Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
In SEO there are a few techniques that have been flagged that need to avoided at all costs. These are all techniques that used to be perfectly acceptable but are now taboo. Number 1: Spammy guest blogging: Blowing up a page with guest comments is no longer a benefit. Number 2: Optimized Anchors: These have become counterproductive, instead use safe anchors. Number 3: Low Quality Links: Often sites will be flooded with hyperlinks that take you to low quality Q&A sites, don’t do this. Number 4: Keyword Heavy Content: Try and avoid too many of these, use longer well written sections more liberally. Number 5: Link-Back Overuse: Back links can be a great way to redirect to your site but over saturation will make people feel trapped
Content, Content, CONTENT! Create worthwhile content that other people will want to link to from their sites.
Google has the best tools for webmasters, but remember that they aren't the only search engine around. You should also look into Bing and Yahoo!'s webmaster tool offerings (here are the tools for Bing; here for Yahoo). Both of them also accept sitemap.xml files, so if you're going to make one for Google, then you may as well submit it elsewhere as well.
Google Analytics is very useful for helping you tweak this sort of thing. It makes it easy to see the effect that your changes are having.
Google and Bing both have very useful SEO blogs. Here is Google's. Here is Bing's. Read through them--they have a lot of useful information.
Meta keywords and meta descriptions may or may not be useful these days. I don't see the harm in including them if they are applicable.
If your page might be reached by more than one URL (i.e., www.mysite.com/default.aspx versus mysite.com/default.aspx versus www.mysite.com/), then be aware that that sort of thing sometimes confuses search engines, and they may penalize you for what they perceive as duplicated content. Use the link rel="canoncial" element to help avoid this problem.
Adjust your site's layout so that the main content comes as early as possible in the HTML source.
Understand and utilize your robots.txt and meta robots tags.
When you register your domain name, go ahead and claim it for as long of a period of time as you can. If your domain name registration is set to expire ten years from now rather than one year from now, search engines will take you more seriously.
As you probably know already, having other reputable sites that link to your site is a good thing (as long as those links are legitimate).
I'm sure there are many more tips as well. Good luck!
In addition to having quality content, content should be added/updated regularly. I believe that Google (an likely others) will have some bias toward the general "freshness" of content on your site.
Also, try to make sure that the content that the crawler sees is as close as possible to what the user will see (can be tricky for localized pages). If you're careless, your site may be be blacklisted for "bait-and-switch" tactics.
Don't implement important text-based
sections in Flash - Google will
probably not see them and if it does,
it'll screw it up.
Google can Index Flash. I don't know how well but it can. :)
A well organized, easy to navigate, hierarchical site.
There are many SEO practices that all work and that people should take into consideration. But fundamentally, I think it's important to remember that Google doesn't necessarily want people to be using SEO. More and more, google is striving to create a search engine that is capable of ranking websites based on how good the content is, and solely on that. It wants to be able to see what good content is in ways in which we can't trick it. Think about, at the very beginning of search engines, a site which had the same keyword on the same webpage repeated 200 times was sure to rank for that keyword, just like a site with any number of backlinks, regardless of the quality or PR of the sites they come from, was assured Google popularity. We're past that now, but is SEO is still , in a certain way, tricking a search engine into making it believe that your site has good content, because you buy backlinks, or comments, or such things.
I'm not saying that SEO is a bad practice, far from that. But Google is taking more and more measures to make its search results independant of the regular SEO practices we use today. That is way I can't stress this enough: write good content. Content, content, content. Make it unique, make it new, add it as often as you can. A lot of it. That's what matters. Google will always rank a site if it sees that there is a lot of new content, and even more so if it sees content coming onto the site in other ways, especially through commenting.
Common sense is uncommon. Things that appear obvious to me or you wouldn't be so obvious to someone else.
SEO is the process of effectively creating and promoting valuable content or tools, ensuring either is totally accessible to people and robots (search engine robots).
The SEO process includes and is far from being limited to such uncommon sense principles as:
Improving page load time (through minification, including a trailing slash in URLs, eliminating unnecessary code or db calls, etc.)
Canonicalization and redirection of broken links (organizing information and ensuring people/robots find what they're looking for)
Coherent, semantic use of language (from inclusion and emphasis of targeted keywords where they semantically make sense [and earn a rankings boost from SE's] all the way through semantic permalink architecture)
Mining search data to determine what people are going to be searching for before they do, and preparing awesome tools/content to serve their needs
SEO matters when you want your content to be found/accessed by people -- especially for topics/industries where many players compete for attention.
SEO does not matter if you do not want your content to be found/accessed, and there are times when SEO is inappropriate. Motives for not wanting your content found -- the only instances when SEO doesn't matter -- might vary, and include:
Privacy
When you want to hide content from the general public for some reason, you have no incentive to optimize a site for search engines.
Exclusivity
If you're offering something you don't want the general public to have, you need not necessarily optimize that.
Security
For example, say, you're an SEO looking to improve your domain's page load time, so you serve static content through a cookieless domain. Although the cookieless domain is used to improve the SEO of another domain, the cookieless domain need not be optimized itself for search engines.
Testing In Isolation
Let's say you want to measure how many people link to a site within a year which is completely promoted with AdWords, and through no other medium.
When One's Business Doesn't Rely On The Web For Traffic, Nor Would They Want To
Many local businesses or businesses which rely on point-of-sale or earning their traffic through some other mechanism than digital marketing may not want to even consider optimizing their site for search engines because they've already optimized it for some other system, perhaps like people walking down a street after emptying out of bars or an amusement park.
When Competing Differently In An A Saturated Market
Let's say you want to market entirely through social media, or internet cred & reputation here on SE. In such instances, you don't have to worry much about SEO.
Go real and do for user not for robots you will reach the success!!
Thanks!
Related
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
Most sites at least employ server access log checking and banning along with some kind of bot prevention measure like a CAPTCHA (those messed-up text images).
The problem with CAPTCHAs is that they poss a threat to the user experience. Luckily they now come with user friendly features like refresh and audio versions.
Anyway, like linux vs windows, it isn't worth the time of a spammer to customize and/or build a script to handle a custom CAPTCHA example that only pertains to one site. Therefore, I was wondering if there might be better ways to handle the whole CAPTCHA thing.
In A Better CAPTCHA Peter Bromberg mentions that one way would be to convert the image to HTML and display it embedded in the page. On http://shiflett.org/ Chris simply asks users to type his name into an input. Examples like this are ways to simplifying the CAPTCHA experience while decreasing the value for spammers. Does anyone know of more good examples I could use or see any problem with the embedded image idea?
Image presented as HTML table is just a technical speed bump. There's no difficulty in extraction of pixels from such document.
IMHO CAPTCHA puts focus on a wrong thing – you're not interested whether there's a human on the other side. You wouldn't like human to spam you either. So take a step back and focus on spam:
Analyze text (look for spammy keywords, use bayesian filtering)
Analyze links (blacklist spammy domains – SURBL, LinkSleeve)
Look at traffic patterns and block floods
There's no single perfectly accurate method, but you can use few of them and weight the result to get pretty close.
Have a look at source code of Sblam! (it's a completely transparent server-side comment spam filter).
Alternatives to captchas are going to be to consider the problem from other angles. The reason for this is because captchas are built around the idea that a human and computer actor can be distinguished. As Artificial intelligence progresses, this will always become an increasingly difficult problem as the gap between computer and human users shrinks.
The technique used here on slashdot is for other users of the site to act as gatekeepers, marking abuse and removing offending posts before they become noticeable to a wide audience.
Another technique is to detect spam-like posts directly, using the same technology used to filter spam from email. Obviously it isn't 100% effective for email, and wont be for other uses, either, but if you can filter out 75% of the spam with very few false positives being filtered, then other techniques will only have to deal with the remaining 25%.
Keep a log of spam-related activity, so that you can track trends about offending ip addresses, content of posts, claimed user agent, and so forth, so that you can block abusive users at a routing level.
In nearly all cases, your users would rather put up with the slight inconvenience of abuse prevention, than the huge inconvenience of a major spam problem.
Ultimately, the arms race between you and spammers is one of cost-benefit. Initially, it will cost spammers close to nothing to spam your site, but you can change that to make it very difficult. Even if they continue to spam your site, the benefit they recieve will never grow beyond a few innocent users falling for their schemes. Once the cost of spamming rises sharply above the benefit, the spammers will go away.
Another way to benefit from that is to allow advertising on your site. Make it inexpensive (but not free, of course) and easy for legitimate advertisers to post responsible marketing material for your users to see. Would be spammers may find that it is a better deal to just pay you a few dollars and get their offering seen than to pursue clandestine methods.
Obviously most spammers won't fit in this category, since that is often more about getting your users to fall victim to malware exploits. You can do your part for that by encouring users to use modern, up to date browsers or plugins so that they become less vulnerable to those same exploits.
This article describes a technique based on hashed field names (changing with each page view) with some of them being honeypot fields (i.e. the request is rejected if they're filled) that are hidden from human users via various techniques.
Basically, it relies on spam scripts not being sophisticated enough to determine which form fields are actually visible. In a way, that is a CAPTCHA, since in order to solve it reliably, not only would they have to implement HTML, CSS and JavaScript fully, they'd also have to recognize when a field is too small to see, colored the same as the background, hidden behind another field, placed outside the browser's viewport, etc.
It's the same basic problem that makes Web Standards a farce: there is no algorithm to determine whether a webpage "looks right" - only a human can decide that.
seen this?
It's a system with cute pictures instead of captcha ;)
But I still think honeypots are a better solution - they're so cheap&easy&invisible
I really think that Dinah hit the nail on the head. The fact seems to be that the beauty of the whole CAPTCHA setup is that there is no standard. Standardizing would only help the market to be more profitable.
Therefore it seems that the best way to handle the CAPTCHA problem is to come up with a fairly hard system for bots to catch that is NOT used by anyone else on the planet. It could be a question system, a very custom image creator, or even a mix of JS calls that only browsers respect.
By the time that your site is big enough for spammers to care you should have the budget to rethink your CAPTCHA setup and optimize it much more. In the mean time we should be monitoring our server logs and banning bad agents, refers, and IP's.
In my case I created a CAPTCHA image that I believe is very different from any other CAPTCHA I have seen. This should do fine for now along side my Apache logs + htaccess banning and Aksimet checking. Maybe I should spend time on a reporting feature as well.
although not a true image captcha, good turing test is asking users a random question - common options are: is ice hot or cold? 5+2= ..? etc.
I'm working on a website on which I am asked to add to the homepage's footer a list of all the products that are sold on the website along with a link to the products' detail pages.
The problem is that there are about 900 items to display.
Not only that doesn't look good but that makes the page render a lot slower.
I've been told that such a technique would improve the website's visibility in Search Engine.
I've also heard that such techniques could lead to the opposite effect: google seeing it as "spam".
My question is: Is listing products of a website on its homepage really efficient when it comes to becoming more visible on search engines?
That technique is called keyword stuffing and Google says that it's not a good idea:
"Keyword stuffing" refers to the practice of loading a webpage with keywords in an attempt to manipulate a site's ranking in Google's search results. Filling pages with keywords results in a negative user experience, and can harm your site's ranking. Focus on creating useful, information-rich content that uses keywords appropriately and in context.
Now you might want to ask: Does their crawler really realize that the list at the bottom of the page is just keyword stuffing? Well, that's a question that only Google could answer (and I'm pretty sure that they don't want to). In any case: Even if you could make a keyword stuffing block that is not recognized, they will probably improve they algorithm and -- sooner or later -- discover the truth. My recommendation: Don't do it.
If you want to optimize your search engine page ranking, do it "the right way" and read the Search Engine Optimization Guide published by Google.
Google is likely to see a huge list of keywords at the bottom of each page as spam. I'd highly recommend not doing this.
When is it ever a good idea to specify 900 items to a user? good practice dictates that large lists are usually paginated to avoid giving the user a huge blob of stuff to look through at once.
That's a good rule of thumb, if you're doing it to help the user, then it's probably good ... if you're doing it purely to help a machine (ie. google/bing), then it might be a bad idea.
You can return different html to genuine users and google by inspecting the user agent of the web request.
That way you can provide the google bot with a lot more text than you'd give a human user.
Update: People have pointed out that you shouldn't do this. I'm leaving this answer up though so that people know it's possible but bad.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been thinking a while about disallowing every crawler except Ask, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! from my site.
The reasoning behind this is that I've never seen any traffic being generated by any of the other web-crawlers out there.
My questions are:
Is there any reason not to?
Has anybody done this?
Did you notice any negative effects?
Update:
Up till now I used the blacklist approach: if I do not like the crawler, I add them to the disallow list.
I'm no fan of blacklisting however as this is a never ending story: there are always more crawlers out there.
I'm no so much worried about the real ugly misbehaving crawlers, they are detected and blocked automatically. (and they typically do no ask for robots.txt anyhow :)
However, many crawlers are not really misbehaving in any way, they just do not seem to generate any value for me / my customers.
There are for example a couple of crawlers that power website who claim they will be The Next Google; Only Better. I've never seen any traffic coming from them and I'm quite sceptical about them becoming better than any of the four search engines mentioned above.
Update 2:
I've been analysing the traffic to several sites for some time now, and it seems that for reasonable small sites, 100 unique human visitors a day (=visitors that I cannot identify as being not human). About 52% of the generated traffic is by automated processes.
60% of all automated visitors is not reading robots.txt, 40% (21% of total traffic)
does request robots.txt. (this includes Ask, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!)
So my thinking is, If I block all the well behaved crawlers that do not seem to generate any value for me, I could reduce the bandwidth use and server load by around 12% - 17%.
The internet is a publishing mechanism. If you want to whitelist your site, you're against the grain, but that's fine.
Do you want to whitelist your site?
Bear in mind that badly behaved bots which ignore robots.txt aren't affected anyway (obviously), and well behaved bots are probably there for a good reason, it's just that that's opaque to you.
Whilst other sites that crawl your sites might not be sending any content your way, its possible that they themselves are being indexed by google et al, and so adding to your page rank, blocking them from your site might affect this.
Is there any reason not to?
Do you want to be left out of something which could be including your site which you have no knowledge of and is indirectly bringing a lot of content your way.
If some strange crawlers are hammering your site and eating your bandwidth you may want to, but it is quite possible that such crawlers wouldn’t honour your robots.txt either.
Examine your log files and see what crawlers you have and what proportion of your bandwidth they are eating. There may be more direct ways to block traffic which is bombarding your site.
This is currently a bit awkward, as there is no “Allow” field. The easy way is to put all files to be disallowed into a separate directory, say “stuff”, and leave the one file in the level above this directory.
My only worry is that you may miss the next big thing.
There was a long period where AltaVista was the search engine. Possibly even more than Google is now. (there was no bing, or Ask, and Yahoo was a directory, rather than a search engine as such). Sites that blocked all but Altavista back then would have never seen traffic from Google, and therefore never known how popular it was getting, unless they heard about it from another source, which might have put them at a considerable disadvantage for a while.
Pagerank tends to be biased towards older sites. You don't want to appear newer than you are because you were blocking access via robots.txt for no reason. These guys: http://www.dotnetdotcom.org/ may be completely useless now, but maybe in 5 years time, the fact that you weren't in their index now will count against you in the next big search engine.
If you're selling widgets, we all know that having "Bob's Widgets" in the title and the H1 gives you a better ranking in Google when people search for "widgets".
But what if, as someone explained to me the other day, their product is known by different names in different parts of the world?
In the US, it's called a Widget. In Canada, it's called a Flidget. In Australia, it's called a Zidget. There's really no official name for it, just informal names.
Meta-tags are no problem, but apart from that, what's the best way to cope with that situation? Just make separate pages? You can't have 3 H1s on the page. One H1 which says "Widgets, (aka Flidgets, Zidgets)"?
Or do I just trust that Google is smart enough and some magical taxonomy database groups those three words together as the same thing?
EDIT: This question got downvoted simply because it's about SEO? How bizarre. If you even bother to read the question, you can see I'm not trying to game the system or get away with anything. I have a genuinely interesting question and a valid client need.
Please note also, that I always use semantic HTML, I am well aware of how search engine rankings work, and I'm not trying to get away with anything shady.
If my client was selling beer, I would simply use semantic HTML to put the word "beer" first and foremost. If I was selling beer to French people, I would make another page in French and do the same with "biere". But imagine for a second that beer isn't called "beer" in other English-speaking nations. Imagine it's called "reeb". How do I correctly, semantically code an English-language page when different English-language users will be searching using a different string, but searching for the same thing.
HTML meta-tags were originally created for the purpose of embedding exactly such metadata into a webpage. But because of the SEO industry and the commercialization of the web, meta-tags like 'keywords' are no longer used by major search engines.
With all of the advances in page ranking algorithms and intelligent search robots over the years, there's really not much to do in terms of active 'search engine optimization' for legitimate websites. In today's search environment, all you have to do is optimize your site for your visitors, and it will automatically be optimize for searching.
So you can passively optimize your site's ranking by doing any(or all) of the following:
Use good spelling and writing etiquette (like not writing your entire site in caps or text-message-speak)
Format your pages using proper markup. (Title your document, mark your headings with H1/H2/etc., delimit your paragraphs, and so on and so forth.)
Abide by established web standards and write well-formed code.
Weed out broken links and make sure your site works properly.
Don't use pop-ups, cover your site with banner ads, or otherwise bombard visitors with advertising
Don't link to disreputable websites
Simply put, make your site as user-friendly and as accessible as possible. If your site is useful to visitors and provides valuable content, most major search engines like Google or Yahoo! are smart enough to rank it fairly. Your ranking may be modest at first. But if you're genuinely supplying quality content then, as your site becomes better established on the web, other sites will start linking to you, increasing your search ranking.
And if other webpages linking to your site use the various names & nicknames your product is referred to by, then your site will also be associated with those names/keywords (that's how Google Bombing works). Google also tracks synonymous search terms and is even smart enough to recommend related/alternative search terms in some cases.
On the other hand, if you're creating a spam site or the 10 millionth affiliate marketing website with the same exact products and content as the other 9,999,999 sites of the same exact nature, then expect your search engine ranking to be reasonably poor.
It's generally only websites with no original content and that provide no legitimate value to visitors that require active (black hat) SEO techniques to gain a decent ranking--polluting search results in the process. Otherwise, if you're actually building a useful website, then just optimize it for your visitors and let Google/Yahoo! do their job.
The anchor text of your inbound links is a lot more important than the tags you use. So try getting links to your page with both "beer" and "reeb". As long as you'll get enough links with both terms, you'll do well in SERPs, no matter the keywords you use in it.
One option is to localize pages for the different target regions you are interested.
If you use a local domain, google will give it priority on default searches on that country. When I hit www.google.com, it redirects me to www.google.com.mx, and any search I do tends to display high results from mexico domains. I actually have to hit a couple options, when I don't want that behavior.
I also think google has an option to map parts of the site to a region, so you can keep the single domain.
Update: Regarding the beer example, you can localize per country (which is what I mention above). Actually its not that of a special need, since english british and english US have their differences.
The talk has been language agnostic, but consider how .net handle resources. Lets say the current request is being processed for en-GB, and you look for a resource (i.e. a text, image, etc). It will first try to find the resource for the specific culture: en-GB, if it isn't found it will look under the more general en (and then in the default resource file).
The previous allows you to selectively localize what you really need on the more specific resource files. If you only need to localize the resources with the key beerName, you can just configure that on the specific languages and leave the rest.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
In SEO people talk a lot about Google PageRank. It's kind of a catch 22 because until your site is actually big and you don't really need search engines as much, it's unlikely that big sites will link to you and increase your PageRank!
I've been told that it's easiest to simply get a couple high quality links to point to a site to raise it's PageRank. I've also been told that there are certain Open Directories like dmoz.org that Google pays special attention to (since they're human managed links). Can anyone speak to the validity of this or suggest another site/technique to increase a site's PageRank?
Have great content
Nothing helps your google rank more than having content or offering a service people are interested in. If your web site is better than the competition and solves a real need you will naturally generate more traffic and inbound links.
Keep your content fresh
Use friendly url's that contain keywords
Good: http://cars.com/products/cars/ford/focus/
Bad: http://cars.com/p?id=1232
Make sure the page title is relevant and well constructed
For example: Buy A House In France :. Property Purchasing in France
Use a domain name that describes your site
Good: http://cars.com/
Bad: http://somerandomunrelateddomainname.com/
Example
Type car into Google, out of the top 5 links all 4 have car in the domain: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=car
Make it accessible
Make sure people can read your content. This includes a variety of different audiences
People with disabilities: Sight, motor, cognitive disabilities etc..
Search bots
In particular make sure search bots can read every single relevant page on your site. Quite often search bots get blocked by the use of javascript to link between pages or the use of frames / flash / silverlight. One easy way to do this is have a site map page that gives access to the whole site, dividing it into categories / sub categories etc..
Down level browsers
Submit your site map automatically
Most search engines allow you to submit a list of pages on your site including when they were last updated.
Google: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/docs/en/about.html
Inbound links
Generate as much buzz about your website as possible, to increase the likely hood of people linking to you. Blog / podcast about your website if appropriate. List it in online directories (if appropriate).
References
Google Search Engine Ranking Factors, by an SEO company
Creating a Google-friendly site: Best practices
Wikipedia - Search engine optimization
Good content.
Update it often.
Read and digest everything at Creating a Google-friendly site: Best practices.
Be active on the web. Comment in blogs, correspond genuinely with people, in email, im, twitter.
I'm not too sure about the domain name. Wikipedia? What does that mean? Mozilla? What word is that? Google? Was a typo. Yahoo? Sounds like that chocolate drink Yoohoo.
Trying to keyword the domain name shoehorns you anyway. And it can be construed as a SEO technique in the future (if it isn't already!)
Answer all email. Answer blog comments. Be nice and helpful.
Go watch garyvee's Better Than Zero. That'll motivate you.
If it's appropriate, having a blog is a good way of keeping content fresh, especially if you post often. A CMS would be handy too, as it reduces the friction of updating. The best way would be user-generated content, as other people make your site bigger and updated, and they may well link to their content from their other sites.
Google doesn't want you to have to engineer your site specifically to get a good PageRank. Having popular content and a well designed website should naturally get you the results you want.
A easy trick is to use
Google webmaster tool https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools
And you can generate a sitemap using http://www.xml-sitemaps.com/
Then, don't miss to use www.google.com/analytics/
And be careful, most SEO guides are not correct, playing fair is not always the good approach. For example,everyone says that spamming .edu sites is bad and ineffective but it is effective.