Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> __/ [Dan V.] on Saturday 05 November 2005 15:00 \__
>
> > I am attempting to rate search engine optimization tasks (internet
> > marketing) in general in order of most effective.
> > And then what % of time and money should be spent on each item. Please
> > feel free to add or delete and please rate them if you have a few minutes.
> > If that is too generic for you, how about choosing an industry like (web
> > design).
> >
> > My first draft:
> >
> > What works best list for SEO (in order of priority):
> > ------------------------------
> > -link building
> > -text in incoming links
> > -building content
> > -sponsored search results
> > -Internal descriptive text linking
> > -pay per click advertising (contextual based advertising) like Google
> > Adwords
> > -Paid inclusion
> > -SEO page optimization (descriptive headers, sub headers, page Titles)
> > -having a blog
> > -Text Navigation (with each page having it's own context link e.g.: Home >
> > Services > Web Design FAQ
> > -Site map page
> > -contributing to forums
> > -writing articles
> > -banner ads on other sites
> > -submitting to directories
> > -domain name itself
> > -words per page
> > -keyword density
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Where should the most time be spent on?
> > -----------------------------------------
> > -Link building -30%
> > -building content - 20%
> > -Pay per click 10%
> > etc...?
> >
> >
> > Where should the most money be spent on?
> > -------------------------------------------
> > ...
> >
> > Thanks I look forward to seeing the results!
> > Dan V.
>
> They are all factors to consider, no doubt. However, to rank them or embed
> them in a priority list, you will have to quantify them.
>
> Example:
>
> "link building" > having a blog (where '>' means "greater impact than")
>
> What link? How many links? Is anchor text (text in incoming links) not a
> subset of that? It's a trade-off where the investment (time) per reward
> ratio is the only means by which you can ever quantify.
>
> The model you look at should be more complex. It should be drawn as a
> graph perhaps. Here is one possibly way of categorising those points:
>
> -Links
> * incoming
> o text in incming links
> o link impact (e.g. PageRank & number of links in page)
> * outgoing
> o internal descriptive text linking
>
> -Building content
> * SEO page optimization (also helps users)
> o text navigation
> o site map page
> * having a blog (or under "Links")
> * contributing to forums
> * writing articles
>
> -Promotion/marketing
> * sponsored search results
> * paid inclusion
> o submitting to directories
> o banner ads on other sites
> * pay per click advertising
>
> -SEO-specifics
> *domain name itself
> *words per page
> *keyword density
>
> I didn't spend much effort on this, but I think you ought to make this hi-
> erarchical and hence better-structured. There is also repeatability of
> points, which rather than contribute, might confuse the reader and add
> clutter. People are good at remembering lists of at most 7 items. Use lev-
> elling to make the points more 'digestable'.
>
> Hope it helps,
>
> Roy
Good work, Roy. That makes his proposal useful.
My only contribution to this thread is that content rules.
Interlinked site content with intelligent use of keywords and a site
map -- without link exchange, counting only IBLs that develop
naturally as people bookmark or blog about your site -- is worth 80%
of anyone's effort, in my opinion.
Next after that: page title -- which is not only for the benefit of
serps but also for the benefit of clicks, because if a consumer
searching for widgets to buy sees two pages with similar content in
their google-snippets but one has the title
"WIDGETS -- Retail and Wholesale"
and the other has the title
"Hotels - Cheap Mortgage Rates - Widgets - Airplane Tickets"
you can bet the first one will be clicked.
Next after that: URL as a form of title -- for clicks as well as for
serps, because a reader looking for a good article on widgets sees
two pages with similar content in their google-snippets and similar
titles (e.g. "Widgets In American History") he would rather go to an
academic site with a URL like
authority.edu/history/widgets-in-american-history.html
than a poorly named URL like
joesplace.net/myopinions/rant.html
Next after that: domain name -- again, for clicks as much as for
serps, because if there are two pages with similar google-snippet
content and similar titles and similarly intriguing URLs, the one
hosted at the most subject-appropriate domain name will be clicked
more than the one with an irrelevant domain name. In other words,
the consumer looking for widgets to purchase would rather go to a
domain name like
widgets.com
than one like
discount-schlock-stuff.com.
But overall, CONTENT RULES.
Cordially,
cat yronwode
Lucky Mojo Curio Co.
http://www.luckymojo.com/catalog
|
|
