On-Page SEO - More Than a Primer

@RomesFall
"I regularly read through various granted Patent Filings and Information Retrieval Method blogs, ...."

Care to share some blog URLs?

::emp::
 
emp said:
@RomesFall
"I regularly read through various granted Patent Filings and Information Retrieval Method blogs, ...."

Care to share some blog URLs?

::emp::
Click to expand...

Would be my pleasure :smile:

http://www.seobythesea.com/ - Goes without saying this one is a must read and is extremely well known.
http://irthoughts.wordpress.com/ - This is a good'n the author was heavily involved in SEO back in the late 90s and early 00s. I got in touch with him via e-mail and he doesn't have a very high opinion of most SEOs anymore, but the information is still gold.
http://www.seodesignsolutions.com/ - Guy is pure boss mode, must read.

Those are the main 3 I find myself going back to.

Aside from those you can find good posts sporadically on SearchEngineLand, SearchEngineWatch, Yoast, Andy Beard (some of his old stuff is good) and of course there's hundreds of other sites you can find with good content on the subjects.

If you want to look purely at Patents though you'll be best starting off on SEO By The Sea and really taking a few days to just read as much as you want, for practical application you want to go to SEO Design Solutions and for more mathematical stuff IRThoughts is a good place to start, for pointing you in the general direction it's been quite invaluable to me, which is why I'm so psyched that MoneyStalker sent me one of the best books on the subject.

If you're really interested in this stuff I have an on-going Evernote list I can PM you of URLs that I find worth re-visiting or haven't digested completely yet.

Sometimes I have to read a post several times until I feel comfortable with it.

- RF
 
That URL list would be appreciated. Cheers
I read SEO by the sea already.

::emp::
 
emp said:
What bothers me is the mention of Dublin Core.

No one is using Dublin core, and I am not even kidding. It is one (of several) humongous library metadata frameworks that ended up not being used at all or in an incomplete / faulty / very customized fashion by libraries / online repositories.

Look at schema to see where things are heading ... this has actually the big ones behind it.

Q: Why are Google, Bing, Yandex and Yahoo! collaborating? Aren't you competitors?

Currently, there are many standards and schemas for marking up different types of information on web pages. As a result, it is difficult for webmasters to decide on the most relevant and supported markup standards to use.
Creating a schema supported by all the major search engines makes it easier for webmasters to add markup, which makes it easier for search engines to create rich search features for users.

Source: https://schema.org/docs/faq.html
​
(Actually, the whole FAQ is interesting)
Even that has a very abandoned feel about it - my guess is that is the start and now everyone is expanding on it on their own.

::emp::

P.S. If you meant to point to Dublin Core as just an example, then all is good. Just don't think it holds any water nowadays.
Click to expand...

I think it's just interesting to look at from a theoretical perspective. I'm guilty of my own criticism in not being specific enough really.

Schema is definitely the most important going forward agreed.

emp said:
That URL list would be appreciated. Cheers
I read SEO by the sea already.

::emp::
Click to expand...

@emp Sent :smile:
 
Last edited:
Ah... it is late here and several nights with a teething toddler don't make me brain better. I might have well not caught your gist.

::emp::
 
I guess my English is rusty and need to be polished, other than that I can explain on-page in depth with every step needed but I see it will take a series of threads to make it real and easy to dig.

I'm sorry if I complicated stuff, I already explained some side stuff to RF. Hope he forgive me and all whom didn't like my method of explanation. And I may look like I escaped from explaining stuff, if I do that it will turn into a more complicated way that no one here would like to waste time on. I'm sorry again to even post on this thread I guess Ruyzaki and RF explained much with their way of arranging and diversified explanations.

Sometimes to say none is better than complicating stuff :smile:
 
MoneyStalker said:
I guess my English is rusty and need to be polished, other than that I can explain on-page in depth with every step needed but I see it will take a series of threads to make it real and easy to dig.

I'm sorry if I complicated stuff, I already explained some side stuff to RF. Hope he forgive me and all whom didn't like my method of explanation. And I may look like I escaped from explaining stuff, if I do that it will turn into a more complicated way that no one here would like to waste time on. I'm sorry again to even post on this thread I guess Ruyzaki and RF explained much with their way of arranging and diversified explanations.

Sometimes to say none is better than complicating stuff :smile:
Click to expand...

Don't sweat it buddy your the guy to talk to in my eyes, language barrier or not, after talking with you 1 on 1 it shows me how much reading I've still got to do if nothing else ;P
 
I can tell you honestly guys and gals, while reading your stuff here I feel like a newbie that have never ever ranked a single website in his life. Of course, I have ranked some sites before (local or global..). The thing is I never was much into the technical stuff. If only possible I do just the basics and the rest should relays on the content itself (as far as on-page goes).

KW density? I have tried to use it the past but, never gave much attention to it (it was doing writing good article real pain in the ass...). In my simple world, if article reads well that is OK and I believe that even what would be perceived by many SEOs as excessive usage of given KW (or its root) is most often OK than not.

For me it's more about getting content soo good that people will want to read it and share it (and it will create discussion on my site). I'm not very technical, my mind wasn't built for algorithm's analysis and all that stuff.

Here are the major things that I do to my pages in order to rank them. Also, before I will write it down, I can hear from where Ryuzaki is coming from. It's kind of an intel war with Google right now. They do many things to force us to focus on visitors and in the same time forget about technical stuff. That's fine with me because I don't give a damn about their propaganda anyway. We all know very well what's Google business model and where this is heading.

To me on-page these days is just a signal to Google, something like "Hey man, I'm here and this is what I'm talking about!". Nothing more than that. Few right KWs here and there will tell them what the page is about so they can stick it somewhere into their database and keep ready to show off if the page is good enough. Now, what makes that page good enough? Votes from other sites and user behavior, be it regular links or traffic from social media sites or in perfect situation both.

So I don't see a lot of potential in on-page when it comes to getting into TOP3 (or TOP2).
Here is what I do. Also before I will jump into this, I don't criticize OPs post because can't see anything there that could be criticized. Ryuzaki is very careful about meta tags and me on the other hand.. I don't really care but, I do use meta tags because haven't seen any harm caused by sticking my KWs there.

Here it goes.

1) main KW in title tag
2) main KW in keywords tag
3) main KW or 2x main KW in description tag (or LTKs, depends what works in given situation)
4) main KW in H1
5) main KW just once somewhere in body copy.
6) at least two secondary KWs (LTKs)
7) at least one placed in H2 tag
8) each LTK used no more than once in body copy.
7) at least 4 headings
8) at least 25% of heading in form of a question (up to 70%)
9) at least three images
10) at least one video
11) at least two bullet lists
12) all images optimized (each image for each KW)
13) always link to the homepage (preferably from the bottom of a page)
14) if it's Tier3 page (in SILO format) then it will have link to the mother T2 page as well.
15) at least two outbound links to authority sites
16) at least two internal links to other relevant pages
17) at least two quotes (no links here)
18) at least three citations (depending on the niche and subject of an article)
19) almost forgot... main KW (or best LTK of it) in the URL of a page (as a part of longer sentence [rather long url]).

My shortest articles are at least 1000 words long. Majority of them is at least 1500 words long.

And that's all I do. This formula is working for me just fine. I might add some social buttons here and there if that's suitable.
Because my brain don't like to play with numbers too much, I try to not over think the stuff and keep it as simple as humanly possible :smile:
Also, this setup isn't my invention. It's a byproduct of many articles and advises I got from many people (plus my own experiences).

Above is my basic on-page SEO setup (technically), and to be honest I don't see the reason it should be changed any time soon. Personally, I put my biggest effort in the content and impact it has on my visitors.
 
Andrewkar said:
KW density? I have tried to use it the past but, never gave much attention to it (it was doing writing good article real pain in the ass...). In my simple world, if article reads well that is OK and I believe that even what would be perceived by many SEOs as excessive usage of given KW (or its root) is most often OK than not.
Click to expand...

You are totally right about not paying much attention to KW Density... Look at this - The Keyword Density Of Non-Sense.
 
RomesFall said:
You are totally right about not paying much attention to KW Density... Look at this - The Keyword Density Of Non-Sense.
Click to expand...
Very good read (and soo old!).

Here is something interesting that might come in handy for some of us. Especially the ones who like use plugins to build their pages (it's from the RomesFall's link).
In Figure 1, “burning the trees” was the result of improper positioning of text. However in many cases the effect is a byproduct of sloppy Web design, poor usability or of improper use of the HTML DOM structure (another kind of tree). This underscores an important W3C recommendation: that html tables should be use for presenting tabular data, not for designing Web documents. In most cases, professional web designers can do better by replacing tables with cascading style sheets (CSS).
Click to expand...
I have a client now who was using WP plugin to create his landing pages. He had his entire WP theme created from scratch by someone but, whoever that person was he or she didn't understood basics of a web design (website had around 20 activated plugins!)

When we started SEO his main landing page (which is homepage) was ranking ok. Not perfect but not as bad also. I did changes to the internal link structure, optimized images etc. then sent few backlinks and we noticed some positive change.
But the real change came when I have created a new custom landing page for him (without the help of that plugin). Rankings improved in a matter of 3-5 days by at least 2 (depending on KWs) up to 40 positions for some others. We have seen 3 drops also but only 3 out of 46 KWs we are targeting (drops for KWs that are not important to us). And all of this thanks to getting rid of that landingpage built by WP plugin (page based on tables) and instead using a new one that was properly created (HTML and CSS no tables at all). BTW the plugin is called Premise from copyblogger.com.
 
MoneyStalker said:
@Andrewkar I guess you did what it's needed, Keyword density works in link building but on page is BS.
Click to expand...
Sure, it works great. As far as link building, do you mean anchors? Here I see a lot of dissonance in different approaches. Especially when it comes to global and local SEO and google.com and the rest of the world.
 
Ryuzaki said:
Google is getting a grip on topical analysis now. So you can use LSA terms (latent semantic analysis), meaning that you need to discover which n-grams (another term you need to look up and understand) usually appear together on a page. And use THOSE instead of your main keyword in other spots. Now you're optimized for a keyword while not over-doing, and you're getting optimized for a topic as well.
Click to expand...

If anyone is super dedicated to learning more about n-grams. You can check out Stanford's CourseRA on natural language processing - https://class.coursera.org/nlp/lecture

Week two is all about language modeling and n-grams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back