Most useful things to do without developer resources on SEO
-
you dont believe in keyword density?
-
No, because if you're thinking about it you're clearly not writing content that is intended for a user. I've worked with dozens of editors for publishers that really never think about keywords or the density of it. They're the best ranking sites in the world
-
Agree to disagree. Every page has a keyword density to it. Just because your focus may be conversational and written to engage the user (which, i agree and also Implement), Google still views the keyword density as part of its algorithm to index what the page content is all about.
Im not suggesting to stuff each page with monotonous keywords. What I am saying is Google needs to know what each page implies. And they use keyword density as part of its algorithm to judge each page and correctly rank it in the index.
-
_"And they use keyword density as part of its algorithm to judge each page and correctly rank it in the index." -Â _This part still doesn't make any sense. Because you're basically trying to maintain a 'healthy' balance that is a percentage in your tool. But nobody knows what the actual percentage is anyway and for sure that their interpretation is not a certain % but totally variable based on many more factors.
So summed up, you're looking at a metric that doesn't tell you anything. At best keyword density is a metric that will count how many times a word is being mentioned against all of them, which is a percentage. Not a density number that is useful.
-
Again, agree to disagree. Which is the beauty of SEO.
If I create a page about snocones in phoenix but didnt mention snocones in phoenix on the text of the page, would my website rank highly on the search term, "snocones in phoenix"?
-
Yes, it's called: Links. Even if you would mention the keyword, you're not creating any argument for why keyword density is a good metric at all or any relation on why you should be checking it. Keyword density is a flawed metric, it doesn't provide you with any context or guideline why a certain range is good or bad.
-
Yes, I would agree links help as well, greatly. But link building is roughly 25-30% of the total SEO pie. My argument is about on page content, and utilizing a keyword density tool to communicate to Google how relevant the on page content is. The higher the density, but not so high to warrant a black hat technique, the more opportunity to rank on a certain keyword. If you cannot agree to this statement, I'm sure you're just focused on gathering MOZ points.
Nothing is an exact science in the SEO world. And if it is, you apparently work for Google...or Google works for you.
-
Social signals are not a ranking factor.
Moreover, it has been demonstrated by Buzzsumo that the theory of social media amplification = more backlinks is false, because, as that study says:
- only a small percentage of all the blog posts published daily are able to obtain a minimum number of social share and
- in order to obtain at least one backlink, thousands of social shares are needed.
-
This answer is good, because of the tools that are shared.
However... creating unique content doesn't mean your site will start earning links like crazy.
Umberto Eco once said that there are thousands of exceptional books that nobody ever read. The same can be told about all the "great content" published on the Internet. If you don't
If you don't put the same effort you put in creating your "quality content" into promoting it, then you're not going to obtain any backlink at all.
Therefore, more than thinking about what tool to use for creating content (please, don't confuse content with formats), I think it's better to suggest checking out the posts here on Moz under the Link Building category.
-
Keyword Density is a myth as it has been demonstrated for several years !!! Please, don't spread myth in the Moz Q&A.
Some sources:
- https://moz.com/ugc/seo-myths-that-persist-keyword-density;
- https://moz.com/blog/keyword-targeting-density-and-cannibalization-whiteboard-friday
- http://www.alessiomadeyski.com/seo-myth-keyword-density/
- https://plus.google.com/+BillSlawski/posts/F9h4pVSXapT
- https://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/how-search-really-works-the-keyword-density-myth.html
- http://resources.spyfu.com/4-seo-keyword-myths-you-shouldnt-buy-into/
- https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/seo-myth-busting-01-keyword-density.961827/ (I mean, even black hats say it's a myth!)
- ....
-
Beware with LSI, which is mostly a myth.
As Bill Slawski wrote in Inbound.org back in 2014:
_Latent Semantic indexing was invented and patented in 1990 before there was the web. _
_It was developed to help index small (less than 10,000 documents) databases of documents that didn't change much (like the Web does). _
_There have been a number of companies that started selling LSI Keyword generation tools that promised that they could help identify synonyms and words with the same or similar meaning. _
Where those fail is that the LSI process requires access to the database (of documents) in question to calculate which words are synonyms - and the only people with access to Google's database to do that kind of analysis (which isn't possible anyway since Google's index is much too big and changes much too frequently) is Google.
A much better metric is TF-IDF, albeit always being conscient that it is still a metric... not the bibie.
-
The wonderful thing about SEO, is that every SEO expert can have a difference of opinion, and both can be correct.
-
This post is deleted! -
-
Hey Gianluca, thanks for responding to my answer.
I agree that LSI is not a pure metric, and in the past when I used TF-IDF content, it didn't prove to work all the times in all markets. Despite that I think that both LSI and TF-IDF are recognized method to gather information about related keywords and provide to content writers additional insights.
It's not the same when you request an article to a content writer about "Blue ribbons" than providing them information about related keywords, keywords suggested by Google and Questions related using askthepublic. The connection of the three is what I call LSI data, not 100% what google intends with pure LSI (based on the huge amount of data they have) but pretty accurate IMO.
-
-
I think that this is just the bad part about SEO. Opinions.
I agree with you if we use the word experience, as different markets and different sites may respond differently to the same strategy.
I think that when it comes to SEO there is too many opinions without a very strong data support provided by testing. That is the real scientific approach that everyone in this category should take, as among opinions people may have different ones, but when it comes to scientifically proven results there is no discussion
-
If you still have that impression, then you have no idea what real SEO is. It's about everything besides opinions. It's using the RIGHT metrics to decide what you're going for and how to prioritize certain areas of optimizations over another. But clearly you don't want to be convinced of that.... good luck with keyword density. I hope the other people reading this topic at least don't take this for granted.
-
I appreciate your feedback Martin, and yes, as an SEO professional, I am constantly learning about SEO best practices. What I do not appreciate is your willingness to publicly shame me for a difference in opinion. That sir, is something you should correct. Last time I checked, I didn't see your name as the almighty resource for SEO.
"It's using the RIGHT metrics to decide what you're going for and how to prioritize certain areas of optimizations over another. But clearly you don't want to be convinced of that....good luck with keyword density. I hope the other people reading this topic at least don't take this for granted. "
As a comment to your statement, how do we find the "right metrics"? Do these metrics come from theories? A/B testing is real and the A comes from one opinion and the B comes from another. Yes, accurately researched data is concrete, but the samples come from differences in theory...AKA opinion.
However, your argument still has many holes. Your'e basically telling me, I can have a page up for snocones in phoenix, and not mention "snocones and/or phoenix on the page, but still be ranked #1 because of links? That's entirely incorrect.
This example is the point to my argument.
Keyword density isnt the one-stop-shop for great SEO ranking factors, but is does have a hand in on-page optimization. Or.....is that a myth as well?
-
@Kris: Have you even read this post and watched the video that Gianluca posted on this thread earlier:Â https://www.hobo-web.co.uk/keyword-density-seo-myth/ ? I do agree that mentioning keywords needs to happen obviously. But what I'm completely against is measuring that against a metric like keyword density. TF-IDF is already a better way (which was also already written about in this thread).
For many reasons keyword density is a flawed metric, like I mentioned before. But let me add some more explanation to it:
- The percentage of 1 keyword mentioned v.s. all words on the page. But what does that percentage mean, you have no clue right? Is 1% good, is 2% bad?
- Keyword density takes very many things not into account: the number of words on a page, if I have a 100 word description and 10 mentions of the keyword it could potentially be fine and not keyword spammy. But if I have 1000 words and 25 mentions it could potentially be that it's absolute spam.
- Competition? What are all my other competitors doing, what is their density for a certain keyword. All of that is not being taken into account when looking at these numbers. Maybe a 5% density is high in your industry, maybe it's 0.5% you wouldn't know.
These are just some examples of why the metric in itself is not more then just a percentage and for that I would never recommend using it.
-
After a week of reading your posts, I would expect a better response.
My initial point was to focus on on-page content, by utilizing the diagnosis and keyword density tools on SEO Quake as one of my preferred tools without the use of developer tools.
As Matt Cutts stated in the video, there is a law of diminishing returns when dealing with keyword content. And absolutely there is. So, if there is a law of diminishing returns, there must also be a law of increasing returns. Correct?
I respect your opinion and appreciate your feedback. But not the type of feedback that puts down another person for their opinion. You make good points, but a weak argument on why the metric is flawed overall.
A better discussion would be how does too much keyword density effect Conversion Rate Optimization? Or how a keyword density tool differs from a TF-IDF calculation.
All in all, its been fun. Agree to disagree about pieces of you perspective. And I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
-
Hi Eric_S, this is a great question!
Have you looked into installing Google Tag Manager on your site?
Depending on how your website is managed, installing GTM on your site may or may not require minimal development resources. Once it's up and running, though, you can use GTM to implement all sorts of SEO changes. On your site. Yourself.
-
0470
-
22116
-
0467
-
0482
-
13562
-
031.4k
-
06265
-
07127