Re: <b> verses <srtong> for SEO

[Paul Burke]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:19:09 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:04:12 -0600, Paul Burke
><webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:
>
>>Hopefully there will be something about how many "comments" are
>>allowed in html code.
>
>Did you mean as 'recommended' for 'keyword density' in older 'SEO'
>articles? Where you place like 3 or so keyword-rich comment tags in
>the HTML doc to feed the spider?
>
>If so - not worth the time. Use comments to leave notes to yourself as
>needed in the doc as the keyword listing/spiel wont' make a bit of
>difference to the search engines.
>
>Carol

Yes Carol, exactly that. I heard somewhere that you can add comments
and S/E are "supposed" to see them. So I was thinking of adding some
if it helped.
Other places I have read, say not to do it.
plh
paul

[C.W.]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:46:41 -0600, Paul Burke
<webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:19:09 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:04:12 -0600, Paul Burke
>><webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:
>>
>>>Hopefully there will be something about how many "comments" are
>>>allowed in html code.
>>
>>Did you mean as 'recommended' for 'keyword density' in older 'SEO'
>>articles? Where you place like 3 or so keyword-rich comment tags in
>>the HTML doc to feed the spider?
>>
>>If so - not worth the time. Use comments to leave notes to yourself as
>>needed in the doc as the keyword listing/spiel wont' make a bit of
>>difference to the search engines.
>>
>>Carol
>
>Yes Carol, exactly that. I heard somewhere that you can add comments
>and S/E are "supposed" to see them. So I was thinking of adding some
>if it helped.
>Other places I have read, say not to do it.

Seriously, not woth the time or effort to go through adding those to
your pages. Most of the SE's were said to started ignoring those
'touches' back around 2000 timeframe due to people already abusing
that snippet of markup. Very out-dated "trick" that some still pass
around - but if your site is manually reviewed, may not look good in
your favor for the person to see all the "hidden keyword goodies"
shared, huh?

Write good visible content. Tweak _that_ for your keyword density -
around 2 to 8% range but I get by fine with 3% and some others have
shared 4 to 5% works for them. *shrug*

I really don't get why folks try to use 'tricks' when they already
have the content right there for them to work with and optimize
instead. If wanting to share keywords invisibly with search engines -
use META keywords and description tags then.

Carol

[C.W.]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:12:00 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:46:41 -0600, Paul Burke
><webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:19:09 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:04:12 -0600, Paul Burke
>>><webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hopefully there will be something about how many "comments" are
>>>>allowed in html code.
>>>
>>>Did you mean as 'recommended' for 'keyword density' in older 'SEO'
>>>articles? Where you place like 3 or so keyword-rich comment tags in
>>>the HTML doc to feed the spider?
>>>
>>>If so - not worth the time. Use comments to leave notes to yourself as
>>>needed in the doc as the keyword listing/spiel wont' make a bit of
>>>difference to the search engines.
>>>
>>>Carol
>>
>>Yes Carol, exactly that. I heard somewhere that you can add comments
>>and S/E are "supposed" to see them. So I was thinking of adding some
>>if it helped.
>>Other places I have read, say not to do it.
>
>Seriously, not woth the time or effort to go through adding those to
>your pages. Most of the SE's were said to started ignoring those
>'touches' back around 2000 timeframe due to people already abusing
>that snippet of markup. Very out-dated "trick" that some still pass
>around - but if your site is manually reviewed, may not look good in
>your favor for the person to see all the "hidden keyword goodies"
>shared, huh?
>
>Write good visible content. Tweak _that_ for your keyword density -
>around 2 to 8% range but I get by fine with 3% and some others have
>shared 4 to 5% works for them. *shrug*
>
>I really don't get why folks try to use 'tricks' when they already
>have the content right there for them to work with and optimize
>instead. If wanting to share keywords invisibly with search engines -
>use META keywords and description tags then.
>
>Carol

Oh, and you can get backlinks to your pages using those nifty keywords
in the anchor text to help further support the keywords in the visible
text that way.

Carol

[Paul Burke]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:26:51 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:12:00 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:46:41 -0600, Paul Burke
>><webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:19:09 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:04:12 -0600, Paul Burke
>>>><webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:
>>>>
<snip>
>>
>>Write good visible content. Tweak _that_ for your keyword density -
>>around 2 to 8% range but I get by fine with 3% and some others have
>>shared 4 to 5% works for them. *shrug*

Can you suggest any good tools for this please Carol ?

>>I really don't get why folks try to use 'tricks' when they already
>>have the content right there for them to work with and optimize
>>instead. If wanting to share keywords invisibly with search engines -
>>use META keywords and description tags then.
I am not trying to trick the system, but I was after safe tips on
trying to get the site a bit higher.

>>Carol
>
>Oh, and you can get backlinks to your pages using those nifty keywords
>in the anchor text to help further support the keywords in the visible
>text that way.
I think the site has that. There is also a www.companyname.com address
on most pages in the header as well.

>Carol
>
Thanks for your help Carol
plh
Paul

[C.W.]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:40:35 -0600, Paul Burke
<webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:26:51 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
>
[snip]

>>>Write good visible content. Tweak _that_ for your keyword density -
>>>around 2 to 8% range but I get by fine with 3% and some others have
>>>shared 4 to 5% works for them. *shrug*
>
>Can you suggest any good tools for this please Carol ?

I use http://www.keywordcount.com online - with alt. meta, and other
bits turned "off" from being included in the count. You can have a
copy emailed to yourself for looking over when editing offline.

>>>I really don't get why folks try to use 'tricks' when they already
>>>have the content right there for them to work with and optimize
>>>instead. If wanting to share keywords invisibly with search engines -
>>>use META keywords and description tags then.
>I am not trying to trick the system, but I was after safe tips on
>trying to get the site a bit higher.

Using comment tags, 1 to 6 times on a page, would be a trick when you
sit back and read the method again and what the authors, sharing it,
claimed it would do. Same goes for hidden/5px text where someone
thinks they need to list every town or something within a 200 mile
radius of their location - silly as they just added 200 to 500 words
to their text which may have reduced their keyword density for
targetted phrases. So what do they do do? Add more hidden text to
repeat those targetted phrases.

Waste of time as they may already have good keyword density for their
targetted phrases before they added one hidden word - or just needed
to tweak the visible contents' wording just a bit to achieve what they
wanted to with the other methods.

I've seen some View Sources where people tried to share a whole sales
spiel [5 or so keyword rich paragraphs of text] - where sometimes that
hidden stuff was better worded than the visible stuff on the same
page. Some people spend more time thinking out how to word what is not
presented to people than on what is presented to those same people.

Trade-off: smaller file size, granted, but also no need to take into
consideration "can I remove that line or two of hidden/comment text?
If I do, will my page slip in ranking?" Got a better idea of what text
to work on.

The above opinions are my own; developed over time of watching people
happily using a couple of hours or more to slip in "hidden" touches to
their content versus thinking "ya know, if I dropped this word for a
keyword instead ... " or "ya know, if I created a page to share a list
of ... " So the folks became tricked into thinking the tricks, not the
content, is what was working for their pages. *shrug*

Carol

[Paul Burke]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:23:14 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:40:35 -0600, Paul Burke
><webmaster@firstpeople.us> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:26:51 GMT, from_you@nomail.com (C.W.) wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>
>>>>Write good visible content. Tweak _that_ for your keyword density -
>>>>around 2 to 8% range but I get by fine with 3% and some others have
>>>>shared 4 to 5% works for them. *shrug*
>>
>>Can you suggest any good tools for this please Carol ?
>
>I use http://www.keywordcount.com online - with alt. meta, and other
>bits turned "off" from being included in the count. You can have a
>copy emailed to yourself for looking over when editing offline.
>
Thank you for that Carol.
I found this one after talking to you which looks pretty good.
http://www.spannerworks.com/seotoolkit/keyword_density_analyser.asp

>
>Using comment tags, 1 to 6 times on a page, would be a trick when you
>sit back and read the method again and what the authors, sharing it,
>claimed it would do. Same goes for hidden/5px text where someone
>thinks they need to list every town or something within a 200 mile
>radius of their location - silly as they just added 200 to 500 words
>to their text which may have reduced their keyword density for
>targetted phrases. So what do they do do? Add more hidden text to
>repeat those targetted phrases.
>
>Waste of time as they may already have good keyword density for their
>targetted phrases before they added one hidden word - or just needed
>to tweak the visible contents' wording just a bit to achieve what they
>wanted to with the other methods.
>
>I've seen some View Sources where people tried to share a whole sales
>spiel [5 or so keyword rich paragraphs of text] - where sometimes that
>hidden stuff was better worded than the visible stuff on the same
>page. Some people spend more time thinking out how to word what is not
>presented to people than on what is presented to those same people.
>
>Trade-off: smaller file size, granted, but also no need to take into
>consideration "can I remove that line or two of hidden/comment text?
>If I do, will my page slip in ranking?" Got a better idea of what text
>to work on.
There are no un-needed comments on the site now. I only had them on
there for a day or so anyway.

Thank you for the tip.

>The above opinions are my own; developed over time of watching people
>happily using a couple of hours or more to slip in "hidden" touches to
>their content versus thinking "ya know, if I dropped this word for a
>keyword instead ... " or "ya know, if I created a page to share a list
>of ... " So the folks became tricked into thinking the tricks, not the
>content, is what was working for their pages. *shrug*
>
>Carol

plh
Paul

[John Bokma]

Paul Burke wrote:

[ keyword density ]

> Can you suggest any good tools for this please Carol ?

I am not Carol, but just write your content with a visitor in mind:

Buy Foobar, because Foobar is so good. Not only is Foobar cheap, but Foobar
really works. Order Foobar today, because it's cheap, cheap, cheap.
Everbody loves Foobar. Press the Foobar button to order your cheap Foobar
today.

Is not funny to read. If you write a piece of text normally I guess you
stay automatically in the x% range.

--
John -> http://johnbokma.com/ Firefox: http://johnbokma.com/firefox/
Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
Get SEO help: http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-help.html