Optimizing for 'other' search engines

[Pete]

It seems almost implicit that people mean google when they ask questions in
here and other groups about seo. But it seems to me that with so many people
concentrating on google, concentrating on the other engines may be
worthwhile.

Has anyone any tips or pointers to good article on doing this? i imagine
pretty much the same factors (links,link text,title tag, etc) all still
apply, but they are given different weight. Having said that, im not sure
this would account for the differences in results one sees between google
and other engines like yahoo, webcrawler etc.

The reason i ask is i have almost accidentally gained some good placings in
yahoo, and i would love to know what it was exactly that i did right!


Pete

[Big Bill]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:58:43 +0000 (UTC), "Pete"
<noone@i-see-a-little-silloutte-of-a-man.com> wrote:

>It seems almost implicit that people mean google when they ask questions in
>here and other groups about seo. But it seems to me that with so many people
>concentrating on google, concentrating on the other engines may be
>worthwhile.
>
>Has anyone any tips or pointers to good article on doing this? i imagine
>pretty much the same factors (links,link text,title tag, etc) all still
>apply, but they are given different weight. Having said that, im not sure
>this would account for the differences in results one sees between google
>and other engines like yahoo, webcrawler etc.
>
>The reason i ask is i have almost accidentally gained some good placings in
>yahoo, and i would love to know what it was exactly that i did right!

On-page optimisation works well in Yahoo and MSN. Inbound links with
the right stuff in the anchor text is what works in Google.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO@kruse.demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

[Philipp Lenssen]

Pete wrote:

> It seems almost implicit that people mean google when they ask
> questions in here and other groups about seo. But it seems to me that
> with so many people concentrating on google, concentrating on the
> other engines may be worthwhile.
>

There's one engine that you should be optimizing for specifically:
those two-legged, never-satisfied animals in front of the computers
looking for worthwhile content.

Seriously, what the guy said: Google is off-page optimization (links!)
while Yahoo and others may focus more on on-page optimization (title,
headers, keyword repetition etc). I feel on-page optimization is more
prone to be abused. It's much harder to put up 10,000 backlinks on
different domains, than 10,000 backlinks from my own domain!

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

[Big Bill]

On 22 Dec 2004 09:32:13 GMT, "Philipp Lenssen" <info@outer-court.com>
wrote:

>Pete wrote:
>
>> It seems almost implicit that people mean google when they ask
>> questions in here and other groups about seo. But it seems to me that
>> with so many people concentrating on google, concentrating on the
>> other engines may be worthwhile.
>>
>
>There's one engine that you should be optimizing for specifically:
>those two-legged, never-satisfied animals in front of the computers
>looking for worthwhile content.

You miss the point utterly. People are clever. Site designers, some of
them, are clever. The principle mechanism they use to find each other
is the engines. The engines are stupid. So you must first design for
them.

BB

>Seriously, what the guy said: Google is off-page optimization (links!)
>while Yahoo and others may focus more on on-page optimization (title,
>headers, keyword repetition etc). I feel on-page optimization is more
>prone to be abused. It's much harder to put up 10,000 backlinks on
>different domains, than 10,000 backlinks from my own domain!

--
www.kruse.co.uk SEO@kruse.demon.co.uk
home of SEO that's shiny!
--

[Philipp Lenssen]

Big Bill wrote:

> On 22 Dec 2004 09:32:13 GMT, "Philipp Lenssen" <info@outer-court.com>
>

> > There's one engine that you should be optimizing for specifically:
> > those two-legged, never-satisfied animals in front of the computers
> > looking for worthwhile content.
>
> You miss the point utterly. People are clever. Site designers, some of
> them, are clever. The principle mechanism they use to find each other
> is the engines. The engines are stupid. So you must first design for
> them.

Wrong! Google looks at links put up by *humans* which find content
interesting enough to point to it. This is their basis for ranking a
page.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com