Have I over-optimized (on-site optimization using SEOMoz tool)?

[Philoups]

Hey all,

Quite new to SEO although I tried to educate myself as much as I could. I just spent (really) a lot of time doing the onsite optimization of a few key pages of a website in 3 languages (in which I'm more or less conversational - with the help of Google Translate).

I know content should not be misleading and feel natural. I think the result is natural but I'm not sure... I optimized as much as I could so as to reach an "A" grade as per SEOMoz tool for each page, for 1-4 keywords per page.  I feel sometimes I stretched a bit, but not sure what "stretching" is given my lack of experience.

So I was wondering if some of you could tell me what they thought and if there was some obvious don'ts in my work.

Here are a few key pages I have optimized:

1. The homepage: http://goo.gl/00Fti

2. The search results page: http://goo.gl/b1fxE

3. The property page: http://goo.gl/t2GdY

4. The destinations page: http://goo.gl/0Kc0l

Note that the other versions of the page - Italian & Spanish - may be more awkward, so I welcome your opinions for these as well (dropdown on top of the page to change the language).

Thanks!!

[DanielFreedman]

Not to be unkind...

...but I think there are some major issues.

And the issues go beyond SEO.

Many of your page  titles are too long. Some make no mention that the product is hotel rooms. Other titles repeat a word or phrase in un-natural ways that could be a problem. It's not clear to me whether this is intentional, or a CMS problem.  You use the word "booking" in page titles; but the term is almost unknown in the US. Americans talk about "reservations." Have you done keyword research?

Do you have a link-building strategy that includes PR and blogging and outreach to travel bloggers?

But I think the biggest issue with the site is the very poor quality of the English translation. The copy is not at all idiomatic. This is a a bad trust signal to users. It conveys the impression that you don't care about them.

Another bad trust signal is the fact that you don't name your team, providing only initials for last names.

There are also no testimonials.

It's all very mysterious and sketchy -- even though you say it's not a shady hourly hotel deal.

I would suggest addressing the trust  and transparency issues before even beginning to think about SEO. Even if people can find the site, I doubt many will part with their money until you do.

[Travis-W]

Why in your content and metadata do you use the long tail keyword "not hourly hotels," but then in your footer you explicitly say you have hourly hotels?

[Philoups]

Keywords researched include hotels by the hour, day rooms, etc., but hotel partners do not wish their names to be associated with such terms, hence the ambiguous use of such terms. Needs to be visible to bring people in based on research, as this is close to what the site offers, but not too much.

[Philoups]

Many of the titles are long so as to include several relevant keywords. For example, each of the homepage and search results titles has both "day rooms" and "hourly hotels"; the page destinations has both in it. Would you recomment removing the hotel name/brand?

I have done extensive keyword research, really. "Booking" or "reservation" and their derivatives are not drivers of traffic. I note your point on "reservation" with interest (and surprise), however, my benchmarking with the largest websites clearly shows that book/choose/find are consistently used over "reserve".

Yeah, the strategy includes PR & outreach to press & travel bloggers (though no blogging), but I thought onsite optimization was necessary before going after the links.

There are no testimonials at the moment, I don't think we should invent quotes, should we? Noted for the team member names (shortened due to privacy concerned). Regarding the general copy writing of the site, noted as well. Can you give another couple of hints as to what's wrong with it?

Much appreciated, thanks!

[DanielFreedman]

Thanks for the reply.

On the copywriting: it's just very awkward, although grammatically correct. As it happens, I speak French. And I'm guessing the copy was written by a Francophone.  Many of the faux pas begin to make sense only when translated back into French.

No native English would refer to:

• hair "falling,"   (instead of "hair falling out")
• traveling "in frugal conditions"  (instead of "on the cheap"]
• "stellar studies" (I think you mean academic achievements)

More importantly,  it's just weird to say a fair proportion of your "client base is attached to discretion." Do they use scotch tape? I think you mean they appreciate discretion. But that still doesn't explain why you "abide by our discretion manifesto." Manifesto is just not a commonly used word in English and business people don't "abide" by them.

Nor would an English speaker write about a "hotel booking portal of a special kind." He would say "a special kind of hotel reservation site." The same comment applies to "on our  side"  (de notre cote?)  when I think you mean "from our point of view."

Here's a real howler:  "Cherry on the cake, her heavy travel website experience made us gain precious time."

I could go on. But the basic point is the copy reads like a word-for-word translation by someone who is not a native English speaker.  There is no nuance, much less cultural sensitivity.

And at times, it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

On another matter:

Of course,  you shouldn't make up testimonials.  But for now, perahps you could include hypothetical profiles of people who might need your service. Write a few paragraphs abut each and maybe include a cartoon sketch.  At the moment, you have a site without people.Not good.

[Philoups]

Spot on, native French speaker, learnt English as a second language.

Frugal traveling was referring to the NY Times blog "the frugal traveler", but I get your points, have corrected all issues mentioned, and will have the copy reviewed. Will also see if I can create "profiles" / "use case scenario" with profiles.

Thanks!