jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (16 posts)

Rules about keywords

  1. B. Leekley profile image89
    B. Leekleyposted 4 years ago

    Months ago, maybe over a year ago, I read a hub about how to write hubs that said to repeat the title of the hub in the heading of the Comments capsule. For instance, if the title is How to Make a Glumpf, then the heading of the Comments capsule should be How to Make a Glumpf: Comments. I have been following that advice ever since.

    Recently I read another hub about how to write hubs that said to never put a keyword or even a synonym of a keyword near the end of a hub. I asked in a comment about the above advice and was advised to not do that and instead to head the Comments capsule just Comments.

    Is this a matter on which hubbrers who make money disagree? Is there any consensus on which is the better practice and why?

    And I have another, related question: that same recent hub about how to write hubs said to use a keyword only four times in an entire hub—in the title, in the first paragraph of the first capsule, and I've forgotten where else—, or no more than (if I remember right) one half of one percent  of the time, and to use a combination of a keyword and synonyms of it no more than 7% of the time. (7 words out of every 100 words equals 1 word out of every 14.3 words, right?) Otherwise Google will downgrade that hub for keyword stuffing. Are those facts and figures correct?

    One time I wrote a hub about Kalamazoo, Michigan that I occasionally update. Aside from the local nickname Kazoo, there is no synonym for Kalamazoo. And it would be lacking in important details to write an article introducing Kalamazoo and to not mention Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo Valley Community College, the Kalamazoo Wings, the Kalamazoo Growlers, and so on. Is my Kalamazoo hub condemned to being disdained by Google because there aren't synonyms for the word Kalamazoo, so that is difficult to say much of anything about Kalamazoo without saying Kalamazoo more than four times even in just one text capsule, much less in a whole article?

    And likewise, some of my hubs are about the enneagram, and I don't think there is a synonym for enneagram.

    I have never consciously and intentionally done any keyword stuffing. Must I worry about being falsely found guilty of that fault by Google software because I said what I set out to say and in the process used any particular important word relating to the topic more than 4 times, even in a case like my Kalamazoo hub?

    1. bravewarrior profile image92
      bravewarriorposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Google's Hummingbird has changed the way SEO works.  Here's a link to an article describing the changes:  http://searchengineland.com/hummingbird … thm-173030

    2. gitachud profile image89
      gitachudposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Though I am not an expert on SEO and Keyword/phrase issues, I have a feeling that you can "stuff" keywords as early as possible and then sprinkle conservatively across your content. This is just my theory as I have not had any success in generating any traffic using this theory.

      1. B. Leekley profile image89
        B. Leekleyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for replying, gitachud. It is difficult to test any hubbing theory given that there are so many factors affecting the ranking of and traffic to a hub, including time. Maybe the best advice I'm getting is to not worry about it and just write my best about what interests me.

    3. AMAZING THINKER profile image61
      AMAZING THINKERposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Don't worry about the SEO. Google wants good content, not the content by the best SEO expert. On site SEO barely matters. Focus on writing good quality articles, get some links and your are done.

      You can use your keyword as many times as necessary; it won't hurt your rankings, until of course all your hubs have the same pattern.
      Don't worry about the on-site SEO; it doesn't matter. Think about it; Google doesn't expect every blogger to be a SEO expert, and nor do they expect everyone to follow the rules.

      Google doesn't rely on keyword density nowadays; it's much more sophisticated.

      1. B. Leekley profile image89
        B. Leekleyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for your reassurance, Amazing Thinker.

      2. electronician profile image82
        electronicianposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I wholeheartedly agree with Amazing Thinker. When it comes to SEO the more you think about it and the more perfectly you try to craft your page to what is supposed to be the best SEO practice, the more likely you are to end up at the BOTTOM of Google's search result pages - because they are way better at telling whether you are writing for your readers or writing for their bots than you will ever be at second guessing their ever-changing algorithm.

        1. B. Leekley profile image89
          B. Leekleyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks, electronician, for adding your reassurance to Amazing Thinker's.

    4. Writer Fox profile image61
      Writer Foxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Optimizing a Hub for search engines is no different than optimizing any other webpage. On-page optimization is the most significant aspect of SEO and on HubPages you control most of that.  If you are trying to rank for a single word like 'Kalamazoo', you are probably taking the wrong approach to keyword selection.  As far as keyword density, here is what Google looks for:

      1. B. Leekley profile image89
        B. Leekleyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for commenting, Writer Fox. I have seen that video a few times before, both before and after I read that hub about not using a keyword more than four times in an entire HubPages article. The video only shows that the hub is not necessarily right about the 7% density. The video does not say whether by "a word" the narrator means any word, including "a", "the", "of", "and", and other common words, and proper nouns, and every other sort of word, or if the algorithm to figure this out makes distinctions and does not count certain words or types of words. Also the video does not say if the algorithm distinguishes between phrases when it counts. Like, does it count "City of Kalamazoo" and "Kalamazoo College" as one use of each phrase or as one use of "city", two uses of "Kalamazoo", and one use of "college"? The video just says that the first two uses of a word are interesting, that the next unspecified number of uses of that word have no effect, and that each use after that has a cumulative negative effect. The video advises to go by what sounds natural and unforced. That is not plausible advice, given that the judging is done by a computer algorithm and not by a human. If what is unforced and natural as to the number of times a word is used depends on what the word is, then doesn't the algorithm have a built-in prejudice against a word with no synonyms, such as Kalamazoo, compared with a word with many synonyms, such as dog /mutt / hound...?

        "Optimizing" and "ranking" for one or more word is beyond my current experience level. I'm currently trying to learn those concepts and techniques. So far the Google keyword planner is too confusing to be helpful. I am hoping that people will look for "love Kalamazoo", "live in Kalamazoo", "do in Kalamazoo", etc., but I don't know how to test and measure that.

  2. FatFreddysCat profile image97
    FatFreddysCatposted 4 years ago

    Repeating the title above the Comment section seems unnecessary to me, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you've been doing it all this time and haven't seen any ill effects or gotten any warnings about it, you obviously haven't broken any major Commandment.

    ...by the way, how *do* you make a Glumpf, anyway? big_smile

    1. B. Leekley profile image89
      B. Leekleyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I hadn't thought of that, FatFreddysCat. Thanks for pointing it out. I am not so much worried about breaking some major Commandment as I am about whether the extra effort of repeating the title in the heading of the Comments capsule is having a slight negative effect on my ranking, or no effect, rather than helping. No one else is recommending the practice, so it's probably not worthwhile.

      Isn't a Glumpf made by pressing glumpfite into a glumpf mold? I'd need to ask a glumpfer about the details.

  3. lovebuglena profile image87
    lovebuglenaposted 4 years ago

    I would not put the title into the comments heading. It is not necessary.

    1. B. Leekley profile image89
      B. Leekleyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your feedback, lovebuglena.

  4. Dan W Miller profile image84
    Dan W Millerposted 4 years ago

    You all have been very helpful in this discussion and in others. I had no idea what I was doing and just WROTE "articles." Hence, I was handed a low score of 77.
    I griped about it, knocked HubPages and then several fine folks that are on this site came running to my rescue.
    There ARE "tricks" and "rules" to abide by and now I see why they work.
    Thank you.

  5. FatFreddysCat profile image97
    FatFreddysCatposted 4 years ago

    Glumpfing is a lost art. Ever since the major Glumpf manufacturers closed down their U.S. plants and outsourced the work overseas, most of it is done by automated glumpfing machines.

    It's rare to find a good, handmade Glumpf nowadays. (SIGH)