Re: Check keyword density for URL with https


"Carol W" <from_you@xxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:rmgir1p4df8utcti722a108ns0gk71h5g2@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 03:48:52 GMT, "Luigi Donatello Asero"
> <jaggillarfotboll@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



[cut]
<Introduction>
Your answer was interesting and detailed but long. It might take a while for
me to reply. This is not the first time it has happened in my life though...
may I ask you where you come from?
You seem to like writing anyway!
</Introduction>
> >Perhaps you are right but did you check up what is the content of the
other
> >websites
> >(some of them of course, I understand that they are many)?
>
> Google claims there are over 100 bits to their algorithm. I imagine
> Yahoo's algorithm has more than 2 or 3 bits (keyword density, link
> popularity, etc) as well fo rranking of sites. This can have a site
> with low keyword density beating out a site, in the rankings, that has
> a higher keyword density - simply because the low keyword density sit
> emanaged to hit upon a couple other factors that helped to tip the
> algorithm to their site's favor.
>
> Increasing keyword density may help out - sometimes that may be
> enough work for a person to help their site creep up in the rankings
> or the person can work on other bits, to appease the algorithm, to get
> their site ranking better thataway.
>
> >Also, if you check up on Yahoo which I prefer my ranking is much better
>
> Well, duh, _who_ wouldn't prefer their ranking on another SE that had
> them coming up as #1 or #2?

As far as I remember I have never registered my site at any search engine.
One reason for that at the beginning was that the site is under
construction.
Notwithstanding this
I had top positions at Google about 1-2 years ago.
I cannot maintain that the top ranking
brought me many customers anyway.
In the recent times it has happened that
Google has indirectly caused me several problems
(Yahoo has not caused
me the kind of problems about images or as a results of old caches which I
have had with Google)
See for example the thread
Re: Problems with Google cache at
alt.www.webmaster

However I have never been number one with a search term like "Italien" as
far as I know.
But paying to get a top position might be very risky because, as I tried to
explain before,
I cannot maintain that I have got many customers from Google



> Many folks, when MSN rolled out their new search engine, posted how
> they liked MSN better and that was based solely on them seeing pages
> of their site landing in top spots over there (and those same pages
> not ranking as highly on Google _or_ Yahoo). So - would seem natural
> and following of the pattern if some people will prefer their ranking
> on Yahoo versus Google, _most particularly_ when they have a page in
> their site ranking better over at Yahoo. If the majority of their stie
> does better at Yahoo - then yeah, a site's stats will likely help
> reflect that as more people, that happen to use Yahoo, will more
> easily find the site through using Yahoo search than Google. It's
> kinda like if your site is aimed at people with IEv5.5 or higher, or
> just IE in general, then your site stats may show a lower number of
> Netscape or other browsers users than some other site owners (with the
> same amount of traffic) may have in their own set of stats. I mean
> some people say that their site stats share 90+% use IE whereas my
> stats share that around 75% of the traffic show up as to using IE.


As far as I remember there were some who were critical against Microsoft,
few who were critical against Google and few who at least spoke about other
search engines...I begin wondering how many people working for Google write
in these NGs...
> >You can check up
> >"om Italien"
> >and
> >"Italien"
> >
> >> If it's really so important for you to be found on that word, spent as
> >much
> >> money as you can in Google Adwords.
> >> Also consider changing the URL to
> >> http(s)://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/italien/ by applying URL-rewrite
in
> >> .htaccess and try to get links form sites with high PR.
> >
> >What about creating 200-300 pages with information about Italy which are
> >linked to each other?
>
> That could help - but then someone on this NG mentioned you have
> "under construction" pages up on the site. If I recall correctly, you
> once shared on alt.html that you put up essentially empty "under
> construction" pages that link from/to pages - and that you do this to
> view, from your stats, if there is any interest in those kind of
> contents (by people clicking on those links)
> before sharing those kind of contents. Those empty pages may help or
> not help you on the ranking goal.

Congratulations on your good memory!
But in this case I am thinking of pages with much content. However I have
not decided whether to protect these pages by password
and sell these passwords to access the pages or not.

> For example - a site selling blue widgets puts up 200 to 300 pages,
> all stating to be 'under construction', in a quest to rank better for
> 'blue widgets' and 'widgets'. Now _why_ should they rank better for
> those keywords when all they are doing is putting up essentially blank
> pages of "information" claiming to be "coming soon" but uploaded
> essentially, when you come down to brass tacks of why those pages were
> uploaded, to share links to each other?
>
> No reason really - and in some competitive terms one of the 'blue
> widgets' site competitors may theorize "this person is trying to trick
> the search engine for better ranking" and report that 'blue widget'
> site to the SE which can risk the site being penalized (drop in
> ranking until whatever it is that triggered the penalty is
> removed/corrected) or banned (removed from the SE's index entirely).
> Out of Google and Yahoo, Google is more willing to lift a penalty or
> re-instate a site into its index ... Yahoo, well their penalty on
> sites is the same as a ban and, according to webmaster world posts, a
> number of people gave up hope on Yahoo lifting the penalty/ban once it
> was in place.

You may be right on this point.
But in a way Google has failed to take my best pages and sometimes it has
given a very high ranking to other pages of my website
which were much worse in my opinion.

> So back to how you can rank better for 'om italien' and 'italien':
> 1. Cat shared how you can inset links, using optimal anchor text,
> within the existing pages _of content/information_ to help have those
> pages more interlinked.


Ok.
> 2. Others, including myself, have shared about getting more links -
> again. follow Cat's advice thoughts about the anchor text used for
> those.

Ok. Is it all right as I began doing
on the pages
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/faktaomitalien.php
and https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html

> 3. I mentioned looking at one site's back links to see if you could
> ask some of the sites, linking their way, to share a link your way. I
> mean the site is coming up as #1 for 'italien' on Yahoo and with only
> 215 inbound links - may be a couple of sites with "pull" listed in
> those back links that could benefit your site.


I am under the impression that at least one of the sites on the top competes
indirectly with my site.
Why should they be interested to sell links?
Also, search engines have not brought me many customers at all....
I had rather invest money on other advertising forms...

> 4. Understand the differences between the SE's. Yahoo has _its own_
> algorithm. MSN has _its own_ algorithm. Google has _its own_
> algorithm. Sometimes using "my page ranking" on Yahoo in comparison to
> Google for the same keywords is like comparing an apple to an orange -
> yes, they are both a fruit but still different - so some pages may
> rank okie dokie on both, some pages may rank better on Google than on
> Yahoo, some pages may rank better on Yahoo than on Google. As Linda
> Ellerbee would say, "And so it goes"

They probably use different systems.
What about concentrating on Yahoo for now?

> 4A. Understand that search engines will roll out algorithm change
> (minor or major) that can affect how your pages rank on their SE.
>
> So could those empty "under construction" pages somehow may be part
> of the reason that your other pages dropped in rankings on Google due
> to this internal linking strategy starting to being used (even though
> teh linking strategy was not primarily to help your other pages
> rankings but to try to see, through the stats, how many clicked to
> read one of the 'under construction' pages to help you determine if
> people are interested in that kind of content) ? Or maybe they reached
> an amount where the linking to those pages helped affect the other
> pages ranking in your site due to
>
> I don't know for sure as I don't really know the history of your site
> but only what you have shared about it and your handling of the
> contents/pages within it and (I think, if memory serves me correctly
> of past alt.html discussions) that your site's layout has been
> changed/modified at least once in the past couple of years and that
> you have shared that "a couple years back" you ranked ok on Google but
> do not rank as well, for those same pages, currently on two years
> Google, in the past two years time frame, has had Florida, Hilltop,
> Bourbon, Austin, Jagger, and other nicknamed changes to their
> algorithm that affected some sites' rankings - so it may boil down to
> that your site was one of the ones affected by an algo change.
>
> >> Better: aim on other, more unique, keywords. If I need something out of
> >> Italy I certainly won't search for 'Italy' but on a combination like
> >> 'Italy+camping' (or even more likely on 'camping+Toscana')
> >
> >But I have many pages to point to different combinations
> >and I have a good ranking for "fakta om Italien"
> >"fakta Italien" and "Italien fakta" on
> >Yahoo. I used to have it on Google as well and a while ago that page was
on
> >the first page of the results
> >on Google for "fakta Italien" and "Italien fakta", I think
>
> If the page ranked well once on Google for those terms then it stands
> a chance of ranking well again for those terms on Google. If the page
> slipped in ranking, then you need to figure out why (beyond "Yahoo is
> better ..." type thoughts)
>
> It could be a _variety_ of reasons behind those "once ranked well"
> pages to slip on Google:
> 1. Changes you made to those pages.
> 2. Some of the links, to those pages or your site, lowering in PR
> value (which could be due to them losing some of their links, changing
> of their contents, and other reasons)
> 3. Google's algorithm changing - and what once in your favor,
> according to an older algorithm, has changed. Yahoo, prior to March of
> 2005, used Google results on their side but have since rolled out
> their own search script and created their own algorithm that they can
> tweak or modify to their heart's delight.
> 4. Etc.
>
> >> > and https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
> >> > for "svezia" and "la Svezia"?
> >> > Am I supposed to insert these words whenever I can in the context?
>
> You can just "inset those words whenever I can" in the existing
> content. You could tweak the existing content to allow more inserting
> of those words into the text. You could tighten up the wording on text
> pages to remove some text to help tighten keyword density of those
> words, already present in the contents, that way. You could get some
> links pointing your way that use those keywords in the anchor text.
> You could make use of the existing text to insert internal links via
> keywords appearing in that existing text. You could slip in alt="text"
> that share some of your keywords.

Do you mean
alt="text" for images which I would insert?


You could look at placement of your
> keywords in the text/page to give them the theorized 'oomph' to those
> keywords, via SEs, that way.
>
> Online keyword density checkers will generally share the Top 10, 20,
> and-or whatever number of words shared in the content - based on # of
> times those particular words were repeated. Then uses the overall # of
> words on the page to calculate the keyword density percentage. Some
> will factor in comment tag text (which doesn't help on SEs as most
> ignore comment tag contents since 1999/2000 time range). Some will
> factor in words in META keywords on that tally. Some will factor in
> alt="text" and some will not.
>
> So, depending on which one you use and how you request it to factor up
> the keyword density (say like clicking for it to ignore META keywords
> and such), then all you are getting is a basic keyword density report
> based on repetition and overall # of words on the pages used to
> calculate the final percentage value. Not saying that those online
> checkers are a waste of time - can be _quite_ helpful depending on one
> opts to use the information/online tool availability.
>
> However, none of them know for sure how placement of those keywords in
> the text help out on improving or lowering the 'oomph' value for that
> keyword. Site A could list a key phrase say 10x in their text - and
> rank better than Site B who, within the same amount of overall text,
> repeated that key phrase 40x. Site A may have the edge through
> placement, anchor text thoughts, and-or hitting on another bit on the
> SE's algorithm that threw things in their site's favor over Site B.
>
> One example of "placement" thoughts is <title>Wording</title>. Some
> will advise to Word this so your important keywords land up front
> versus in back. Google recommends to keep this around 60 characters in
> length (I am not always successful on that, I just try to have my
> titles 'less truncated' on search result listings). I have seen other
> search engines share guideline thoughts about the
> <title>wording</title> length as 75, 80, and 140 characters in length
> (including spaces and punctuation)


What about Yahoo?

> Still talking about placement on the <title>wording</title> thoughts:
> some will also advise to not list your site name/URL in there unless:
> 1. Your site name/URL is a well-known brand(ing)
> 2. Your site name/URL contains keywords
> Then they may advise to not place it first in the title but last - to
> have the actual page title being closer to the front of that
> tag/element versus starting to appear several characters later. It's
> really up to you on if it is placed first or last in comparison to the
> inner page titling thoughts.

I prefer to make this noun more popular so to say by inserting it in the
titles.

> The above is just one example of keyword placement thoughts, however -
> the thought behind the placement advise is based on observation that
> <title>wording</title> has some 'oomph value' for the words listed in
> it with SEs (Yahoo, MSN, and Google). So placing keywords in there
> will help add a little 'oomph' to them - how long the title and how
> many words is in it may have a role in how much 'oomph' those keywords
> may receive. You could use Google's 'guideline' to try to have that
> page's keywords, you want more oomph for, placed within the first 60
> characters when you can.


You are also talking mostly about Google. What about Yahoo?


> This is not factoring in inbound links' anchor text to the site/those
> pages. A few sites have ranked very well for a keyword but their pages
> not mentioning that keyword/key phrase even once - but all their
> inbound links shared those keywords. I think someone posted last year
> a link to a work-from-home site that came up as #1 or #2 for a query
> that had the anchor text, from other sites, pulling the keyword
> density weight for them on those keywords. Then there is headings and
> usage of emphasis or bold/strong text thoughts that some feel also
> help affect keywords in 'oomph' thoughts.
>
> Now you can see that "I have a keyword density of 2%" is not always
> the whole picture. A page, however, can work toward decent rankings -
> even with the keyword density being in the 2% range - or, in some
> instances, lower than 2%. Depends on how you go about it using that
> keyword density, too.
>
> > > Not more than reasonable. Create pages primarely for human visitors,
not
> >for
> >> robots.
> >>
> >> > And by the way,
> >> > of course I also want to offer a chance to advertise on my website to
> >> > websites which are sent over http protocoll,
> >> > but the links to the validator you are talking about, they have
> >> > nothing to do with advertising.
> >>
> >> No, but it includes information from a non secured site and gives an
> >error.
> >> That's why you shouldn't use SSL when not apporpriate.
> >Better to eliminate the link and have SSL when I do not need the link
> >anyway.
> >
> >> > As far as I remember,
> >> > I think that it was Brucie to suggest on alt.html that I would
> >> > insert a link to the validator a long time ago....
> >>
> >> I can't imagine Brucie did that.
>
> Then again, it ay a one-time deal on brucie suggesting that and may
> been due to other circumstances at the time?
>
> > Such a link is absolute pointless for
> >your
> >> visitors. Besides, a site can comply with W3C and still have a very bad
> >> quality.
> >
> >As far as I remember he did after I validated a page for the first time.
>
> *this may be where I start to go particularly ramble-ish due to a
> variety of thoughts discussed so far in thsi thread*
>
> You want people in this NG to _discuss_ your site from an SEO angle -
> and, when considering that angle, what was suggested in some place
> like alt.html or alt.php or wherever may not be the same as what will
> be suggested or advised in this NG for you to consider. A prime
> example: in alt.html the regulars there will recommend validation of
> your HTML, CSS, or whatever, however, in this group, some will
> recommend or mention validation and others will say that validation is
> not important in SEO thoughts.


I agree on what you say here.
I have also noticed that.

> From an SEO angle - serving up your pages as https has been explained
> as may not be helping your site on SE's with the spidering and such
> thoughts. You come back with discussing phishing thoughts - which is
> totally irrelevant then complaining about people focusing on that
> thought (yet the subject line is the first mentioning of https://
> pages - and your question was related to those https:// pages on your
> site). So it is kind of hard to ignore that facet or method of page
> delivery on your site if you are presenting it as part of the primary
> focus to your question.

I disagree. The focus was not on whether I should have used https but on
where I could check up the word density
for a https website.

> To digress - Most people are used to pages being served as
> non-https:// but prefer pages, that they need to enter secure
> information - say like a charge card # - on a page that does have the
> SSL/https://. On the same token, some people do not notice the little
> "s" added to the URL or the little padlock icon at all - and it is
> THOSE people that, although lower in number, phishers are targeting
> and, sadly, your attempt to provide " a secure environment" will
> probably not help protect those "some folks" from being naive during a
> phishing attempt. The folks who try to infect other folks computers
> with viruses and trojans are content to target the 'some people'[
> populace as these folks are less likely to notice what happened until
> later (and sometimes only after the damage has been done).


It won´t help against viruses and trojans but it is good to begin informing
about safe surfing anyway.

> However most folks in this NG, or not participating in this NG but
> wanting to rank better, would want speedier reaction from spiders to
> new content or changes within the contents versus willingly slowing
> down that process. A number of your questions, recently, in this NG
> has been around how to rank better and so people have shared thoughts
> about the https:// method of delivery which you respond with that it
> is ok, in your opinion, if the spiders crawl your site more slowly
> than the spiders may crawl other sites (say like your competitors)
> then repeatedly share how your preference is for ranking beter on
> Yahoo (since you feel some of your pages already do better there than
> on the two search engines). I know that Yahoo is already slow in
> updating their index - so why would I want to risk slowing that down?
> I don't - so fail to understand, even with your explanations, of why
> someone would be content with possibly slower response/updating of
> their contents - especially for pages that do not handle secure
> information to begin with. I mean I can understand certain pages being
> handled that way but not all pages in a site - even taking your
> explanations into consideration on my side.

I am afraid I do not follow you here.
The fact that I would like to improve my ranking does not mean that this is
my highest priority...
and that I would like to reach it at every price.
Please, again, do not forget that I cannot maintain that Google has brought
me many customers...

> You also complained about people that come to your site from Google
> are 'freeloaders' or only there for the freebie content. However your
> pages also serve up a warning window to people if they want to accept
> something or not before able to view your content - that you wanted to
> offer them piece of mind by offering up your content as "secure". Now
> - to keep this on the search engine angle: Given that Google is
> currently the #1 SE (regardless of your personal preference or that
> some of pages rank better elsewhere), therefore Google may send more
> traffic to a site, then perhaps those folks were not all "freeloaders"
> but turned off by the warning windows they received - so left to seek
> out a more 'friendly or 'less hurdles involved' site and it was that
> less-warning window appearing site that got the sale?

I cannot maintain that I got many customers from Google when my site had
been sent over https either..


> And yes - how you decide to serve up content, and how that may affect
> your users and spidering of your site, is considered within NG -
> particularly if that may have an affect on the desired final results
> (ranking AND, with commercial sites, making money). After all - isn't
> part of your objective to rank better to help those better
> rankings/placements help deliver more traffic your way and for your
> content to help turn those eyeballs into sales/reservations? Some
> sites, that rank well, inadvertently send the sales (or money) to
> their competitors (or lower ranking sites) due to how they (the better
> ranked site) handled sharing of the contents. After all - your goal,
> in even trying to rank better on ANY searh engine, is not just to get
> mroe traffic but to get more traffic that you can try to convert a
> certain percentage over to being sales or \money in your wallet.
>
> From an SEO angle - linking to W3C will not help your ranking (on any
> SE) as your pages have nothing to do with validation or such topics.
> On the other hand, your linking to W3C's online validate does help
> toward W3C's ranking thoughts. Then such a link on a site may be
> viewed, by some on this NG, from the 'quality' angle of ":what
> searchers are looking for/expect" when clicking on your link among a
> list of search results.
>
> If you were a web designer or such, then I could more understand
> sharing such a link to show others, contemplating your services, that
> "my pages validate". I could also understand on temporarily sharing
> such a link for ease in people helping you with something, to check on
> what errors and such exist, versus them having to cut and paste your
> URL in at W3C's online validator while helping you with a problem or
> whatever.
>
> However, your site is related to tourism thoughts - and how many of
> those people finding your site via a SE are going to care if your
> pages validate or not? So how is sharing a link to W3C helping your
> site when looking at it from a SE ranking or people doing searches to
> find out that your content exists? It isn't. Validation is only
> helpful in helping to remove errors on the page - and some of the
> corrected errors may help that page's ranking[1] but one also has to
> recall that SEs algorithms have other bits in it that you have to also
> try to appease or blend/work together to help better your ranking
> also.
>
> This isn't saying "remove the link" - just a reminder that if your
> site is themed (in contents) then you will want majority or all the
> links (leading in or out) to help support that theme. I mean linking
> to a page about "care of tropical fish" would help your goal, toward
> ranking well for 'italien' and-or 'om italien' just as much as a link
> to the W3C validator ... however a link to/from an 'italien' 'tourism'
> theme site may much better help toward your end goal.

I understadn but I had also explained why I linked the pages to the
validator
before. As to link tto pages concerning "Italien" and "tourism", yes it
might be a good idea in some cases.

> Lastly, about ranking well for 'italien' - that may not be necessary
> or help increase traffic very much at all in the end. So contemplate
> the end results before investing a lot of time and energy on garnering
> high placement for a keyword that may only result in 1 or 2 more
> visitors per month.
>
> Yes, it may one day sound impressive to say "I rank #1 (or #2, or
> within Top 10) out of 65 million for [keyword here]" . However, when
> doing all that work, are you just after 'bragging rights' or gaining
> MORE traffic (and more meaning more than 5 or 10 per month as a result
> of your efforts)?

"Italien" seems to be a term which is much searched and it is strictly
related to what I offer.
On top of this I might send information in future as well that will say sell
passwords to access to this information about Italy and Sweden for example
> Going for 'bragging rights' is ok - after all, here in the
> Philadelphia area, each year the mummer groups voluntarily raise/spend
> out anywhere from $50,000 to (1 group this year) close to $200,000 and
> members voluntarily work 11 months on creating/purchasing those props,
> outfits, and whatever else needed to put on a 2 minute or 4 1/2 minute
> routine 8x during a 2 1/2 mile parade. The last performance of that
> routine being judged for a cash prize - with first place getting
> $10,000. Yes, a mere drop in the bucket in comparison to what was
> spent out.
>
> However, among the mummer groups, these folks _would_ do all that
> work for this particular parade even if there weren't cash prizes
> awarded. Saying "We came in first place" is more important - as that
> is bragging rights for 12 months and, among the string bands, the
> other string bands group acknowledge the winning band's winning
> placement a couple months later, when the weather is warmer, by doing
> an informal parade down the street where the winning group's clubhouse
> is at to 'serenade' them.
>
> Bands that didn't place in the Top 10 work on trying to get i10th
> place so they can brag for one year about being in the Top 10. Those
> who came in 6th through 10th work on trying to place at #5 so they can
> brag for one year about being in the Top 5. The band that came in #1
> hope they can try to keep that position or not taking a huge tumble
> (going from 1st to 9th) - so more planning/work goes into to the
> following year. However, this is just part of the tradition among
> these groups.
>
> And yeah, to bring this back to an SEO angle, some folks do SEO for
> some phrases/keywords just for 'bragging rights' at times - but, then
> again, they didn't care if it resulted in more traffic to their site
> or not for those keywords - just on how they ranked for them. However
> you may not be interested in 'bragging rights' thoughts - so that
> changes the thinking of how much time or energy you want to invest on
> getting top placement for that phrase ... particularly if niche key
> phrases or words work better in your final end objective: making more
> reservations/sales/whatever.
>
> If you have several key phrases that use 'italien' - then, IMHO, I
> would go work on that route versus sweating/worrying about placing
> well for 'italien' alone at this point in time but use the work/energy
> for placing well on those key phrases help work toward ranking better
> for 'italien' to lessen the amount of work eventually needed to snag
> better placement for that one-word SERP, especially considering the
> 65+ million pages thought. But I am basing that on my personal
> thoughts and not on your stats that may share that some people are
> finding those pages through doing at one-word search query (or if no
> one at all is finding you by doing that one-word query on a SE).
>
> On that note - which only took 3 cups of coffee and two ciggies plus
> one break to fix the hubby his lunch before I finished writing it all
> out - I think I will now go and get me a nice fresh cup of coffee to
> sit back and enjoy before going to the grocery store and hopefullyi
> missing out being outdoors when the predicted sleet starts up over
> this way.
>
> Carol
>
> [1] Not in terms of "going from #200 to #5" type thoughts, though. It
> is one of those things I theorize that help on a lower level but still
> help out - and that theorization is based on personal observations. I
> mean some folks may validate their HTML and not move up one notch, but
> their errors may not have been that major of ones to affect their
> rankings to begin with. Others may notice moving up a few notches and
> only thing done to their pages was validating them. - could be
> coincidence, could be a factor in their moving up a few spots. Could
> just be one of those "case by case" type of instances on how it may
> help or not "appear" to help a page in the rankings after passing
> validation in terms of SEO realm of thoughts. *shrug* I mean
> Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, or other places can get by with unvalidated
> pages - but look at the number of links they have their way to help
> their rankings and where some of those links come from
> (media/authorative sites plus the archived media articles and the
> oodles of indivudals that willingly link their way) that some of us
> other folks cannot/will not achieve garnering for our sites.


That was one of the points.
Information about Italy and Sweden should help to make the site as an
authorative site as well.
This way other pages offering services which are connected with these
countries might get a much better ranking
This was the way Catherine reasoned as well...
> Outside of SEO thoughts, there are more important reasons that can be
> presented as reasons for one to consider. If and when those errors
> presents enough headaches for those 'larger corporation' or sites
> pages, then they may take a second look at the thought of trying to
> clean up/validating those pages.
>
>

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/faktaomitalien.php








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Check keyword density for URL with https
    ... >> I'm affraid increasing the keyword density won't help you. ... Google claims there are over 100 bits to their algorithm. ... their site ranking better thataway. ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: Experience please
    ... and search engines ignore keyword spam. ... the keywords that you believe customers are going to search on. ... Ranking and matching are entirely different animals. ... for a Google search for "Cocoa Perl bridge" within a week. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: SEO technology for Copyright Patrol?
    ... I submit my top 250 keywords to your web interface. ... which it does not go to google, ... infringement, and are logged at your web-based interface so i can view them. ... Such a tool would need to hammer a search engine quite heavily. ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: SEO technology for Copyright Patrol?
    ... I submit my top 250 keywords to your web interface. ... which it does not go to google, ... The bot obtains, from a cache, three copies of a customizable ... Such a tool would need to hammer a search engine quite heavily. ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: Simple question about singular and plural keywords
    ... my list of keywords will be a compilation of all. ... Also, I already consider Overture inaccurate, especially since they use ... Google user. ... I am a Perl programmer, but, for example ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)