I seem to have an awful lot of tags for my hubs- most of them are phrases that I "intuitively" tagged my hubs with ( I'll find out how "right" I was in the 30 day challenge I guess)
It is usually better to have more or less tags and what are the drawbacks to having too many or not enough?
Is there a good balance- sort of rule of thumb on tags?
I am glad someone asked this question. I would like to know myself what is best as far as tags go.
The most specific and focused tags are best.
Over-redundancy can hurt you as can extraneous phrases and words.
Such as using the same phrasing with slightly different words? I usually try to think of how anyone would want to search for my hub- what would they type in? And then I make variations of the phrase.
Maybe I'm doing too much, I'm not sure!
I don't believe you can have too many tags provided they are, as Relache pointed out, relevant to your topic - the more relevant, the better it is for you (as far as getting traffic is concerned) and your reader.
I think you're on the right track if you're thinking of how or what your potential reader might type in to search for info on your topic. Use variations of tags already added and don't overlook misspellings. I use Google's external keyword tool and Wordtracker's free keyword suggestion tool to generate keyword lists. I weed out the ones that are too competitive in the SERP's (search engine page results) - anything over 100,000 competing pages when the search term is optimized [in quotes] and the ones that get too few daily searches - 5 or less per day.
You might not want to use the same approach I use as an affiliate marketer, but filtering, analyzing as well as monitoring your tags should improve your results.
The more content you have, the more tags are permissible. If you've only got 3 tags on an 800-word hub, for example, you might want to add more to make the content easier to find. But if you've got 50 on a 300-word hub, that would indicate keyword stuffing and will hurt your score with us, and your standings with Google. These, of course, are just extreme examples. Use common sense and good judgement, and you should be fine.
Thanks Maddie. Is there an easy way to count words in hubs? Besides doing it manually? I don't usually write to do a certain amount of words, the hubs just usually form out to whatever amount of information comes out of my brain- I have a couple kinda short hubs then some that are much longer. Like I just checked my conspiracy hub which has been one of my better hubs, and I counted 26 tags- most of them words just phrased differently so searchers could find it.
what about repititive tag or keyword. What is the limit of it. Some say that 3 is ok but 7 is too much. Any idea?
You can count your words in word count in windows. It is very easy, normally installed with spell checker.
Judge by amount of words to keywords for them ratio. Really it can be your own system just don't over stuff because of the rules of Hubpage rankings and such. But if you had a real web site keyword stuffing is fine and Google does allow it. Google allows it for real websites because Google rates a website on 2 things, amount of click on the site itself and the amount of keywords\meta tags. So it does effect how your post is graded and found and that number must be on a ratio like 1 keyword for 150 words etc for best results.
Thanks this is all good advice on I'm working on editing my keywords.
This isn't the complete answer on where i got it from, i found this out a long time ago so bear with me lol. But this website has some of the incite of Googles PageRank system. Some of the quotes that support what I said were:
2.1 PageRank: Bringing Order to the Web
The citation (link) graph of the web is an important resource that has largely gone unused in existing web search engines. We have created maps containing as many as 518 million of these hyperlinks, a significant sample of the total. These maps allow rapid calculation of a web page's "PageRank", an objective measure of its citation importance that corresponds well with people's subjective idea of importance. Because of this correspondence, PageRank is an excellent way to prioritize the results of web keyword searches. For most popular subjects, a simple text matching search that is restricted to web page titles performs admirably when PageRank prioritizes the results (demo available at google.stanfrd.edu). For the type of full text searches in the main Google system, PageRank also helps a great deal.
2.1.1 Description of PageRank Calculation
Academic citation literature has been applied to the web, largely by counting citations or backlinks to a given page. This gives some approximation of a page's importance or quality. PageRank extends this idea by not counting links from all pages equally, and by normalizing by the number of links on a page. PageRank is defined as follows:
We assume page A has pages T1...Tn which point to it (i.e., are citations). The parameter d is a damping factor which can be set between 0 and 1. We usually set d to 0.85. There are more details about d in the next section. Also C(A) is defined as the number of links going out of page A. The PageRank of a page A is given as follows:
PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/C(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/C(Tn))
Note that the PageRanks form a probability distribution over web pages, so the sum of all web pages' PageRanks will be one.
PageRank or PR(A) can be calculated using a simple iterative algorithm, and corresponds to the principal eigenvector of the normalized link matrix of the web. Also, a PageRank for 26 million web pages can be computed in a few hours on a medium size workstation. There are many other details which are beyond the scope of this paper.
Excerpts taken from: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
As hard as I tried, I couldn't find here any mention of amount of clicks or keywords - what you stated are only two factors Google uses to "rate a website". You did not convince me yet, try again.
The amount of clicks also equals the amount of time someone spends on a site. Which is also touched upon here:
Google works by focusing on the content of web pages. It tends to mostly ignore meta tags as too many search engine optimization people learned how to tweak their sites to get results. Since these tweaks were often shortcuts, the search results were less than great. To circumvent this, Google now focuses on the overall text of the page as well as the site as a whole. The exact Google formula, known as the algorithm, is not public information, but issues such as keyword density, flow of the text, amount of code, registration length of domain and how long visitors stay on a site all seem to be used. In truth, there are probably a couple hundred factors involved in the evaluation.
^ What I said about clicks on there do favor the quote and that it can be a part, even a large part of the hundreds of factors in there ranking system.
It also doesn't count outgoing links as much as incoming links, if at all now.
Google also determines relevancy and rankings by looking outside of a site. Specifically, it looks to see what other sites are linking to the site in question. In theory, the more sites linking to you must be an indication that you are offering highly relevant content on your site. For instance, the website for the IRS is consistently ranked highly for tax terms because thousands of sites link to it. Logically and practically, this must mean the IRS offers highly relevant information on taxes and of course it does.
All excerpts are from: http://www.marketingtitan.com/how_does_google_work
Both of what I said are clues to a part of the equation that Google isn't exposing and is highly guarded secret. Even SEO's don't know them all. All I remember is i heard about Google a few years ago on WHDH news Boston, it was a special report on the site, and it used clicks a site got and keyword order\amount effected it. The keyword one seems to be somewhat false unless a site uses them repeatedly a lot per page. Still doesn't mean its not part of the final solution, it could just be weighted less. SEO's claim to know how to get a page to the top of Google and they do a good job at it, but Google themselves rate it almsot impossible for them to do anymore then someone who just read that last document.
http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … &type=
Really? I always thought those are different things, even unrelated. Care to link to the source of this knowledge?
I am re-quoting your original post here:
If my English does not fail me, you stated that "amount of click on the site itself and the amount of keywords\meta tags" are the major if not the only parameters Google uses to rate websites. So far, despite of two pretty long posts, you failed to prove Google uses those things at all, let alone them being major factors.
You can keep trying, but you know what - you'll never manage to make it. Why? Because your statement is wrong.
People, here is the warning:
I think it is clear by now that following SEO advice from tranax, you put yourself into blind leading blinds situation - at best
Well Misha, those posts, with there links lean toward my statement. The place I 1st heard what I stated from I cannot locate on msnbc (43,000 results). You can't say the theory is wrong, from the sources I have read and there testing and observation it seems to be a piece of that puzzle. But if you think about it our argument cannot be concluded at this time. Since Google uses a very interesting set of factors that no one but Google knows, everything but what is released by Google is nothing but speculation. If tests were made and reported, and somehow it raised pagerank, then it can not just be passed to the side as "incorrect". It can be passed as inconclusive. It would be inaccurate if I made up my statement but I remember it from an interview on "The Today Show". The scraps of information found give it enough edge to be a factor or maybe even a large factor, but in till Google reveals its formula (which it will not do) then all the statements made are speculation.
I'm using Wordtracker's tool which IMHustle mentioned.
Getting keywords and phrases from there is easier for me than churning them out of my mind
Misha's right - what you've presented is part of the picture of how PR is calculated - neither arguments support what you said initially that keyword stuffing and traffic was important for SERPS. From what I understand of those who makes significant $ doing SEO, of which I think Miisha is one: the keys to Google rankings are anchored backlinks and keywords in the url, title and few times in contest in the text - especially at the start of the page
You may find this link interesting http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors
At least people there are well known in the SEO world and know first hand what they are talking about.
Misha, don't mistake me. I did not know those images(avatar) in my forum messages would be annoying. Thanks for pointing out.
^ I also suggest visiting that site. It might not be what effects a search, or it might be. SEO is mainly based on speculation and they can't prove what they do is the right thing. They claim to have 90-95% of Google's algorithm figured out, but how do you know that percent without knowing the total number? Exactly, you don't. Most of these things will help a search though, but whoever really does get 95% of all the algorithm would probably be able to ensure a #1 space on Google, which of now, even the best SEO's out there cannot do. Sure they claim they can, and most can get you on the first page, but anything outside of that is LUCK. So follow those tips, all of them, even those I pulled up because honestly... a SEO company leader and a normal person at a computer that just hears things and find scraps that its true both have the same in look on Google- not knowing the formula.
With that being said i'm done. I know what I posted, the links to those sites proving my case and my case will help you. I also know that link Misha posted will also be helpful. Personal opinion, I am ageist SEO companies. There expensive for something you could do yourself, even better. I believe a lot of SEOs are scams (the reason why Google made this page and how to know your not being scammed: http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … swer=35291 ) From what it looks like, if Misha's link information is correct then this line states: "although not every one of the estimated 200+ ranking elements are included, it is my opinion that 90-95% of the knowledge required about Google's algorithm is contained" Then that proves you can do all a SEO company can do because the information is open. But thats my personal opinion. And the solid fact is SEO is speculation, nothing further till they can make any site appear #1 every time they try and that they can reproduce the whole algorithm, so basically the statement " well known in the SEO world and know first hand what they are talking about." well that amounts to they have a first hand look at what there telling you about something inconclusive and unproven that there just first hand guesses that could be right or wrong, until the whole algorithm is reproduced or found.
Thats all i'm stating, if you can prove to me that what they do isn't speculation and inconclusive then i'd love to know it to correct my knowledge, but because I already know you can't because no one has yet so now would be a good place to drop it.
Not sure what I have to prove? Show me a page that ranks for anything more competitive than "yellow stubs of red crawlers" using your methods, and I will gladly proclaim your the next SEO guru.
While you are searching for one, try to count how many places I own on this search results page
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … directions
Lol...You searched the name of the article with the name of the link and the name of all your keywords. I don't know about you, but when people are looking for map directions they don't type:
Google Mapquest Driving Directions
They would type: driving directions
Anyway i'm done, I don't want to be a SEO guru. Anyone with an article like that can make there post come up 1st if they know what to search.
Ok try this one:
mmorpgs addicting runescape
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … tnG=Search
Guess who is #1? Lol. As I have just stated, if you know what to search you can make your page come in first at some point. But the greater amount of people will not type mmorpgs addicting runescape, they would just type addicting mmorpgs or mmorpg runescape etc.
I totally agree with Misha on this one. What is seen here is basic SEO to dominate page 1 all pointing at a website. Hubpages has its own authority and of course will rank No. 1 for a short period of time.
Now Misha, I did not see any rss feed url around position 8 bumping the rest up a little, a blogger blog or a quick domain pointing at the keyword. I see the cpc for your targeted keywords range from .25 to .36 so you might be leaving money on the table there.
My little experiment shows this all works as can be seen on the keyword search. I am up for a total domination contest for a long tail keyword if any ones interested. We might make a few bucks along the way and can document the process on a individual hub for others to follow.
Google search "teenager building self worth" with or without the quotes its all the same. RSS feed dropped off and a lot more on page 2. Good keyword to have in the arsenal so this is why I totally agree with your comments.
Now the original question on tags. Only add tags that are in your content. If you have fishing in your content then write fishing not fishes in your tags. A good seo point of view is to target one keyword with each page, the old story, build pages build links. Not one page targeting twenty odd keywords, to much dilution.
Can you elaborate on this a bit? I am still not comfortable with using RSS other than to speed up indexing, and would appreciate every bit of real life info Not sure what you mean by quick domain either.
LOL I just checked my advertised google first page - and ooops, the number of competitors were cut down almost 10 times overnight and now shows just 60K plus.... I still own the first page, though
The rss feed I use that brings back a very good link is http://rss2.com so if anyone has a wordpress blog, sign up and add the site to your ping list.
There's an old keyword trick. If your chasing a keyword throw up a quick blogger with the keyword as the url. Put the blogger feed on rss2 and wait about 60 minutes. If the feed comes up on Page 1 of G then you are on a safe keyword to rank well on that page. It will only happen if there is limited competition from the sites that have that keyword locked in, e.g. those sites do not already have lots of inbound links etc. Then go and register the domain for the keyword. This is what I mean by a quick domain. Load a wordpress blog on the hosting account named the same keyword, put on ten pages targeting that ONE keyword and start your linking process.
I did exactly this and set up http://newhairstyleswomen.com but only have 9 pages at the moment. It is at position 4 and 5 on page 1 of G. The site is very young. Has about 1k traffic per day and ctr is cool. I have my keyword as the url but strangely enough instead of women at the end of the keyword long tail search it comes up on G as woman. So if you put new hairstyles for women in G the sites at position 8 but using new hairstyles for woman its 4 and 5. Strange I thought.
The whole point of this is to check my efforts to see if they work. I buy the domain name, about six bucks and sign up for four or six months hosting to give it a go about twenty five dollars. If the return pays for the six months then its just a matter of tweaking the site linking structure, leave it to work itself and move onto the next keyword.
This is my third attempt at the moment using this technique and I have 3 sites, all wordpress blogs that bring back positive roi. Imagine 100 sites or more. Hosting gets a bit expensive but if the return on income is far greater, then paying for hosting is a pittance to earnings.
If you target that one keyword phrase like I have done, articles, hubpage, squidoo lens, wordpress hosted blog, blogger blog, rss feeds, (all free to do) and submit to directories you will dominate page 1 if not the top 25 positions, done properly. My keyword for teen self worth shows on Google page 1 my site (the money maker) and a few other article sites so its working on a diverse range of keywords.
I could go on but this is getting a bit long. I hope it helps.
You'd be surprised, but quite a few people search for "Google Mapquest Driving Directions"
This is called keyword research, you know
I am not telling though that this is the only keyword I am using, this is not even one of the major ones - I am not going to show the whole world all my dirty secrets.
Now, your mmorgs are definitely on the first place out of less than 50K competing pages. My directions have just a tad tougher competition - about 500K. Oh, and just fyi - I own 1,2,3,4,5, and 9th places on the first page for this keyword currently.
So, why don't you try to rank for my "easy" keyword? Using your methods? And I will try to push you down from your hard earned first place? Using my methods? How about this?
I see I missed out on all of the fun in this thread
LOL I have to agree many people, myself included, use very specific search terms to help them find what they're looking for.
I find SEO to be a very fascinating subject because there are so many varying opinions on the subject and the rules change often. I just find it so much fun to experiment with different authority site platforms and search terms at different levels of competitiveness. When you start to dominate terms in excess of 100K and higher in competing pages in Google, it's more of a challenge and more rewarding, this is especially true in a very competitive niche.
Congrats Misha on owning "Google Mapquest Driving Directions". Obviously you know a thing or two about keywords and getting pages ranked .
I go for 10 - 15 tags on my Hubs. I use phrases in different combinations.
Thanks a bunch terry, I opened an account with them and exploring now
I think the most relevant tags are the best.... I also think that 10-15 is a good range. I tested with my hub and it seemed like if I put more tags then it would deviate my hub from the main and important keywords that I tried to get index by Google.
I tend to agree based on my unscientific analysis! I took some tags out and my traffic has improved. I only left the really relevant redundant tags.
From reading forums on SEO, (Many different ones, so please don't ask me to show you my source Misha!) I read that Google does not use the keyword meta tags, that Google searches the first two paragraphs or so and pulls keywords from the actual text of the site along with the title tag. Google uses an algorithym to determine page ranking. This also changes frequently in order to combat the abuse of keyword stuffing and other search engine manipulations.
From what I have been reading in the past two weeks, search engines have changed methods of page rankings a lot in the last two years and are still modifying techniques today.
I am just beginning to get into all this, so I am by far not an expert, just repeating what I have read in forums and articles on search engine optimizing (SEO) and yes, I even read Google tips for webmasters. Google has a very good webmaster tool kit that is free and very informative.
Just my two cents.
by Natalie Frank 17 hours ago
Hi All,I've been focusing on trying to improve my keyword SEO and had a couple of questions - How many keywords do you try to rank for in a given article? I know this will depend on length and topic but ballpark? Can you try to rank for too many keywords? (Obviously if it makes the copy...
by Butch Tool 2 years ago
Hello, dear fellows, I am hoping that someone with more experience may be able to direct me to any free resources that will help me learn how to become an SEO master. Primarily, I want to learn how to do in-depth keyword research to pick great niches to write about that have a high payment on...
by Janis Leslie Evans 4 years ago
When I read tutorials my head spins. So please give me an example using my topic: a recipe for baked salmon. If the title is "How to make Herb-crusted baked salmon", and I use the phrases "salmon fillet" "fish" throughout the hub, that's not optimizing right? Examples...
by Gary Anderson 2 years ago
But I am wondering why there seems to be competition in the real google world and no competition showing for it in the external keyword tool world?
by Earl Noah Bernsby 4 years ago
I can here the snippers approaching.Snip, snip.Snip.
by Ru-an 8 years ago
I heard someone say that if possible your hub title should be the exact keyword that you use as your main keyword, if you want to rank high in search engines. But that doesnt allow for a catchy title which will get you seen easier on a social bookmark site for instance, which could boost your...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|