Oh, certainly you're right, because various pages in my clients sites show up in the rankings...not just the index or home page. However, those other pages appear in the rankings when they actually have more relevant keywords/phrases searched for than the index or home page.
I have one Real Estate broker who also sells insurance. When insurance is search for, the insurance page shows up in the rankings, but not the index or homepage...and that's the way I think it should be. The pages of the site seem to be ranked individually, rather than the site as a whole...again, which is the way I think it should be. I would hate to have to try to get all the keywords/phrases I need for some of the larger sites on the homepage! > If you were to have a sitemap and it spiders that page and you *hide* > that link from a user (by color if need be) then in fact you achieve > the same results. But I wouldn't want a page like that on the site...it would appear to the viewer that the page had no content...that's as bad as some of the gateway pages I've seen. The copy is terrible for the human visitor, but great for the bot... Rick -----Original Message----- From: Scott Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:44 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Search engine question Correct me if i'm wrong and chances are it may be the case, but i think i remember reading that google doesn't base its ranking on index page alone. It weighs up the entire site and then asses its ranking capabilities. If you were to have a sitemap and it spiders that page and you *hide* that link from a user (by color if need be) then in fact you achieve the same results. I could be off on this one but thats what i interpreted from Google Hacks. eg: MossyBlog tends to have more hits show up based on relevant pages vs index? On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:19:14 -0500, Rick Faircloth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well...what you've stated is true and blacklisting is to be > avoided at all costs...that being said, there's a different > perspective that can be taken on using the "Flash Forwarding" > approach. > > I believe you're writing from the perspective is that the method > we're describing would utilize a page of content that is irrelevant > to the actual site. If so, then, you're right...however... > > I do SEO for clients and think that the method > can be used well, if the page that the bots are scanning, but > the people can't read, does contain only relevant information. > > I do organic SEO as much as possible for clients as well as PPC, > but it's difficult to work in a keyword/phrase the recommended 5-7 times > on a page without offending the sensibilities of the reader. And, > if you put every keyword/phrase 5-7 times for which you want to appear on > search engines, you end up with really thick, mechanical copy. > > However, if you're writing copy only for the bots, they couldn't care less > about whether or not the copy reads smoothly...they just check for > the existence of keywords/phrases. > > So, the actual copy on the page that the person visiting the site doesn't > read, but the bots do, can be heavy with repeated keywords/phrases that > are completely relevant to the site content. I don't consider this approach > unethical at all. I *would* consider any attempt to abuse keywords/phrases > to bring traffic to a site which has nothing to do with the keywords/phrases > a visitor actually uses to be completely unethical, whether the site had > adult content or content about lawnmower maintenance. > > I don't see how Google could consider "Flash Forwarding" method to > be inappropriate under any circumstances. It amounts to the same thing > as having a Site Map on a page which simply contains links to various > parts of the site based on keywords/phrases that searchers are using, such > as: > > Hinesville Real Estate > Hinesville GA Real Estate > Hinesville Georgia Real Estate > > Fort Stewart Real Estate > Fort Stewart GA Real Estate > Fort Stewart Georgia Real Estate > > While such an approach may not seem to make a lot of sense to a viewer > who is unaware of why these variations would be on a page, which is to > appeal to bots, I don't see how it would be considered unethical to include > those variations on site map. > > Any thoughts on this? > > Rick > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 6:08 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Search engine question > > This concerns me the most, you can trick the bots until you have a > total monopoly on keywords. Yet, if someone reports you to google (and > it happens) for hijacking traffic (only have to look at your > competitors) and they then find you're hacking the bots, they > blacklist you. > > Ontop of that, do you really want to trick your customers into going > to a site thats of no relivance. What about if the flash swf fails or > they can't load it? then what... > > I used to work for *one* of the worlds adult content providers, my job > was to farm adult sites out to reap search engine / ecommerce rewards. > > Our strategy was like a solider based system, where we would create > lots of this annoying crappy little websites all over the shop using > geocities, anglefire and all that crap to link back to first tier > domains, which were upsell sites. We would then populate these tier > domains with more established content and so on until it went back to > key / rich content based sites where the actual cc transactions would > begin. > > I've seen some talented folk use tricks that have me giving > mass-golf-claps as to how well they counter-acted it - yet i've seen > yahoo / google pounce on them fast. Google prides itself on being a > fairly clean / noiseless search engine so that if my kids search for > "Dallas" they get results based on the city - not - DEBBIE DOES DALLAS > FOR 98th time. Actualy relivant key words returning such results. > > any h00t be mindfull of who your traffic will be, and what risks you > take in tricking bots. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:201118 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
