GOOGLE SEO part8
|
No Comments |
Search Engine Friendly URLs (SEF)
Clean URLS (or search engine friendly urls) are just that – clean, easy to read, simple. You do not need clean urls in a site architecture for Google to spider a site successfully (confirmed by Google in 2008), although I do use clean urls as a default these days, and have done so for years. It’s often more usable.
Is there a massive difference in Google when you use clean urls?
No, in my experience it’s very much a second or third order effect, perhaps even less, if used on it’s own. EDIT: Recent observations I have made seem to indicate they might be more valuable in 2010.
The thinking is that you might get a boost in Google SERPS if your URLS are clean – because you are using keywords in the actual page name instead of a parameter or ID number. Google might reward the page some sort of relevance because of the actual file / page name.
On it’s own, this boost, in my experience is virtually non-detectable. Where this benefit is slightly detectable is when people (say in forums) link to your site with the url as the link. Then it is fair to say you do get a boost because keywords are in the actual anchor text link to your site, and I believe this is the case, but again, that depends on the quality of the page linking to your site – ie if Google trusts it and it passes Page Rank (!) and anchor text relevance. And of course, you’ll need citable content on that site of yours.
Sometimes I will remove the stop-words from a url and leave the important keywords as the page title because a lot of forums garble a url to shorten it.
I configure urls the following way;
As standard, I use clean URLS where possible on new sites these days, and try to keep the URLS as simple as possible and do not obsess about it. That’s my aim at all times when I optimise a website to work better in Google – simplicity.
Be aware though – Google does look at keywords in the URL even in a granular level. Having a keyword in your URL might be the difference between your site ranking and not – check out Does Google Count A Keyword In The URI (Filename) When Ranking A Page?
Is there a massive difference in Google when you use clean urls?
No, in my experience it’s very much a second or third order effect, perhaps even less, if used on it’s own. EDIT: Recent observations I have made seem to indicate they might be more valuable in 2010.
The thinking is that you might get a boost in Google SERPS if your URLS are clean – because you are using keywords in the actual page name instead of a parameter or ID number. Google might reward the page some sort of relevance because of the actual file / page name.
On it’s own, this boost, in my experience is virtually non-detectable. Where this benefit is slightly detectable is when people (say in forums) link to your site with the url as the link. Then it is fair to say you do get a boost because keywords are in the actual anchor text link to your site, and I believe this is the case, but again, that depends on the quality of the page linking to your site – ie if Google trusts it and it passes Page Rank (!) and anchor text relevance. And of course, you’ll need citable content on that site of yours.
Sometimes I will remove the stop-words from a url and leave the important keywords as the page title because a lot of forums garble a url to shorten it.
I configure urls the following way;
- www.hobo-web.co.uk/?p=292 — is automatically changed by the CMS using url rewrite to
- www.hobo-web.co.uk/websites-clean-search-engine-friendly-urls/ — which I then break down to something like
- www.hobo-web.co.uk/search-engine-friendly-urls/
As standard, I use clean URLS where possible on new sites these days, and try to keep the URLS as simple as possible and do not obsess about it. That’s my aim at all times when I optimise a website to work better in Google – simplicity.
Be aware though – Google does look at keywords in the URL even in a granular level. Having a keyword in your URL might be the difference between your site ranking and not – check out Does Google Count A Keyword In The URI (Filename) When Ranking A Page?
Keywords In Bold Or Italic
As I mentioned in my ALT Tags post, some webmasters claim putting your keywords in bold or putting your keywords in italics is a benefit in terms of search engine optimizing a page – as if they are working their way through a check list.
It’s impossible to test this, and I think these days, Google might be using this to identify what to punish a site for, not promote it in SERPS.
I use bold or italics these days specifically for users. Only if it’s natural or this is really what I want to emphasise!
Don’t tell Google what to sandbox you for that easily! I’m currently cleaning up the Hobo blog to reflect this, too.
I’ve been meaning, maybe forgetting, to point out in these posts I think Google treats every website differently to others in some respect. That is, more trusted sites might get treated differently than untrusted sites.
2c.
It’s impossible to test this, and I think these days, Google might be using this to identify what to punish a site for, not promote it in SERPS.
I use bold or italics these days specifically for users. Only if it’s natural or this is really what I want to emphasise!
Don’t tell Google what to sandbox you for that easily! I’m currently cleaning up the Hobo blog to reflect this, too.
I’ve been meaning, maybe forgetting, to point out in these posts I think Google treats every website differently to others in some respect. That is, more trusted sites might get treated differently than untrusted sites.
2c.
Which Is Best? Absolute Or Relative URLS
This is another one of those areas in optimisation or website
development that you shouldn’t be concerned about. My advice would be to
keep it consistent.
Which Is Better? – Absolute Or Relative URLS?
I prefer absolute urls. That’s just a preference. Google doesn’t care so neither do I, really. I have just gotten into the habit of using absolute urls.
Which Is Better? – Absolute Or Relative URLS?
I prefer absolute urls. That’s just a preference. Google doesn’t care so neither do I, really. I have just gotten into the habit of using absolute urls.
- What is an absolute URL? Example – http://www.hobo-web.co.uk/search-engine-optimisation/
- What is a relative URL? Example – /search-engine-optimisation.htm
Which Is Best For Google – Subfolders or Files?
Another one to forget about. Sometimes I use
subfolders and sometimes I use files. I have not been able to decide if
there is any real benefit (in terms of ranking boost) to using either. A
lot of CMS these days (2014) seem to use subfolders in their file path,
so I am pretty confident Google can deal with either.
I used to prefer files like .html when I was building a new site from scratch, as they were the ’end of the line’ for search engines, as I imagined it, and a subfolder (or directory) was a collection of pages.
I used to think it could take more to get a subfolder trusted than say an individual file and I guess this sways me to use files on most websites I created (back in the day). Once subfolders are trusted, it’s 6 or half a dozen, what the actual difference is in terms of ranking in Google – usually, rankings in Google are more determined by how RELEVANT or REPUTABLE a page is to a query.
In the past, subfolders could be treated differently than files (in my experience).
Subfolders can be trusted less than other subfolders or pages in your site, or ignored entirely. Subfolders *used to seem to me* to take a little longer to get indexed by Google, than for instance .html pages.
People talk about trusted domains but they don’t mention (or don’t think) some parts of the domain can be trusted less. Google treats some subfolders….. differently. Well, they used to – and remembering how Google used to handle things has some benefits – even in 2015.
Some say don’t go beyond 4 levels of folders in your file path. I haven’t experienced too many issues, but you never know.
UPDATED – I think in 2015 it’s even less of something to worry about. There’s so much more important elements to check.
I used to prefer files like .html when I was building a new site from scratch, as they were the ’end of the line’ for search engines, as I imagined it, and a subfolder (or directory) was a collection of pages.
I used to think it could take more to get a subfolder trusted than say an individual file and I guess this sways me to use files on most websites I created (back in the day). Once subfolders are trusted, it’s 6 or half a dozen, what the actual difference is in terms of ranking in Google – usually, rankings in Google are more determined by how RELEVANT or REPUTABLE a page is to a query.
In the past, subfolders could be treated differently than files (in my experience).
Subfolders can be trusted less than other subfolders or pages in your site, or ignored entirely. Subfolders *used to seem to me* to take a little longer to get indexed by Google, than for instance .html pages.
People talk about trusted domains but they don’t mention (or don’t think) some parts of the domain can be trusted less. Google treats some subfolders….. differently. Well, they used to – and remembering how Google used to handle things has some benefits – even in 2015.
Some say don’t go beyond 4 levels of folders in your file path. I haven’t experienced too many issues, but you never know.
UPDATED – I think in 2015 it’s even less of something to worry about. There’s so much more important elements to check.
Which Is Better For Google? PHP, HTML or ASP?
Google doesn’t care. As long as it renders as a browser compatible document, it appears Google can read it these days.
I prefer php these days even with flat documents as it is easier to add server side code to that document if I want to add some sort of function to the site.
I prefer php these days even with flat documents as it is easier to add server side code to that document if I want to add some sort of function to the site.
Does W3C Valid HTML / CSS Help?
Above – a Google video confirming this advice I first shared in 2008.
Does Google rank a page higher because of valid code? The short answer is no, even though I tested it on a small scale test with different results.
Google doesn’t care if your page is valid html and valid css. This is clear – check any top ten results in Google and you will probably see that most contain invalid HTML or CSS. I love creating accessible websites but they are a bit of a pain to manage when you have multiple authors or developers on a site.
If your site is so badly designed with a lot of invalid code even Google and browsers cannot read it, then you have a problem.
Where possible, if commissioning a new website, demand at least minimum accessibility compliance on a site (there are three levels of priority to meet), and aim for valid html and css. Actually this is the law in some countries although you would not know it, and be prepared to put a bit of work in to keep your rating.
Valid HTML and CSS are a pillar of best practice website optimisation, not strictly a part of professional search engine optimisation. It is one form of optimisation Google will not penalise you for.
Where can you test the accessibility of your website – Cynthia Says – http://www.contentquality.com/ – not for the faint hearted!
Addition – I usually still aim to follow W3C recommendations that actually help deliver a better user experience;
Does Google rank a page higher because of valid code? The short answer is no, even though I tested it on a small scale test with different results.
Google doesn’t care if your page is valid html and valid css. This is clear – check any top ten results in Google and you will probably see that most contain invalid HTML or CSS. I love creating accessible websites but they are a bit of a pain to manage when you have multiple authors or developers on a site.
If your site is so badly designed with a lot of invalid code even Google and browsers cannot read it, then you have a problem.
Where possible, if commissioning a new website, demand at least minimum accessibility compliance on a site (there are three levels of priority to meet), and aim for valid html and css. Actually this is the law in some countries although you would not know it, and be prepared to put a bit of work in to keep your rating.
Valid HTML and CSS are a pillar of best practice website optimisation, not strictly a part of professional search engine optimisation. It is one form of optimisation Google will not penalise you for.
Where can you test the accessibility of your website – Cynthia Says – http://www.contentquality.com/ – not for the faint hearted!
Addition – I usually still aim to follow W3C recommendations that actually help deliver a better user experience;
Hypertext links. Use text that makes sense when read out of context. W3C Top Ten Accessibility Tips
301 Old Pages
Rather than tell Google via a 404 or some other command that this
page isn’t here any more, I have no problem permanently redirecting a
page to a relatively similar page to pool any link power that page might
have.
My general rule of thumb is to make sure the information (and keywords) are contained in the new page – stay on the safe side.
Most already know the power of a 301 and how you can use it to power even totally unrelated pages to the top of Google for a time – sometimes a very long time.
Google seems to think server side redirects are OK – so I use them.
You can change the focus of a redirect but that’s a bit black hat for me and can be abused – I don’t really talk about that sort of thing on this blog. But it’s worth knowing – you need to keep these redirects in place in your htaccess file.
Redirecting multiple old pages to one new page – works for me, if the information is there on the new page that ranked the old page.
NOTE – This tactic is being heavily spammed in 2015. Be careful with redirects. I think I have seen penalties transferred via 301s. I also WOULDN’T REDIRECT 301s blindly to your home page. I’d also be careful of redirecting lots of low quality links to one url. If you need a page to redirect old urls to, consider your sitemap or contact page. Audit any pages backlinks BEFORE you redirect them to an important page.
I’m seeing CANONICALS work just the same as 301s in 2015 – though they seem to take a little longer to have an impact.
Hint – a good tactic at the moment is to CONSOLIDATE old, thin under performing articles Google ignores, into bigger, better quality articles. I usually then 301 all the pages to a single source to consolidate link equity and content equity. As long as the intention is to serve users and create something more up-to-date – Google is fine with this.
My general rule of thumb is to make sure the information (and keywords) are contained in the new page – stay on the safe side.
Most already know the power of a 301 and how you can use it to power even totally unrelated pages to the top of Google for a time – sometimes a very long time.
Google seems to think server side redirects are OK – so I use them.
You can change the focus of a redirect but that’s a bit black hat for me and can be abused – I don’t really talk about that sort of thing on this blog. But it’s worth knowing – you need to keep these redirects in place in your htaccess file.
Redirecting multiple old pages to one new page – works for me, if the information is there on the new page that ranked the old page.
NOTE – This tactic is being heavily spammed in 2015. Be careful with redirects. I think I have seen penalties transferred via 301s. I also WOULDN’T REDIRECT 301s blindly to your home page. I’d also be careful of redirecting lots of low quality links to one url. If you need a page to redirect old urls to, consider your sitemap or contact page. Audit any pages backlinks BEFORE you redirect them to an important page.
I’m seeing CANONICALS work just the same as 301s in 2015 – though they seem to take a little longer to have an impact.
Hint – a good tactic at the moment is to CONSOLIDATE old, thin under performing articles Google ignores, into bigger, better quality articles. I usually then 301 all the pages to a single source to consolidate link equity and content equity. As long as the intention is to serve users and create something more up-to-date – Google is fine with this.
Penalty For Duplicate Content On-Site?
I am always on the look for duplicate
content issues. I think I have seen -50 positions for nothing more than a
lot of duplicate content although I am looking into other possible
issues. Generally speaking, Google will identify the best pages on your
site if you have a decent on-site architecture. It’s usually pretty
decent at this but it totally depends on where you are linkbuilding to
within the site and how your site navigation is put together.
Don’t invite duplicate content issues. I don’t consider it a penalty you receive in general for duplicate content – you’re just not getting the most benefit. You’re website content isn’t being what it could be.
But this should be common sense. Google wants and rewards original content. Google doesn’t like duplicate content, and it’s a footprint of most spam sites. Google percieves a lot of duplicate or overlapping content as a BAD USER EXPERIENCE. You don’t want to look anything like a spam site.
The more you can make it look a human built every page on a page by page basis with content that doesn’t appear exactly in other areas of the site – the more Google will like it. Google does not like sloppy automation when it comes to building a website, that’s for clear. (Unique titles, meta descriptions, keyword tags, content)
I don’t mind Category duplicate content – as with WordPress – it can even help sometimes to spread PR and theme a site. But I generally wouldn’t have tags and categories, for instance.
I’m not that bothered with ‘themeing’ at this point to recommend silo’ing your content or no-indexing your categories. If I am not theming enough with proper content and mini-silo’ing to related pages from this page and to this page I should go home. Most sites in my opinion don’t need to silo their content – the scope of the content is just not that broad.
Keep in mind, for instance, Google won’t thank you for spidering a calendar section f your website with 10,000 blank pages on it – why would they. They may even algorithmically tick you off.
PS – Duplicate content found on other sites? Now that’s a totally different problem.
UPDATED: See Google Advice on Duplicate Content.
Don’t invite duplicate content issues. I don’t consider it a penalty you receive in general for duplicate content – you’re just not getting the most benefit. You’re website content isn’t being what it could be.
But this should be common sense. Google wants and rewards original content. Google doesn’t like duplicate content, and it’s a footprint of most spam sites. Google percieves a lot of duplicate or overlapping content as a BAD USER EXPERIENCE. You don’t want to look anything like a spam site.
The more you can make it look a human built every page on a page by page basis with content that doesn’t appear exactly in other areas of the site – the more Google will like it. Google does not like sloppy automation when it comes to building a website, that’s for clear. (Unique titles, meta descriptions, keyword tags, content)
I don’t mind Category duplicate content – as with WordPress – it can even help sometimes to spread PR and theme a site. But I generally wouldn’t have tags and categories, for instance.
I’m not that bothered with ‘themeing’ at this point to recommend silo’ing your content or no-indexing your categories. If I am not theming enough with proper content and mini-silo’ing to related pages from this page and to this page I should go home. Most sites in my opinion don’t need to silo their content – the scope of the content is just not that broad.
Keep in mind, for instance, Google won’t thank you for spidering a calendar section f your website with 10,000 blank pages on it – why would they. They may even algorithmically tick you off.
PS – Duplicate content found on other sites? Now that’s a totally different problem.
UPDATED: See Google Advice on Duplicate Content.
Broken Links Are A Waste Of Link Power
The simplest piece of advice I ever read about creating a website /
optimising a website was years ago and it is still useful today:
Check your pages for broken links. Seriously, broken links are a waste of link power and could hurt your site, drastically in some cases. Google is a link based search engine – if your links are broken and your site is chock full of 404s you might not be at the races.
Here’s the second best piece of advice in my opinion seeing as we are just about talking about website architecture;
make sure all your pages link to at least one other in your siteThis advice is still sound today and the most important piece of advice out there in my opinion. Yes it’s so simple it’s stupid.
Check your pages for broken links. Seriously, broken links are a waste of link power and could hurt your site, drastically in some cases. Google is a link based search engine – if your links are broken and your site is chock full of 404s you might not be at the races.
Here’s the second best piece of advice in my opinion seeing as we are just about talking about website architecture;
link to your important pages often internally, with varying anchor text in the navigation and in page text content…. especially if you do not have a lot of Pagerank to begin with!
Do I Need A Google XML Sitemap For My Website?
What is a xml sitemap and do I need one to seo my site for Google?
An XML Sitemap is a file on your server with which you can help Google easily crawl & index all the pages on your site. This is evidently useful for very large sites that publish lots of new content or updates content regularly.
Your web pages will still get into search results without an xml sitemap if Google can find them by crawling your website, if you:
I prefer to manually define my important pages by links and depth of content, but a XML sitemap is a best practice in 2015 for most sites.
(The XML Sitemap protocol) has wide adoption, including support from Google, Yahoo!, and MicrosoftNo. You do NOT, technically, need an XML Sitemap to optimise a site for Google if you have a sensible navigation system that Google can crawl and index easily. HOWEVER – in 2015 – you should have a Content Management System that produces one as a best practice – and you should submit that sitemap to Google in Google Webmaster Tools. Again – best practice. Google has said very recently XML and RSS is still a very useful discovery method for them to pick out recently updated content on your site.
An XML Sitemap is a file on your server with which you can help Google easily crawl & index all the pages on your site. This is evidently useful for very large sites that publish lots of new content or updates content regularly.
Your web pages will still get into search results without an xml sitemap if Google can find them by crawling your website, if you:
- Make sure all your pages link to at least one other in your site
- Link to your important pages often, with (varying anchor text, in the navigation and in page text content if you want best results)
Sitemaps are an easy way for webmasters to inform search engines about pages on their sites that are available for crawling. In its simplest form, a Sitemap is an XML file that lists URLs for a site along with additional metadata about each URL (when it was last updated, how often it usually changes, and how important it is, relative to other URLs in the site) so that search engines can more intelligently crawl the site.Most modern CMS auto-generate xml sitemaps, and Google does ask you submit a site map in webmaster tools, and I do these days.
I prefer to manually define my important pages by links and depth of content, but a XML sitemap is a best practice in 2015 for most sites.
Does Only The First Link Count In Google?
Does the second anchor text link on a page count?
One of the more interesting discussions in the webmaster community of late has been trying to determine which links Google counts as links on pages on your site. Some say the link Google finds higher in the code, is the link Google will ‘count’, if there are two links on a page going to the same page.
Update – I tested this recently with the post Google Counts The First Internal Link.
For example (and I am talking internal here – if you took a page and I placed two links on it, both going to the same page? (OK – hardly scientific, but you should get the idea). Will Google only ‘count’ the first link? Or will it read the anchor txt of both links, and give my page the benefit of the text in both links especially if the anchor text is different in both links? Will Google ignore the second link?
What is interesting to me is that knowing this leaves you with a question. If your navigation aray has your main pages linked to in it, perhaps your links in content are being ignored, or at least, not valued.
I think links in body text are invaluable. Does that mean placing the navigation below the copy to get a wide and varied internal anchor text to a page?
Perhaps.
Here’s some more on the topic;
I think quite possibly this could change day to day if Google pressed a button, but I optimise a site thinking that only the first link will count – based on what I monitor although I am testing this – and actually, I usually only link once from page to page on client sites, unless it’s useful for visitors.
One of the more interesting discussions in the webmaster community of late has been trying to determine which links Google counts as links on pages on your site. Some say the link Google finds higher in the code, is the link Google will ‘count’, if there are two links on a page going to the same page.
Update – I tested this recently with the post Google Counts The First Internal Link.
For example (and I am talking internal here – if you took a page and I placed two links on it, both going to the same page? (OK – hardly scientific, but you should get the idea). Will Google only ‘count’ the first link? Or will it read the anchor txt of both links, and give my page the benefit of the text in both links especially if the anchor text is different in both links? Will Google ignore the second link?
What is interesting to me is that knowing this leaves you with a question. If your navigation aray has your main pages linked to in it, perhaps your links in content are being ignored, or at least, not valued.
I think links in body text are invaluable. Does that mean placing the navigation below the copy to get a wide and varied internal anchor text to a page?
Perhaps.
Here’s some more on the topic;
- You May Be Screwing Yourself With Hyperlinked Headers
- Single Source Page Link Test Using Multiple Links With Varying Anchor Text
- Results of Google Experimentation – Only the First Anchor Text Counts
- Debunked: Only The 1st Anchor Text Counts With Google
- Google counting only the first link to a domain – rebunked
I think quite possibly this could change day to day if Google pressed a button, but I optimise a site thinking that only the first link will count – based on what I monitor although I am testing this – and actually, I usually only link once from page to page on client sites, unless it’s useful for visitors.
Canonical Tag – Canonical Link Element Best Practice
When it comes to Google SEO, the rel=canonical link element has become *VERY* IMPORTANT
over the years. This element is employed by Google, Bing and
other search engines to help them specify the page you want to rank out
of duplicate and near duplicate pages found on your site, or on other
pages on the web.
In the video above, Matt Cutts from Google shares tips on the new rel=”canonical” tag (more accurately – the canonical link element) that the 3 top search engines now support. Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft have all agreed to work together in a
I add a self referring canonical link element as standard these days – to ANY web page.
In the video above, Matt Cutts from Google shares tips on the new rel=”canonical” tag (more accurately – the canonical link element) that the 3 top search engines now support. Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft have all agreed to work together in a
“joint effort to help reduce duplicate content for larger, more complex sites, and the result is the new Canonical Tag”.Example Canonical Tag From Google Webmaster Central blog:
<link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com/product.php?item=swedish-fish" />
The process is simple. You can put this link tag in the head section of the duplicate content urls, if you think you need it.I add a self referring canonical link element as standard these days – to ANY web page.
Is rel=”canonical” a hint or a directive?More reading at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
It’s a hint that we honor strongly. We’ll take your preference into account, in conjunction with other signals, when calculating the most relevant page to display in search results.
Can I use a relative path to specify the canonical, such as <link rel=”canonical” href=”product.php?item=swedish-fish” />?
Yes, relative paths are recognized as expected with the <link> tag. Also, if you include a<base> link in your document, relative paths will resolve according to the base URL.
Is it okay if the canonical is not an exact duplicate of the content?
We allow slight differences, e.g., in the sort order of a table of products. We also recognize that we may crawl the canonical and the duplicate pages at different points in time, so we may occasionally see different versions of your content. All of that is okay with us.
What if the rel=”canonical” returns a 404?
We’ll continue to index your content and use a heuristic to find a canonical, but we recommend that you specify existent URLs as canonicals.
What if the rel=”canonical” hasn’t yet been indexed?
Like all public content on the web, we strive to discover and crawl a designated canonical URL quickly. As soon as we index it, we’ll immediately reconsider the rel=”canonical” hint.
Can rel=”canonical” be a redirect?
Yes, you can specify a URL that redirects as a canonical URL. Google will then process the redirect as usual and try to index it.
What if I have contradictory rel=”canonical” designations?
Our algorithm is lenient: We can follow canonical chains, but we strongly recommend that you update links to point to a single canonical page to ensure optimal canonicalization results.
Can this link tag be used to suggest a canonical URL on a completely different domain? **Update on 12/17/2009: The answer is yes! We now support a cross-domain rel=”canonical” link element.**
Rich Snippets
Rich Snippets in Google enhance your search listing in Google search
engine results pages. You can include reviews of your products or
services, for instance. Rich Snippets help draw attention to your
listing in serps. You’ve no doubt seen yellow star ratings in Google
natural results listings, for instance.
More Reading at https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en
Here’s a list of what Google tells you to avoid in the document;
More Reading at https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en
What Not To Do In Website Search Engine Optimisation
Google has now released a basic organic search engine optimisation starter guide for webmasters, which they use internally:Although this guide won’t tell you any secrets that’ll automatically rank your site first for queries in Google (sorry!), following the best practices outlined below will make it easier for search engines to both crawl and index your content. GoogleIt is still worth a read, even if it is VERY basic, best practice search engine optimisation for your site. No search engine will EVER tell you what actual keywords to put on your site to improve your rankings or get more converting organic traffic – and in Google – that’s the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing you want to know!
Here’s a list of what Google tells you to avoid in the document;
- choosing a title that has no relation to the content on the page
- using default or vague titles like “Untitled” or “New Page 1″
- using a single title tag across all of your site’s pages or a large group of pages
- using extremely lengthy titles that are unhelpful to users
- stuffing unneeded keywords in your title tags
- writing a description meta tag that has no relation to the content on the page
- using generic descriptions like “This is a webpage” or “Page about baseball
cards” - filling the description with only keywords
- copy and pasting the entire content of the document into the description meta tag
- using a single description meta tag across all of your site’s pages or a large group of pages
- using lengthy URLs with unnecessary parameters and session IDs
- choosing generic page names like “page1.html”
- using excessive keywords like “baseball-cards-baseball-cards-baseball-cards.htm”
- having deep nesting of subdirectories like “…/dir1/dir2/dir3/dir4/dir5/dir6/
page.html” - using directory names that have no relation to the content in them
- having pages from subdomains and the root directory (e.g. “domain.com/
page.htm” and “sub.domain.com/page.htm”) access the same content - mixing www. and non-www. versions of URLs in your internal linking structure
- using odd capitalization of URLs (many users expect lower-case URLs and remember them better)
- creating complex webs of navigation links, e.g. linking every page on your site
to every other page - going overboard with slicing and dicing your content (it takes twenty clicks to get to deep content)
- having a navigation based entirely on drop-down menus, images, or animations (many, but not all, search engines can discover such links on a site, but if a user can reach all pages on a site via normal text links, this will improve the accessibility of your site)
- letting your HTML sitemap page become out of date with broken links
- creating an HTML sitemap that simply lists pages without organizing them, for
example by subject (Edit Shaun – Safe to say especially for larger sites) - allowing your 404 pages to be indexed in search engines (make sure that your
webserver is configured to give a404 HTTP status codewhen non-existent
pages are requested) - providing only a vague message like “Not found”, “404″, or no 404 page at all
- using a design for your 404 pages that isn’t consistent with the rest of your site
- writing sloppy text with many spelling and grammatical mistakes
- embedding text in images for textual content (users may want to copy and
paste the text and search engines can’t read it) - dumping large amounts of text on varying topics onto a page without paragraph, subheading, or layout separation
- rehashing (or even copying) existing content that will bring little extra value to
users
Search engine optimization is often about making small modifications to parts of your website. When viewed individually, these changes might seem like incremental improvements, but when combined with other optimizations, they could have a noticeable impact on your site’s user experience and performance in organic search results.Don’t make these simple but dangerous mistakes…..
- Avoid duplicating content on your site found on other sites. Yes, Google likes content, but it *usually* needs to be well linked to, unique and original to get you to the top!
- Don’t hide text on your website. Google may eventually remove you from the SERPS (search engine results pages).
- Don’t buy 1000 links and think “that will get me to the top!”. Google likes natural link growth and often frowns on mass link buying.
- Don’t get every body to link to you using the same “anchor text” or link phrase. This could flag you as a ‘rank modifier’. You don’t want that.
- Don’t chase Google PR by chasing 100′s of links. Think quality of links….not quantity.
- Don’t buy many keyword rich domains, fill them with similar content and link them to your site. This is lazy and dangerous and could see you ignored or worse banned from Google. It might have worked yesterday but it sure does not work today without some grief from Google.
- Do not constantly change your site pages names or site navigation without remembering to employ redirects. This just screws you up in any search engine.
- Do not build a site with a JavaScript navigation that Google, Yahoo and Bing cannot crawl.
- Do not link to everybody who asks you for reciprocal links. Only link out to quality sites you feel can be trusted.
0 comments:
Post a Comment