Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  • Jump to page:
    #1
  1. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    386
    Rep Power
    16

    Anecdotal Evidence for Keyword Density


    A little more anecdotal evidence for keyword density advocates out there.

    Dropped keyword density from about 4.5% to .68% (i do stupid things some times). Dropped from #2 to #15 in about 2 weeks - each time google cached i dropped lower.

    Put it back up to 4.5% and back up to #3

    keyword gets 271000 searches a month according to overture.
  2. #2
  3. Son Of Spam
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, Toronto, and NYC
    Posts
    958
    Rep Power
    17
    I just want to get in on this thread so I get emailed when there is a post made. I wouldn't want to miss Randfish's reply

    Thanks for sharing. My two favorite topics happen to be KYD and Sandbox. This out to be another great thread!
    Last edited by SEO_AM; Jul 6th, 2005 at 11:49 AM. Reason: Quote not required.
  4. #3
  5. SEO Chat Skiller (1500 - 1999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,888
    Rep Power
    47
    My reply is to simply read the link in my signature.

    KW Density as a metric is largely useless, but if you take out terms and phrases that would make you more on topic, you'll lose rankings (and your kw density will drop). This is akin to saying, if I drop a bomb on your house, it will destroy the house (and your toilet will no longer flush).

    I've never advocated removing important text or targeted terms from your pages, I'm simply suggesting that when you do comparisons of sites ranking well, you recognize that kw density won't help you - you need to use some variation of term weight to have a semblance of a reasonable comparison.
    CEO & Co-founder of SEOmoz
  6. #4
  7. SEO Earthquake!
    SEO Chat Scholar (3000 - 3499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    3,307
    Rep Power
    25
    Randfish - I get that you think KW are "misread" by SEOers at large and especially around KW density and I agree with that concept. I'm not sure if I agree with your theory on weight (yet - that involves some thought - and math).

    Anyway, I want to get your opinion on ontology and it's effects as related to KW density. My experience has shown ontology to be a very powerful tool in bringing pages up in the SERPs (especially G). In fact, I've even replaced KW with related terms and had good results. Fluke? Luck? On the right track? Some other "X" factor?
  8. #5
  9. Website Design Pro
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    411
    Rep Power
    15
    i agree with randfish but only for google

    yahoo and msn tend to love the keyword stuffing, hence google is better
  10. #6
  11. Son Of Spam
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, Toronto, and NYC
    Posts
    958
    Rep Power
    17
    Originally Posted by digidogstudios
    i agree with randfish but only for google

    yahoo and msn tend to love the keyword stuffing, hence google is better
    I am no where near the same league as Rand and some others are in concerning KWD, but I love to follow it. I am qualified to give my opinion on your last statement however

    I disagree that makes google better. IMHO any search engine that is more kw oriented will produce better serps. BL does not support relevance. While any system can be manipulated or cheated, being kw oriented at least provides more accurate results based on search ques. Add the ridiculous sandbox effect, and all you get in G serps are sites that are older then 6 months and have 100,000 BL. Does not mean it is relevant to the search. You could have been looking for a site the specialzed in half tone blue widgets, and none of the serps might specialize in that, perhaps the site that does is in the sandbox, or only has a few BL, either case you would never find it on G. But would be able to find it on Yahoo!, MSN, and just about any other KW oriented SE.

    Just my 2 cents of course
    Last edited by Bud Wiser; Jul 6th, 2005 at 12:34 PM.
  12. #7
  13. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    419
    Rep Power
    15
    I don't thing that Yahoo and MSN prefer more SEO optimization rather thatn inbound links. I have a number of sites having to spots in Yahoo and MSN for many competitive keywords and I didn't do any SEO optimization, only got a lot of inbound links. Google on the other hand wasn't satisfied with only backlinks. Thus, I am working right now to improve onsite SEO.
  14. #8
  15. Resident Black Hat
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Posts
    1,437
    Rep Power
    20
    Hey Randfish, perhaps you should create a topic called Keyword Density is a Myth! and get it stickied

    BTW, great interview with the MSN search team!

    G-Man
  16. #9
  17. Son Of Spam
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, Toronto, and NYC
    Posts
    958
    Rep Power
    17
    Originally Posted by GeoffreyF67
    Hey Randfish, perhaps you should create a topic called Keyword Density is a Myth! and get it stickied

    BTW, great interview with the MSN search team!

    G-Man
    What's your opinion concerning KWD G-Man?

    I'm incline to believe Rand on this at least concerning G.
  18. #10
  19. SEO Chat Skiller (1500 - 1999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,888
    Rep Power
    47
    My experience has shown ontology to be a very powerful tool in bringing pages up in the SERPs (especially G). In fact, I've even replaced KW with related terms and had good results. Fluke? Luck? On the right track? Some other "X" factor?
    I can certainly appreciate what you're saying but I think you mean related terms, not ontologies.

    Ontologies can be very powerful too but they describe an organizational structure for data on a subject, so an ontolotgy for SEOChat would be something like an organized sitemap:

    Google
    - Google News
    - Google Optimization
    - Googl Toolbar

    That's more of what an ontology is, and it too can be of great help, particularly if you use on-topic analysis to detrmine what the best way to structure your data is. In a for-example, it may be far more "optimized" and deliver better results to have sunglasses listed under "glasses" in a category the under "sunwear" - lately I've been noticing more than a few sites benefiting from this optimized segmentation.

    Back to the related terms, those too are excellent because when analyzed by the search engine it's saying - hey this page doesn't kw stuff or spam, but it is remarkably on-topic text for this particular term. Related terms and phrases can really boost your page's weight for the optimization of a term and the best part is that it usually comes naturally if you're writing about the subject.
  20. #11
  21. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Channel Islands.
    Posts
    465
    Rep Power
    19
    Aha, hiya everyone again, not been here in a while.

    Keyword density and prominence are my favourite subjects

    Google is all maths, I've been saying it for years and it's easy work out. Approximately 10-15%% of your 'score' in Google is onpage optimisation, get full marks and you've an excellent base to form your off-page optimisation on

    I do believe that the perfect density depends entirely on your keyphrase and the level of onpage optimisation of both you and your competitors which is why I suggest that the perfect density for your keyphrase could be anywhere between 2-11%. It's a case of trial and error, start with a low density and work your way up, when you start to see rankings drop a little you know you've pushed it a bit far.

    Prominence is by far the most important on page factor and hugely overlooked in my opinion. I would rather go for a higher prominence and lower density.

    Related words play a large factor in both prominence and density and whatever your keyphrase is any related words should also be analysed and included in your calculations.

    If for instance you are looking at 'SEO forums', the number one spot (of course ) is..
    http://forums.seochat.com/
    Search Google for the term SEO but leaving out the word SEO ;) what do you get...
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-11%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=%7Eseo+-seo
    Too many webmasters forget to look at the whole mathematical picture. In this case 'Search Engine Optimisation' plays and important part in searching for the phrase 'SEO' in google.

    Take it a step further and work out the most important bit, your density and prominence of off page factors and compare those with your competitiors. Jeez Louise, somebody stop me! I only popped in for a minute, I could go on and on for hours on this subject but my husband won't get his tea and I'll end up divorced, lonely and bitter. I've got to go, I'll catch up with you guys properly next week. Am looking forward to seeing how this thread pans out.

    Jane

    Comments on this post

    • rmccarley agrees : Don't be bitter, it's all good! Great point in comparing against the competition. Too much in a channel can be doom!
  22. #12
  23. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    340
    Rep Power
    0
    RJ I was testing that out about 3 weeks ago. It seems to apply to any changes whether they're minute or large. It's almost like with many sites they're penalizing for any changes now. You can rise up temporarily but as you said you fall back. The only thing I've seen as a bypass is substituting the index page with something totally different for 3 or 4 days then returning to original index page. I've only seen one site do it though. It's tricky business.
  24. #13
  25. No Profile Picture
    wjm
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    15
    hey randfish I tried to go to the links in your signature they are blank Please take a look at them ok

    Originally Posted by randfish
    My reply is to simply read the link in my signature.

    KW Density as a metric is largely useless, but if you take out terms and phrases that would make you more on topic, you'll lose rankings (and your kw density will drop). This is akin to saying, if I drop a bomb on your house, it will destroy the house (and your toilet will no longer flush).

    I've never advocated removing important text or targeted terms from your pages, I'm simply suggesting that when you do comparisons of sites ranking well, you recognize that kw density won't help you - you need to use some variation of term weight to have a semblance of a reasonable comparison.
  26. #14
  27. Resident Black Hat
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Posts
    1,437
    Rep Power
    20
    Originally Posted by Bud Wiser
    What's your opinion concerning KWD G-Man?

    I'm incline to believe Rand on this at least concerning G.
    I take Rand's word for it. Having said that, however, I believe the reason this myth perpetuates itself is because by using keyword density, you get a small-medium benefit that you would get from the term stuff that Rand is talking about.

    Does that make any sense at all?

    G-Man

    Comments on this post

    • GaryTheScubaGuy agrees
  28. #15
  29. SEO Chat Skiller (1500 - 1999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,888
    Rep Power
    47
    The thread to read is the one - http://forums.seochat.com/t28007/s.html

    The problem with kw density is that when you use it to measure your site's success or optimization or in comparison to other high ranking sites you are hurting yourself because kw density is NOT USED BY ANY SEARCH ENGINE

    It's not used by Google
    It's not used by MSN
    It's not used by Yahoo!
    It's not used by AskJeeves

    The reason is very simple, kw density is a very poor metric for determining whether a page is on the topic of a particular subject or phrase. It's even a poor metric for determining the importance of a particular term/phrase on a page.

    As far as I'm concerned this has been proven through papers on the subject from 10+ years ago. If IR scientists didn't use kw density in the 1990's, you can bet they haven't started now.

    Comments on this post

    • Kasparoff : I disagree. I have done plenty of experiments with KW to prove otherwise.
Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. Keyword Denisty Question
    By ptdirect in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: Jan 18th, 2005, 12:32 PM
  2. Keyword density in Google
    By newbieuk23 in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Oct 3rd, 2004, 02:10 PM
  3. keyword density trends
    By werebear in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jul 10th, 2004, 03:07 PM
  4. Keyword density
    By TigerGreen in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Aug 26th, 2003, 02:51 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo