DetikAds Review

The web pages actually at the top of Google have clearly one thing in common: good writing. Do not get so caught up in the usual SEO sacred cows and bugbears, such as PageRank, frames and JavaScript, you forget that the content of your site.

I was recently struck by the fact that the top-ranking web pages on Google are always much better written than the vast majority of what we read on the web. Of course, this should not be a surprise, given the frequency officials Google proclaim the importance of good content. However, SEO wisdom has little to say about good writing.

Google, the world’s richest media really ignore traditional standards of quality in the publishing world? Google, like many Web site owners, so really caught in the process of the algorithm that it misses the whole point ? Apparently not.
The most common site content Page success characteristics, Whatever the technical mechanism, Google is a fairly good job of identifying sites with good content and rewarding them with high rankings. I looked at Google five pages for the five most searched on keywords, as defined by WordTracker on June 27, 2005. Typically, the first five pages receive an overwhelming majority of the traffic delivered by Google.

The web pages which contains the written content (a small but significant portion were image galleries) all shared the following characteristics:

• Update: frequent updating content at least once every few weeks, and more often, once a week or more.
• Spelling and grammar: few or no mistakes. No page had more than three misspelled words or four grammatical errors. Note: spelling and grammar errors were identified by the use of Microsoft Word to verify the functionality, then ruled out that words marked misspellings that are either proper names or new words that are simply not in the dictionary. Google uses Does SpellCheck? I can already hear the scoffing on the other side of this computer screen. Before rejecting the idea completely, keep in mind that no one really knows what the 100 factors in Google’s algorithm. But if the mechanism SpellCheck or a shot to better link popularity thanks to great credibility, or anything else, the results remain the same.
• Paragraphs: primarily brief (1-4 sentences). Few or no long blocks of text.
• Lists: both bulleted and numbered, form a large part of the text.
• Sentence Length: very brief (10 words or less). In the medium and long length of sentences are sprinkled throughout the text rather than clumped.
• Contextual relevance: text contains numerous terms related to the keyword, as well as stem variations of the keyword.

Seo Bugbears and sacred cows
A look closely at the results shows that, practically speaking, a number of SEO bugbears and sacred cows May issue under the classification as well.

• PageRank. The median was 4 PageRank. A page has a PageRank of 0. Of course, it could simply be yet another demonstration that the small number PageRank you in your browser window is not what Google uses thing. But if you’re one of those who attaches primary value to this small number is food for thought.
• Frames. The two web pages for the most searched keyword-on the employment of cadres. Cadres May still be a bad web design idea of a usability perspective, and May ruin your search engine rankings if your site a link system depends on them. But there are worse ways you can make in the foot.
• JavaScript formatted internal links. Most Web sites use JavaScript for their links to internal pages. Again, this is not the best practice web design, but there are worse things you could do.
• Links: Most Web pages contained ten or more links, many contain more than 30, in defiance of the SEO bugbears of “link popularity bleeding.” In addition, almost all the pages contained a significant number of non-useful links. The number of pages, non-relevant outnumber links. Of course, it is not clear what benefit the website owners hope to get to outside links on the pages. He was a proven way to reduce the conversion rates and losing visitors. But Google does not seem to care if your site makes money.
• Originality: a large number of pages contained content copied from other websites. In all cases, the content was apparently written professional content distributed on a free-reprint. Note: the reprint content did not flow content. However, no website consisted solely of free-reprint content. There were always at least a substantial portion of original content, most often the majority of the page.

Recommendations

• Make sure a professional writer, or at least someone who can tell good writing from bad, is creating your site’s content, especially in the case of a search engine optimization campaign. If you are a SEO, make sure you get a pro to the content. A shocking number of SEOs write incredibly badly. I even had clients whose sites have fewer conversions or page views by having SEO with them, even when they have a strong uptick unique visitors. Most visitors simply click the “back” face the unpalatable text, so that increased traffic is lost bandwidth.
• If you write your own content, make sure it passes through the hands of a skilled copyeditor or writer before going online.
• Update your content often. It is important to add two new pages and update existing pages. If you can not afford original content, use free-reprint content.
• Distribute your content to other websites on a free-reprint. This will help your website get links in exchange for the right to publish the contents. It will also disseminate your message and enhance your visibility. Fears of a “duplicate content penalty” for free-reprint content (as opposed to duplication of content within a site) are not justified.

In short, if you have a website that the maturity is already indexed and getting traffic, you should consider making sure that the bulk of your investment in your site is devoted to its content, rather than design The old school search engine optimization, or linking campaigns.