links you can get from these sites, can generate extra traffic and potentially be the type of links you want, to score well in google. And you make it more difficult for others to “move in your space”. But that really depends on “your space”.
We got a few links like that and I don’t know which one it is (they all looked good to me but I am sure Michael would have a different opinion about it if he saw them) but our home page suddenly gets crawled every 2 days (at least the last week), but suddenly we also lost 3000 pages and our google traffic dropped with 20 %. So am I having heartburns ? Yes absolutely.. but I also know what it will take to “come back with a vengeance”.
Anyway .. all I can say is.. “hang in there”.. at some point.. the time must come that it starts to pick up traffic, you can find some money and live from it.. and build from there.
dodito 10.07.07 at 11:28 pm
Michael,
if you could ever give a discourse on Yahoo, that would be very helpful, because frankly I have no idea what they are doing and why. Some of our pages score well in MSN, and I can see why. Some score OK (not so many score well yet) in Google, I can also see why. Some in both, even that I can understand.. but what Yahoo is doing (or not doing) is absolutely a mystery to me.
Some say.. they focus more on on page content.. ok so does MSN, why the difference. Yahoo needs more links than Google, OK well, that sounds like “more of MSN” and “more of Google”. Hmmmm. I know each has its own algorithm but I am just shocked to not be able to find any logic whatsoever in the Yahoo results.
Is it still a necessity to pay up the 300 $ and get into their directory ? It’s a lot of money for a good link…
dodito 10.07.07 at 11:31 pm
Michael: There is a very specific reason. It isn’t “quality matters more than quantityâ€. I presume it is not a type.. (my guess would have been quality more than quantity). Aside from a discussion on using linkfarms etc.. I have no idea.. any hints ?
Michael Martinez 10.08.07 at 6:45 am
A lot of people say that Yahoo! focuses more on page content, but their search results don’t show that. I’ve found that Yahoo! is more link-friendly than other search engines but in a different way. For one thing, their crawl-to-index lag time seems to be longer than either Google or Live, but once you get indexed in Yahoo! it seems like you have to wait a while longer until they do the Yahoo! Shuffle.
dodito: “Michael: There is a very specific reason. It isn’t ‘quality matters more than quantity’. I presume it is not a type.. (my guess would have been quality more than quantity). Aside from a discussion on using linkfarms etc.. I have no idea.. any hints ?”
Michael: SEO buzz expressions don’t tell you anything about search engine optimization or Web site promotion. Instead of thinking about “quality links”, think about where you would go if you could get only one link (but you could get it from any page you asked for). Link quality is as irrelevant as the rest of the mush that SEOs babble about endlessly.
tinkerbellchime 10.08.07 at 6:58 am
Dodito Said: Sponsorships require a strong relationship you have to build (so take 6 months for that) and of course a proof of your site’s potential. But…it looks better, you do not immediately need to show huge amounts of traffic, it can actually add value to your site (with the right brand), it takes less space than a whole bunch of adwords, and it probably generates a lot more money.
Thanks for your reply. Sponsorship is a good idea in a case like mine for all the reasons that you mentioned. It’s a non-commercial site on a subject that screams sponsor me. Okay, maybe it doesn’t scream too loudly, but in my mind it is begging to be supported by a highly successful corporation with an established reputation for helping the community. An angel investor with experience in the field would be another alternative. I made an informal offer (begged) to one person, but never heard back on the offer. Boo-hoo! But the heck with ‘em. Full speed ahead.
dodito 10.08.07 at 2:34 pm
Their indexing in general sucks.. I have pages in there that have been reindexed by any other search engine a few times over before Yahoo does. I totally agree that content is not the answer, but I am not sure what you mean with “more link friendly but in a different way”..
Anyway perhaps good for a separate discussion at some point..
You must log in to post a comment.