Should I revise chaotic content?

[Big Bill]

If you aren't concerned about risk then there is cloaking, noframes
and noscript areas. I wouldn't advise this though.


David

There's noembed too. You know, it's years since I used a marquee for
anything. Didn't they only used to work in IE?

BB
www.kruse.co.uk Established SEO.

 

[Big Bill]

Some of the worst advice I've heard all month. Alternate text is just
that: text to be used instead of -- as an alternate form of -- the image
when it can't be displayed for some reason. A few obsolete browsers get
that wrong and use it for tooltips and the like, but that's what the
title attribute is for.

Do you really want to make people using text browsers, speech browsers,
or with images disabled see a random soup of meaningless keywords? Do
you really expect Google not to notice your keyword spam eventually?

Done well you can do both. Not that most folk bother to do it well as
most folk are under instruction from business-oriented directors who
aren't concerned about irrelevant minority interests. "Best Practice"
and the whole "Ethical" nonsense is anyway in for a (some would say)
big kicking as the flaws in Google's algorithm become more widely
known. No-one with a conscience can optimise as if the engines don't
exist when to do so is to knowingly consign a site to oblivion.

BB

www.kruse.co.uk Established SEO.

 

[Big Bill]

Tidying up the visible English on just the home page will probably not do
you much harm and it will give a better first impression to the visitor who
arrives at the home page, but bear in mind that if you are already highly
ranked you can only go down rather than than up, so take great care. If in
doubt, don't fiddle around with something that is already working well. I
suggest you access http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html , print
it out and stick in on the wall in front of you.
Best regards, Eric. ( Unqualified SEO )

You taking a pop, Eric?

BB

www.kruse.co.uk Established SEO.

 

[Big Bill]

Wow... that is just stupid. *shakes her head* Did you really think about
that before posting here?

Our "here" is the seo group, Miranda. Longest cross-post we ever had,
I reckon.

BB
www.kruse.co.uk Established SEO.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Our "here" is the seo group, Miranda. Longest cross-post we ever had,
I reckon.

Ah, I get it. Over on the SEO group, keeping people out of your web site
is considered cool?

 

[SEO Dave]

Wow... that is just stupid. *shakes her head* Did you really think about
that before posting here?

So lets see I give advice on how NOT to loose traffic gained through
the use of misspellings and because it doesn't fit in with your little
world of perfectly spelt and grammatically correct web pages it's
stupid!

That was such a helpful response, would you care to expand on the
reason why it "is just stupid", particularly from a traffic/business
point of view?

Have you ever optimised a business site before? The first thing is
relevant traffic, not will it be site of the month on alt.html. I
generally don't use misspellings, but understand those who do, they
are an easy niche.

So what's your advise, remove all the misspellings and say goodbye to
the relevant traffic and hope now everything is spelt correctly other
webmasters will link to the site and so get the traffic back?

Excuse me while I ROFLOL!!

Get real, if it's a business site obtaining natural links is almost
non existent for 90% of sites. You run a small business selling
fertiliser for example. There is nothing special about your site,
there is nothing of real interest to a visitor except for those
wanting to buy your product today (that's all your site does and all
you want your site to do, sell something). You have the manufacturers
info. on the site just like 100+ other sites selling the same stuff,
but without spending a small fortune creating new content there is
nothing interesting you can add. Who the hell is going to link to you
and why?

Yes you will gain a few links (from happy customer for example) but no
where near what is needed to compete in Google for even a moderately
difficult SERP.

The most important factor to the owner of the site is relevant traffic
that converts well to sales. Although a well designed site that looks
and reads well is more likely to result in a sale than the site
described by the OP, the site that reads well would also lack the
elements that resulted in the current OPs SERPs. So yes traffic may
convert better, but there will be much less traffic to convert since
lots of relevant SERPs will be lost.

If the OPs site looses half it's traffic (a possibility) it will need
to double it's conversion on remaining traffic (unrealistic unless
it's really low conversion >0.3%).

The perfect solution would be to have a site that is designed and
reads well and looses no traffic, ideally increases traffic. As I
described in my last "stupid" post this is unrealistic for the OP to
achieve. I did however describe ways in which to minimise some of the
negatives of targeting misspellings. They are far from the perfect
solution, but for the majority of visitors it should read much better
than the current site.

What is so stupid about that?

Come on give us your expert opinion on how to change a site like this
without loosing traffic from the misspellings?

David

 

[SEO Dave]

There's noembed too.

There are other ways as well including hidden text, hidden div layers
etc...

You know, it's years since I used a marquee for
anything. Didn't they only used to work in IE?

I haven't used one for years either. I've seen them a few times on not
so well optimised sites, I recall they fail in Netscape. Very easy way
to add as much content as you like without it destroying the overall
look. I won't do anything on site that might get a site/page
penalised, so all the above are not used when I'm optimising, not
worth the risk.

BB
www.kruse.co.uk Established SEO.

Still not settled on a sig yet )

David

 

[SEO Dave]

Some of the worst advice I've heard all month. Alternate text is just
that: text to be used instead of -- as an alternate form of -- the image
when it can't be displayed for some reason. A few obsolete browsers get
that wrong and use it for tooltips and the like, but that's what the
title attribute is for.

Clearly you know nothing of SEO then, if you did you would understand
what I meant. I know what the alt attribute and the title attribute
are for, but do you know how these are treated by Google? I do since I
did the research, so know how to and how not to use them for improved
rankings.

Do you really want to make people using text browsers, speech browsers,
or with images disabled see a random soup of meaningless keywords? Do
you really expect Google not to notice your keyword spam eventually?

Please point out where I said add a "random soup of meaningless
keywords" or adding "keyword spam"?

Please don't assume I use spam techniques just because you don't
understand the latest in SEO research.

Just so you understand what I'm referring to.

You have a page that say has a logo at the top that currently doesn't
link to anything-

<img src="logo.gif" alt="Logo">

I assume you have no problem with the above, lots of sites are like
this now?

Your site is selling Fertiliser, main SERP Organic Fertiliser. If I
was advising on the optimisation of your site I'd advise changing it
to something like-

<a href="http://www.domain.com/"><img src="logo.gif" alt="Organic
Fertiliser"></a>

Or if it really bothered you use-

<a href="http://www.domain.com/"><img src="logo.gif" alt="Organic
Fertiliser Logo"></a>

I assume you have no problem with a change like this so far??

As I said before I generally don't go after misspellings, but if a
client wanted them I'd advise for some pages (not all) use the
misspellings (added an L below)-

<a href="http://www.domain.com/"><img src="logo.gif" alt="Organic
Fertilliser"></a>

The above changes are barely noticeable to the vast majority of
visitors and as I've discussed many times in
alt.internet.search-engines the alt attribute of linked images gives
the page it is on and the page it is linking to a boost for those
words (just like anchor text does).

No "random soup of meaningless keywords" or "keyword spam" just
increased relevance in Google.

I appreciate you are from alt.html and probably still believe in the
phrase "build it and they will come", in the real world you have to
make compromises in design and even usability to rank well in Google.
Do I like it, no, can I live with it, yes, the monthly cheques from
happy clients make it less bitter

BTW the "build it and they will come" was a joke, don't take it too
seriously.

David

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Please point out where I said add a "random soup of meaningless
keywords" or adding "keyword spam"?

You seemed to be implying that the alt text of images should be filled
with keywords which don't serve as an alternate representation of the
image's content, but are simply there to improve search engine rankings.
If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry; misunderstanding.

However, you did talk about "other ways as well including hidden text,
hidden div layers etc." in another post. That's plain and simple lying;
why in the world would Google need to see a different page from what
normal visitors see unless you want to unfairly raise your site's ranking?

<img src="logo.gif" alt="Logo">

I assume you have no problem with the above, lots of sites are like
this now?

Why would someone who can't see/use images want to see the word "Logo"
on the page? How does that replace the image's content?

Your site is selling Fertiliser, main SERP Organic Fertiliser. If I
was advising on the optimisation of your site I'd advise changing it
to something like-

<a href="http://www.domain.com/"><img src="logo.gif" alt="Organic
Fertiliser"></a>

Or if it really bothered you use-

<a href="http://www.domain.com/"><img src="logo.gif" alt="Organic
Fertiliser Logo"></a>

Actually, the first one is much better. Again, why does a blind person
care that it's a logo?

 

[Neal]

You seemed to be implying that the alt text of images should be filled
with keywords which don't serve as an alternate representation of the
image's content, but are simply there to improve search engine rankings.
If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry; misunderstanding.

Assuming no misunderstanding: This is a prime example of where the goals
of SEO are at odds with the goals of accessibile HTML authoring. Certinly
put keywords in the alt text, but also certainly use alt text that is
human-readable. Come on, it's common sense.

... unless you want to unfairly raise your site's ranking?

Isn't this the thrust of most SEO?

Why would someone who can't see/use images want to see the word "Logo"
on the page? How does that replace the image's content?

Agreed. This is plain and simplly stupid HTML. It does no good for anyone.

Actually, the first one is much better. Again, why does a blind person
care that it's a logo?

True. "Logo" or "Image" is mentioning the mechanics, which is a no-no in
good web authoring. Alt replaces the image when the image is not rendered
- all other considerations must be predicated upon that.

 

[jcnews]

It's possible that it will. It's also possible that it will improve.
It's possible that Google will have ceased to exist tomorrow. What do
you want from us, a guarantee we cannot give?

BB

I'm not asking for a guarantee -- just a little information because I have
no idea whether repeating keywords in chaotic rambling sentences is more
effective than just including them once. Like I said this is my first
website where it really matters what the Google rank is (someone else's
income is affected by it). My instinct tells me that the search engines
don't place much weight on repeated keywords but I don't really know.

BTW, thanks to everyone for their replies. I didn't know this newsgroup
existed but it is very helpful.

 

[jcnews]

Except if most of the SERPs are gained from misspellings and you
remove them and so loose the SERPs, no one will find the new great
content to link too )

Also not really relevant for most commerce sites. Hardly anyone will
link to an online shop naturally.

David

Some of the misspellings are there for a reason so I would still keep them
somewhere on the page, but I wouldn't repeat them (many of the customers are
international and spell things differently).

 

[Toby Inkster]

http://www.search-engine-optimization-services.co.uk/

I'm not entirely sure how much weight we should give your advice given
that your website doesn't appear in the top 25 results in Google for:

search engine optimization services
"search engine optimization services"
search engine optimisation services
"search engine optimisation services"
search engine optimization services co uk
seo services
"seo services"
"seo services" uk

 

[Michael G. Schneider]

That's because he's a little...Danish.

Danish? What made you think so?

Michael G. Schneider (from Germany)

 

[Big Bill]

Ah, I get it. Over on the SEO group, keeping people out of your web site
is considered cool?

I never said that. Where'd I say that?

BB
www.kruse.co.uk
SEO you could cuddle. Probably..

 

[Big Bill]

So lets see I give advice on how NOT to loose traffic gained through
the use of misspellings and because it doesn't fit in with your little
world of perfectly spelt and grammatically correct web pages it's
stupid!

That was such a helpful response,

Welcome to the wonderful world of alt.html.

BB


www.kruse.co.uk
SEO you could cuddle. Probably..

 

[Big Bill]

There are other ways as well including hidden text, hidden div layers
etc...


I haven't used one for years either. I've seen them a few times on not
so well optimised sites, I recall they fail in Netscape. Very easy way
to add as much content as you like without it destroying the overall
look. I won't do anything on site that might get a site/page
penalised, so all the above are not used when I'm optimising, not
worth the risk.


Still not settled on a sig yet )

David

Getting there....

BB
www.kruse.co.uk
SEO you could cuddle. Probably..

 

[Big Bill]

I appreciate you are from alt.html and probably still believe in the
phrase "build it and they will come", in the real world you have to
make compromises in design and even usability to rank well in Google.
Do I like it, no, can I live with it, yes, the monthly cheques from
happy clients make it less bitter

BTW the "build it and they will come" was a joke, don't take it too
seriously.

David

Yeah, Dave don't get to the movies much, else he'd know it's "If you
build it, they will come". Only without SEO, they won't. SEO is the
new grammar, kids, welcome to the new flesh.
(I actually do go to the movies a lot. Oh yes.)

BB
www.kruse.co.uk
SEO you could cuddle. Probably..

 

[Big Bill]

You seemed to be implying that the alt text of images should be filled
with keywords which don't serve as an alternate representation of the
image's content, but are simply there to improve search engine rankings.
If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry; misunderstanding.

However, you did talk about "other ways as well including hidden text,
hidden div layers etc." in another post. That's plain and simple lying;
why in the world would Google need to see a different page from what
normal visitors see unless you want to unfairly raise your site's ranking?


Why would someone who can't see/use images want to see the word "Logo"
on the page? How does that replace the image's content?


Actually, the first one is much better. Again, why does a blind person
care that it's a logo?

What in such an instance do you think it should say then?

BB
www.kruse.co.uk
SEO you could cuddle. Probably..

 

[Big Bill]

I'm not asking for a guarantee -- just a little information because I have
no idea whether repeating keywords in chaotic rambling sentences is more
effective than just including them once. Like I said this is my first
website where it really matters what the Google rank

Most important right now for high ranking in Google is lots of inbound
links using your search terms/keyword phrases as the anchor text. BUT
you can't create zillions at once as Google will smell a rat and
penalise your site. Probably. Allegedly. So, if you're trying to rank
well in a competitive field in Google, you won't. Existing sites have
all the advantages because as you add a link or two a week they do
also so they stay ahead of you in the rankings. This is a simply
ginormous problem Google has with its algo so if your buddy wants to
make a living off the web my advice is a) don't, just use it to help
and b) keep away from Google as it's going to go through all sorts of
weird as it tries to come up with an algorithm that doesn't produce
outdated serps.

BB

is (someone else's
income is affected by it). My instinct tells me that the search engines
don't place much weight on repeated keywords but I don't really know.

BTW, thanks to everyone for their replies. I didn't know this newsgroup
existed but it is very helpful.

www.kruse.co.uk
SEO you could cuddle. Probably..