With billions of people searching every day, getting to the top of Google is now seen as the Holy Grail for anyone with a website. The problem is that getting there can be costly, confusing and time consuming. Luckily for the biosphere, the millions of words that have been written in the name of website optimisation hints have been written online as opposed to on dead trees, so there’s a glut of tricks and tips out there for anyone looking to boost their online profile.
From my searching, I’ve managed to cobble together some website optimisation hints that will provide strong foundations for any blog or website.
The Three Key Areas
1) The site’s URL: The first thing Search Engines look at is the site’s URL. If you want to be found for “website optimisation hints”, make sure your url has the keywords in. Obviously if you can register keyword.com instead of random.wordpress.com/date/time/squirrel/keyword, you’ll be better off, but let’s do the best with what we’ve got.
2) The site or article’s Browser Title: Make sure the keyword’s in the title too – because the SE crawlers look at it next, and your searchers look at it first when it pops up in the rankings. People are more likely to click on a result mentioning their query than one with your attempt at caustic humour.
3) The site’s Content: The most authoritative website optimisation hints I’ve seen all mention keyword density – even if they never agree on what the optimum density is. A rule of thumb is to sneak the keywords in about five times per 200 words. Just remember that Google doesn’t get punctuation, so in the interests of keeping your copy fresh, try and be a bit clever with your website optimisation. Hints on how to do that can be found pretty much anywhere.
The Test
Now of course there’s a myriad of other factors to consider – number of backlinks, quality of backlinks, age of domain, reputation – but I have seen proof that these three key areas can have a dramatic effect.
Let’s take a look at our two contenders – one a heavyweight giant of online information, one a contender that sabotaged its own chance at world domination. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s welcome to the ring Wikipedia and h2g2. Wiki has the edge when it comes to links, but URLs don’t come much more reputable than Auntie Beeb. An even fight, surely?
One bout – to see who ranks highest for the search term “Battle of Waterloo” on a google.co.uk search, and to see just how applicable these website optimisation hints are. Ding ding, lets rumble.
Ladies and gentlemen, a clear winner.
Position 1 – Wikipedia
Not anywhere on the first ten pages – h2g2
The Tale of the Tape
URLs
wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo vs bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5403881
A clear victory for Wiki as h2g2′s quaint A-Numbering system gives the Search Engines nothing whatsoever to work with. Also, the fact that wiki’s article is only three layers down as opposed to hootoo’s four must count against the Beeb’s offering.
Browser Titles
Battle of Waterloo – Wikipedia, the free encylopedia vs BBC – h2g2 – The Battle of Waterloo, 1815
Wiki leads with the keywords, whereas the Beeb’s need to self promote first and inform second counts against it massively. Keyword order looks to be a factor, so get the important keywords in first.
Site Content
Wikipedia has four exact instances of the key phrase in the first two paragraphs, where h2g2 can only muster two exact instances throughout. Unfortunately for the searcher, h2g2′s article is actually more engaging and interesting, if lacking wikipedia’s onslaught of data.
Rematch?
Interestingly, if you change your search to “Battle of Waterloo 1815“, h2g2 springs to 5th in the table thanks to having 1815 in the browser title (and the fact that there are fewer results). Proof positive if any more was needed, that some website optimisation hints should be followed by the BBC’s powers that be, and that the trinity of URL, title, content can work wonders for your listings.
Hi.
Great info, love your writing style.
Just one question though. Does this mean it’s better to have key phrases, rather than key words.
According to Google they like about 12 keywords, no more than 15. But does that mean only 12 single words or does a phrase consisting of say…7 words…also count as a single key word.
Are we talking key words to go in the meta section / tags?
From what I’ve read, Google only look at the first 20 key words in the meta section (if they look at all), so you’d have to bear that in mind when selecting your phrases.
As for phrases vs words – just for sheer competitiveness and the way people search, I’d go for phrases every time. It’s not often I’ll do a search for just a single word, and if I do the results tend to be populated with dictionary and reference results rather than what I’m actually looking for.
Personally I’d also keep the key phrases to around 3-4 words (really long tail searches don’t seem to get searched for much) and keep it to perhaps five phrases per page tops.
You’ve forgotten about inbound links. Links from other sites contribute massively to search rankings, because pages linked from lots of sites are seen by spiders as having good content that people want to link to.
Neither of these pages do particularly well:
H2G2: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fdna%2Fh2g2%2FA5403881+-site%3Awww.bbc.co.uk&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-33,GGGL:en returns 68 results
Wikipedia: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBattle_of_Waterloo+-site%3Awww.wikipedia.com&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-33,GGGL:en returns 211
Three times as many inbound links will mean that the Wikipedia article is going to get a significant boost up the rankings compared to h2g2.
I note that you’ve messed up the link to the Wikipedia article in your blog, thus giving h2g2 a bonus link. Hurrah!
Sorry – it’s been a while since I did this. Yahoo’s Site Explorer is better and clearer, as it pulls only those links search engines see as important:
Wiki: 661 inbound links – http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/uk/siteexplorer/search?p=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBattle_of_Waterloo&bwm=i&bwmf=u&bwms=p&fr=yfp-t-501&fr2=seo-rd-se
h2g2: 9 inbound links http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/uk/siteexplorer/search?p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fdna%2Fh2g2%2FA5403881&bwm=i&bwmf=u&bwms=p&fr=yfp-t-501&fr2=seo-rd-se
That’s a much more significant difference.
The inbound links issue was something I glossed over in this post, mainly because I wanted to focus on on-site issues.
However, what’s interesting is the fact that the huge disparity in links only has a huge effect on one of the search terms. When we add 1815 to the query, h2g2 is only two places behind wiki. Now the thing that I took from that is that having an exact match on your title tag can help you punch above your weight when you’re up against it in terms of links.
I could be wrong though, I mean, I’m a man who can’t link to wikipedia.
That is interesting, and I’d love to know why that happens. If you try Waterloo 1815, Wikipedia is still third, but h2g2 is on the third page. But as you know, 1815 isn’t in Wiki’s title.
I don’t quite know enough about SEO to understand how that works.
I think that could be demonstrating just how important that title is. The number of links the pages are getting don’t change when you adjust the query, but the title relevancy does.
I’ve certainly seen enough examples in my day job to see that having an exact query in your title helps you punch above your weight.
You are right Titles Content and Keywords will go a long way to helping with your on site seo