Comparing aggregate data samplings provides a better overall picture, in my opinion. But you have to make sure the data samples share resources. It doesn’t make sense to aggregate query-based estimates with ISP click-data estimates, or with Javascript-based referral captures.

It is very similar to what happens in nature – bird’s feathers are a genius “invention” for creatures that fly. In the water, feathers, while not being completely useless, cannot compare to fins and scales, which don’t represent much of an advantage outside the water.

To say that keyword tag, use of nofollow, repeating keywords, anchor text optimization or any other SEO technique is useless, makes as much of a sense as saying that fins or feathers are useless and stupid.

The point about relative market share is something I haven’t thought about before. I assumed that, if not being completely accurate, are at least not off the chart. I will say that whoever is not interested in their MSN/Yahoo/Ask/whatever traffic, can send it my way, I’ll find what to do with it.

The problem with that belief, however, is that a 35% market share (give or take a few points) doesn’t even come close to being a monopoly.

Well, that 35% is sending 60-80% of the traffic to sites. Obviously the users on other search properties aren’t getting where they intend to.

Michael: There are plenty of people who believe Google has a monopoly on search. The problem with that belief, however, is that a 35% market share (give or take a few points) doesn’t even come close to being a monopoly.

However, my intent (poorly executed) was to shock people into thinking about Google as a media network.

Oh. Well, I’ve believed that since I joined the SEO industry. I guess I just assumed that was common knowledge.

And you quote about Ask saying search has a drop in it’s success. I totally agree, I just wish people would wake up to the Google monopoly. So, that we could see more innovation.

So when you see how much time people are spending on Google searches, be careful not to equate that with “search success”.

Noted and received.

Admin note: I really wish I was subscribed to the posts I comment on.

Michael: I make my living by NOT tripping penalties but based on what I’ve been able to put into copy, I would say you can repeat keywords a LOT on a page as long as it looks natural.

It’s not like the search engines have set some maximum limit for the number of times you can use a word. They’re looking for signs of clear and obvious manipulation that don’t offer any value to the people who visit Web sites.

If you can use a word 400 times on a page, and when reading the copy aloud it sounds completely natural, and you’re not hiding or obscuring that copy in any way, don’t be afraid to do that if it makes sense for your visitors.

Natural language doesn’t get penalized. Spamlanguage gets penalized.

My question is how much is too much? What does it take to trigger some kind of penalty for keyword stuffing? It must be more than keyword density that would set it off, because you can put your name in every sentence without getting penalized. Are there algorithms that detect unnatural word use/placement? Once you get flagged for that sort of thing, would it would permanently hurt the trust of your site, or would merely toning it down fully revoke any penalties imposed? Any thoughts or experience you could share would be appreciated.
Brian