unoptimised page ranks better?!?!?

[traian]

I tested 2 home pages on my web site:
The first one, is just the the "first page", not optimised at all. It contains some keywords, alt telxt, link text, etc..
The second one is(i guess so) highly optimised, all page elements are better than the first 10 results on the specifc keyprhase.
Guess what?!!
The unoptimised page ranks quiet well (25)but the optimised one ranks 226 for the same keypharse.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong? I used only ethical optimisation regrading only the text.
the keyphrase is sometingh like ".de domains".

Thanks

[bobmutch]

traian: There are alot of reasons why this could happen. On page optimiation doesn't have same much Ranking weigh on Google as it does on Yahoo. With Google it is pretty well your head title and the anchor text in your inbound links.

Here are a few of the many reasons that your one page is ranking higher than the other.

1. The Ranking page site my have been on the internet longer.
2. The Ranking page site my have more or better links.
3. The Ranking page may have more PR.

[traian]

It could be overoptimised, or considered so by ggl?
I done everything according to the lasts keyword percentages.
Maybe there are other techniques I don not know about? I'll write them down shortly.

[bobmutch]

traian: Read my orginial post. Doing alot of on-page optimization on a page is not what you need to Rank high on Google. While you should have a page for every 2 to 4 keywords you are targetting with the key phrase in the title, url, h1/h2, x% content, the big thing is going to be inbound links. The fact that one page that your fully on-page optimized doesn't rank higher than one that isn't fully optimized is of no count.

If you want to Rank then get links. Directories are a good place to start. You should also setup a reciprocal linking management system and find other sites that a link to their site would enhance your visitors experience and where a link from their site to yours would be for value to their visitors experience. See if they want to trade links.

Here is a good list of directories:
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2783

Here is a good thread on linking:
http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2616


You may want to look at Arelis and RM for linking management software.
Arelis: www.arelis.com (http://www.arelis.com/)
RM: www.reciprocalmanager.com (http://www.reciprocalmanager.com)

[Anthony Parsons]

Traian,

Dependant upon how you have performed your tests, yes, I have found recently that Google seems to be providing less rank to pages that show common on page SEO techniques. I have been playing with an example page for a couple of months now and found the same thing. Whilst what Bob has mentioned is correct in regard to the backlinks, it should not really matter for phrases that knowbody else is competing, as the internal link structure of your site should give enough benefit to provide an inner page with non-competitive terms enough weight to rank sufficiently.

If you use any sort of standard page formating, Google does seem to recognise it and degrade its weight quite quickly. What am I saying? I believe Google is punishing webpages that blatantly look optimized to their algorithm. My tests have even shown that keyword density is of little use, as even using one <h1> or using <strong> around some of the exact phrases, degrades the page lower in rankings, than leaving the formatting out of the page.

I actually eluded to this slightly in another replied post at SEW the other day, where I believe Google are giving more benefit to pages that look naturally designed, rather than optimized. Designers don't generally know about all the SEO techniques, thus their pages are built for users, not built for users and search engines, thus are finding their way above optimized content. Interesting!

[Anthony Parsons]

If this is the case, then it's only a matter of time before they work out how to get around the linking issue, then everyone will be "unoptimizing" their pages to rank better. Funny concept ha?

[Marcia]

traian, compare the number of occurrences of the exact phrase between the two documents, as opposed to use of the words in the phrase individually. Then read both aloud to see which "sounds" more natural. Also, were any synonyms used on either of the two pages?

>>"unoptimizing" their pages to rank better.

Anthony, I think some people started doing that a while back.

[traian]

traian, compare the number of occurrences of the exact phrase between the two documents, as opposed to use of the words in the phrase individually. Then read both aloud to see which "sounds" more natural. Also, were any synonyms used on either of the two pages?

>>"unoptimizing" their pages to rank better.

Anthony, I think some people started doing that a while back.

As Anthony Parsons said, the keyword density doesn't have to much weight in the rankings for Google(after my experiment). The internal linking structure I tried to implement was, in both cases, extensive interlinking(each page link to other pages). The only diference between the two pages is the keyword density in all meta tags, link text, alt text.
Here are the optimised elements: Document Title, META Keywords, META Description, Body Text, First Sentence of the Body Text, H1 Headline Texts, Same Site Link Texts, Outbound Link Texts (0 ), Same Site Link URLs, IMG ALT Attributes, HTML Comment Tags

Ok. The overall keyword density for pages:
1)unoptimised ------ 1,5% !!!!! very low
2)optimised ------- 2,2% very good

Marcia: The page was optimised for the exact phrase, not the two words individually.

Bobmuch: The problem with backlinks is that: there are many other pages with no backlinks that rank better than tested optimised page.

[Marcia]

The page was optimised for the exact phrase, not the two words individually
That's exactly what I'm getting at. It's not the density, look at the number of occurrences of the exact phrase.

Also, if you went overboard on internal linking using the exact phrase in the anchor text you may want to take a second look there.

[Anthony Parsons]

I know what your saying Marcia in that aspect of the "typical" optimization, though the page I am testing is pure copywriting with the use of synonyms, derivatives, plurals, etc etc etc. It is quite interesting when you just play with these things over a period of time.

[Marcia]

>>It could be overoptimised, or considered so by ggl?

Don't know traian, there are too many factors involved to know what's wrong or what may be "missing" for ranking criteria.

>>everything according to the lasts keyword percentages.

Sometimes it isn't so much percentages or keyword density in the classic sense, but how many times a specific exact phrase is used relative to the amount of text on the page.

>>Maybe there are other techniques I don not know about? I'll write them down shortly.

The more I see the more amazed I am how search engines can pick out things that are relevant on a page just by picking up what seems like a random sprinkling of individual words throughout the page.

When we do a page and are thinking about a certain phrase it's very easy to repeat it a lot - maybe not really overboard, but what seems "unnatural" in the flow of the page. That's why doing page text, putting it away and reading it out loud a day or two later makes it easy to pick up when phrases are used unnaturally, like repeated more times than if someone were doing the page without even thinking about optimization at all.

It could be that the individual words aren't used often enough compared to other words that are used very frequently, and the page may seem relevant for something entirely different. It can be that the density is too low proportionately for the individual words.

I can only guess, but it can't hurt to make minor adjustments, and run a density check for individual words and phrases both and see how they show up compared to others on the page.

[creativecraig]

It could be overoptimised, or considered so by ggl

Overoptimised, heard people use this a few times before. You either optimise and rank well or you optimise and get your ass kicked off the first 100 pages i.e a penalty but overoptimise is a word for people don't like the words penalty or maybe even spam.

[Anthony Parsons]

Basically Traian, what Marcia is saying, is that it's no longer a simple process of just adding some words into the page and obtain rankings in Google. Yahoo and MSN, yes, Google, No. Your page copy really needs to read a fluent story and not just some sentences with the odd word or phrase thrown in.

SEO Copywriting is a skill that very few possess to an advanced degree. A lot of people think they possess it, though they don't. Employ a top notch copywriter who also performs SEO Copywriting to edit your work if in doubt. They should either have a degree in marketing, or even better, English literature. The second is recommended.

I write a page, then have my copywriter edit / obliterate my work and rewrite it so that it performs correctly within the search engines.

Document Title, META Keywords, META Description, Body Text, First Sentence of the Body Text, H1 Headline Texts, Same Site Link Texts, Outbound Link Texts (0 ), Same Site Link URLs, IMG ALT Attributes, HTML Comment TagsThis sort of thing works in Yahoo and MSN, but definately not Google.

[traian]

Overoptimised, heard people use this a few times before. You either optimise and rank well or you optimise and get your ass kicked off the first 100 pages i.e a penalty but overoptimise is a word for people don't like the words penalty or maybe even spam.

I don't like spam, I never used keyword stuffing or anythinglike that, craig. And I think if ggl want to penalize a site it wouldn't rank that site on the position, let's say 115. It would be far bellow, very close to the end of that search term result.

Anthony: I can't believe that ggl algorithm can understand the sense of a phrase. It would be a human if so. Think only what mistakes the alg would make ranking the foreign languages like chinese, which have dozens of senses for some words. Although I saw that it rank well a page that have the following text:"The most wanted -keyword here- is no longer available" than a page that contain: "Keyword here, -first word-, Keyword here, forth word,...seventh word". It can understand that this is a enumeration.

[creativecraig]

I don't like spam, I never used keyword stuffing or anythinglike that, craig. And I think if ggl want to penalize a site it wouldn't rank that site on the position, let's say 115. It would be far bellow, very close to the end of that search term result.

traian, I would call it a penalty... its not dirty or nasty thing to say out loud IMO.. tweak the page again and you may find it in the top ten.

What is overoptimisation anyway, I have never heard it used by search engine reps before (I may have missed it though). If a site is effected in the results because of excessive seo then it may be under a penalty and not rank too great.

[traian]

Overoptimised, I mean to much optimised :). Maybe a little bit much over google average keyword density, or someother seo elements.
I'll try different methods, but the page is not to often visited by googlebot so I must wait at least one week to see the result.

[birdie]

From earlier in the thread:
there are many other pages with no backlinks that rank better than tested optimised page.

Thats impossible. Sites do not get listed, let alone ranked unless they have backlinks. I hope you weren't using google to check the backlinks to compare the pages.

[traian]

Used tools to check backwark links:
IBP, WebPosition Platinum, Alexa Toolbar, Google Toolbar. Do you know better ones? Please let me know... :) .
But no relevancy since I tested 2 of my pages. 1 tested a week, and then replaced for another week with the optimized page

[seobook]

>Do you know better ones? Please let me know... :)

the one Jim Boykin just came out with is pretty good
http://www.555webtemplates.com/backlinks-tool.asp

[Anthony Parsons]

The new SEO Ince toolbar is also pretty good for this type of thing.

http://www.seoinc.com/toolbar/

[Dave Hawley]

IMO traian, to keep it short, simple and to the point. The page you say is not optimized is optimized and is seen as more relevant to Google. The page you say is over-optimized is not optimized as much and seen as less relevant to Google.

All you have to do is work out why :)

I'm of the strong believe (in lack of any proof to the contary) that Google's algo will simply ignore spammy techniques in regards to ranking and simply not give credit (see as more relevant). Or, look at it this way. Google's aim is to provide the most relevant results, in descending order, based on the search term used (no secret there). Now, if the most relevant page also happens to have some hidden text etc, I do not believe Google would bannish this page to page x (that would benefit nobody). It would make much more sense to totally ignore the hidden text etc and rank that page based soley on it's non spammy techniques. A user could not care less if the page, Google suggests on page 1, employs spammy techniques, they only care (as does Google) if the page is ranked according to its non spammy techniques.

[Marcia]

There are things that can trip filters and cause a site to drop severely in rankings.

[Dave Hawley]

Marcia, I think we have been here before :) A filter will not move a page to any position. A filter (by definition) removes things (as best it can), i.e filters out. Just like Google's publicly know Adult content filter. It doesn't send adult pages (meeting the criterion) to a lower postion, it attempts to not show them at all by filtering them.

[ThouShaltSeo]

Hmmmm...
my front page is 50+ for "popular keyword" without &filter=0 and #1 with it.


Marcia, I think we have been here before :) A filter will not move a page to any position. A filter (by definition) removes things (as best it can), i.e filters out. Just like Google's publicly know Adult content filter. It doesn't send adult pages (meeting the criterion) to a lower postion, it attempts to not show them at all by filtering them.

[Dave Hawley]

I suggest you look up the meaning of Filter.

What you refer to is this;In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 819 already displayed.If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results includedWhen/if you use the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" you will see that the pages now being shown (i.e not omitted) are from the same sites as the ones that were shown.

You can say/repeat as many times as you like what some others say, but it will never change the meaning of the word sorry.

[ThouShaltSeo]

I guess you're responding to me....if you are:

There's no need to use the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" at all (because it doesn't come out when I search for that term), and that's not how I'm testing it. I search for

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=keyword see what # I am
and then manually add &filter=0 at the end of the URL in the address bar.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=keyword&filter=0

DRASTIC result difference.

I suggest you look up the meaning of Filter.

What you refer to is this;When/if you use the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" you will see that the pages now being shown (i.e not omitted) are from the same sites as the ones that were shown.

You can say/repeat as many times as you like what some others say, but it will never change the meaning of the word sorry.

[Dave Hawley]

then manually add &filter=0It makes no difference if you add it mannually or use the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link.

It's no use shooting the messenger of the true meaning of "Filter". I didn't invent the word or its meaning. E.g

Filter
Computer Science. A program or routine that blocks access to data that meet a particular criterion: a Web filter that screens out vulgar sites.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=filter&r=67

You will find it has the same meaning on/in any dictionary. About the only places you will see it used incorrectly is forums like this one.

[ThouShaltSeo]

I didn't shoot or plan to shoot anyone (for the next two weeks anyway :))

Was just reporting what I saw. What the word means in a dictionary means zilch as far as SEO is concerend; it all depends what Google decides to hide or show via "filter", "blah-blah" or whatever name they give them.


It makes no difference if you add it mannually or use the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link.

It's no use shooting the messenger of the true meaning of "Filter". I didn't invent the word or its meaning. E.g

Filter
Computer Science. A program or routine that blocks access to data that meet a particular criterion: a Web filter that screens out vulgar sites.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=filter&r=67

You will find it has the same meaning on/in any dictionary. About the only places you will see it used incorrectly is forums like this one.

[Dave Hawley]

..decides to hide or show via "filter", With hide or show being the right words :)

[Marcia]

It would make much more sense to totally ignore the hidden text etc and rank that page based soley on it's non spammy techniques.
It may make more sense to some people, but that is not how Google or other search engines necessarily see it. They see it as spam (http://newdbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/showDoc.Fulltext?lang=en&doc=2004-25&format=pdf&compression=&name=2004-25.pdf) and if they ignored it there wouldn't be a place to submit spam reports; they wouldn't bother wasting their time.

[Dave Hawley]

Of course they would. How else can they build it into their algo. I would say that 90% of what they get told, their algo is already aware of. Remember, they have URL submission page and we all know this is a total waste..yet there it is.........still

I'm sure we have all seen pages high in the SERP's and on going to them they employ some of the oldest spam tricks in the book, yet they are still there and ranking well. I would bet that they would rank the same if they took out the hidden text, or whatever.

If Google 'took out' all of which they consider spam and which artificially boost rankings, they would not be left with a very large database of pages to choose from.

[traian]

I'm sure we have all seen pages high in the SERP's and on going to them they employ some of the oldest spam tricks in the book, yet they are still there and ranking well. I would bet that they would rank the same if they took out the hidden text, or whatever.


Here you got the point. Indeed there are many pages that rank top10 and they are using spam techniques. But if you create a new page, on an new website using spam then it's for sure that the page wouldn't rank high. Maybe after increasing the page rank to 7 or 8 you could use some spam and still rank well

[Dave Hawley]

But if you create a new page, on an new website using spam then it's for sure that the page wouldn't rank high.Yes but that is likely due to the site/page having little to no links pointing at it......yet. There is also this "Sandbox" theory that may come into it.

[Anthony Parsons]

I would say that 90% of what they get told, their algo is already aware of.

Actually, I would say it's more like 99.5%, if not even higher. Where people get confused is with the response time. It just takes time for the algorithm to confirm it and action that page/site.

[Dave Hawley]

Perhaps one of the "Big Boys" can give us the exact % ;)

[traian]

I think googlebot will visit the new optimised page I've added yesterday. I substituted some of the seo elements to see what happens. Wish me luck:)

[DaveN]

If Google 'took out' all of which they consider spam and which artificially boost rankings, they would not be left with a very large database of pages to choose from.

Yep thats why they use filters

added

filter : A program that processes an input data stream into an output data stream in some well-defined way

Googles Document Servers -> "filter" -> GWS

DaveN

[Dave Hawley]

filter : A program that processes an input data stream into an output data stream in some well-defined wayQuoted in part from: http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/filter

The missing part of the quote is: and does no I/O to anywhere else except possibly on error conditions; With I/O being Input/Output

So as I keep saying.....A filter will remove or hide/show based on a criterion.

[DaveN]

hidden links marked has hidden in GWS

DaveN

[Marcia]

I'm having to copy and paste these posts about filters to that other thread about defining filters and penalties, for continuity so the posts won't get lost. That's exactly what it's about, to define and clarify these terms and clear up this particular debate. :)

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?p=27473#post27473

I put my tuppence in over there right after ogletrees post, with the quotes taken from this thread. whew!

[traian]

Unfortunately, the googlebot came 3 hours before I have uploaded the new page, so I have no new results. It will be back in a week or so. So, until then I have nothing to do but just wait.

PS: A very good definition o a filter: Think about filters like you know the meaning of the coffee filter. It only let pass the good part of the coffee, the garbage don't pass. :)

[traian]

I'm quiet happy with the new page. I reduced some keyword densities, i deleted the comment tags, and ooops.... 86 position up. That's good, isn't it? Now the site ranks 186 for one keyword. It ranked 256 before. There is a lot to work but i'll do it.