| Articles
Index |
 |
| Google
have only one
thing clearly
in common: good
writing. Don't
let the usual
SEO sacred cows
and bugbears,
such as PageRank,
frames, and
JavaScrïpt,
distract you
from the importance
of good content.
|
|
| I
was recently
struck by the
fact that the
top-ranking
web pages on
Google are consistently
much better
written than
the vast majority
of what one
reads on the
web. Yet traditional
SEO wisdom has
little to say
about good writing.
Does Google,
the world's
wealthiest media
company, really
only display
web pages that
meet arcane
technical criteria?
Does Google,
like so many
website owners,
really get so
caught up in
the process
of the algorithm
that it misses
the whole point?
|
| Apparently
not. |
|
 |
|
| Most
Common On-the-Page
Website Content
Success Factors |
| Whatever
the technical
mechanism, Google
is doing a pretty
good job of
identifying
websites with
good content
and rewarding
them with high
rankings. |
|
| Whatever
the technical
mechanism, Google
is doing a pretty
good job of
identifying
websites with
good content
and rewarding
them with high
rankings. |
|
| I
looked at Google's
top five pages
for the five
most searched-on
keywords, as
identified by
WordTracker
on June 27,
2005. Typically,
the top five
pages receive
an overwhelming
majority of
the traffïc
delivered by
Google.The web
pages that contained
written content
(a small but
significant
portion were
image galleries)
all shared the
following features:
|
|
| Updating |
| frequent
updating of
content, at
least once every
few weeks, and
more often,
once a week
or more. |
|
| Spelling
and grammar |
| few
or no errors.
No page had
more than three
misspelled words
or four grammatical
errors. Note:
spelling and
grammar errors
were identified
by using Microsoft
Word's chëck
feature, and
then ruling
out words marked
as misspellings
that are either
proper names
or new words
that are simply
not in the dictionary.
Does Google
use SpellCheck?
I can already
hear the scoffing
on the other
side of this
computer screen.
Before you dismiss
the idea completely,
keep in mind
that no one
really does
know what the
100 factors
in Google's
algorithm are.
But whether
the mechanism
is SpellCheck
or a better
shot at link
popularity thanks
to great credibility,
or something
else entirely,
the results
remain the same.
|
|
| Paragraphs |
| primarily
brief (1-4 sentences).
Few or no long
blocks of text. |
|
| Lists |
| both
bulleted and
numbered, make
up a large part
of the text. |
|
| Sentence
length |
| mostly
brief (10 words
or fewer). Medium-length
and long sentences
are sprinkled
throughout the
text rather
than clumped
together. |
|
| Contextual
relevance |
| text
contains numerous
terms related
to the keyword,
as well as stem
variations of
the keyword.
The page may
contain the
keyword itself
few times or
not at all. |
|
| SEO
"Do's"
and "Don'ts"
|
| A
hard look at
the results
slaughters a
number of SEO
bugbears and
sacred cows. |
|
| PageRank |
| The
median PageRank
was 4. One page
had a PageRank
of 0. Of course,
this might simply
be yet another
demonstration
that the little
PageRank number
you get in your
browser window
is not what
Google's algo
is using. But
if you're one
of those people
who attaches
an overriding
value to that
little number,
this is food
for thought. |
|
| Frames |
| The
top two web
pages listed
for the most
searched-on
keyword employ
frames. Frames
may still be
a bad web design
idea from a
usability standpoint,
and they may
ruin your search
engine rankings
if your site's
linking system
depends on them.
But there are
worse ways you
could shoot
yourself in
the foot. |
|
| JavaScrïpt-formatted
internal links |
| Most
of the websites
use JavaScrïpt
for their internal
page links.
Again, that's
not the best
web design practice,
but there are
worse things
you could do. |
|
| Keyword
optimization |
| Except
for two pages,
keyword optimization
was conspicuous
by its absence.
In more than
half the web
pages, the keyword
did not appear
more than three
times, meaning
a very low density.
Many of the
pages did not
contain the
keyword at all.
That may just
demonstrate
the power of
anchor text
in inbound links.
It also may
demonstrate
that Google
takes a site's
entire content
into account
when categorizing
it and deciding
what page to
display. |
|
| Sub-headings |
| On
most pages,
sub-headings
were either
absent or were
images rather
than text. That's
a very bad design
practice, and
particularly
cruel to blind
users. But again,
Google is more
forgiving. |
|
| Links |
| Most
of the web pages
contained ten
or more links;
many contain
over 30, in
defiance of
the SEO bugbears
about "link
popularity bleeding."
Moreover, nearly
all the pages
contained a
significant
number of non-relevant
links. On many
pages, non-relevant
links outnumbered
relevant ones.
Of course, it's
not clear what
benefit the
website owners
hope to get
from placing
irrelevant links
on pages. It
has been a proven
way of lowering
conversion rates
and losing visitors.
But Google doesn't
seem to care
if your website
makes monëy. |
|
| Originality |
| A
significant
number of pages
contained content
copied from
other websites.
In all cases,
the content
was professionally
written content
apparently distributed
on a free-reprint
basis. Note:
the reprint
content did
not consist
of content feeds.
However, no
website consisted
solely of free-reprint
content. There
was always at
least a significant
portion of original
content, usually
the majority
of the page. |
|
| Recommendations |
| ::
Make sure a
professional
writer, or at
least someone
who can tell
good writing
from bad, is
creating your
site's content,
particularly
in the case
of a search-engine
optimization
campaign. If
you are a SEO,
make sure you
get a pro to
do the content.
A shocking number
of SEOs write
incredibly badly.
I've even had
clients whose
websites got
fewer conversions
or page views
after their
SEOs got through
with them, even
when they got
a sharp uptick
in unique visitors.
Most visitors
simply hit the
"back"
button when
confronted with
unpalatable
text, so the
increased traffïc
is just wasted
bandwidth. |
|
| ::
If you write
your own content,
make sure that
it passes through
the hands of
a skilled copyeditor
or writer before
going online.
|
|
| ::
Update your
content often.
It's important
both to add
new pages and
update existing
pages. If you
can't afford
original content,
use free-reprint
content. |
|
| ::
Distribute your
content to other
websites on
a free-reprint
basis. This
will help your
website get
links in exchange
for the right
to publish the
content. It
will also help
spread your
message and
enhance your
visibility.
Fears of a "duplicate
content penalty"
for free-reprint
content (as
opposed to duplication
of content within
a single website)
are unjustified.
|
|
| In
short, if you
have a mature
website that
is already indexed
and getting
traffïc, you
should consider
making sure
the bülk of
your investmënt
in your website
is devoted to
its content,
rather than
graphic design,
old-school search-engine
optimization,
or linking campaigns. |
|
| Articles
Index |
