SEO Help!!

[extofer]

I'm pulling my hair with this one. I noticed my site in question has be cached by google, and with the analysis I made, my keyword prominence and density is better than the site on top of me. Why is that?? I'm ranked 12 or 13 and my SEO studio studies the content KW is better than the top 3 sites. Please help....
2nd part... this site was done before me, I took over, is there a chance that tage like this will get the site penalised??:

Please help

[stymiee]

Hidden text won't get you banned unless you are using it to manipulate the SERPs. Lots of content is hidden initially then shown upon an event (like a user clicking on a link or a dynamic navigational menu).

Keyword prominence and density is overrated. Don't spend too much time worrying about them. Especially with Google. You'll have far more luck improving your rankings with Google by getting more relevant links to your website. Make sure those links use anchor text with the keywords you hope to rank well for.

[canadafred]

You'll have far more luck improving your rankings with Google by getting more relevant links to your website. Make sure those links use anchor text with the keywords you hope to rank well for.

It requires no luck to displace a keyphrase competitor; when one decides to outclass them with better crafted content.

SEO strategies that seek externally to empower their content in order to increase web page rankings in the SERPs are not sustainable.Linking strategists are such desperate opponents, dependant and starving … spare some importance for a blind SEO today ma’am, thank you very much … on their way to the results pages cemetery along with that little green bar they worship so much.

Links will once again return to their rightful places as basic web elements; friendly facilitators for a user experience. Joiner things, innocent Internet binders, never intended to stir such a foolhardy frenzy; toss them around like sprouting money pods hoping with luck to push the linear greenly up one more notch, just fodder for fanatical swine.

They will rise again, links, for the visitor next time. PR is an obsolete factor in the SERPs.

[stymiee]

It requires no luck to displace a keyphrase competitor; when one decides to outclass them with better crafted content.

SEO strategies that seek externally to empower their content in order to increase web page rankings in the SERPs are not sustainable.

Linking strategists are such desperate opponents, dependant and starving … spare some importance for a blind SEO today ma’am, thank you very much … on their way to the results pages cemetery along with that little green bar they worship so much.

Links will once again return to their rightful places as basic web elements; friendly facilitators for a user experience. Joiner things, innocent Internet binders, never intended to stir such a foolhardy frenzy; toss them around like sprouting money pods hoping with luck to push the linear greenly up one more notch, just fodder for fanatical swine.

They will rise again, links, for the visitor next time. PR is an obsolete factor in the SERPs.

When it comes to Google, links matter. It is very cut and dry. I won't argue that content is king. I wholeheartedly preach that religiously ( I've even done so in these forums several times already ). But just do a search for " miserable failure " and the power of links in Google's algorithm is obvious.

If you want to rank well in Google today, and for the foreseeable future, you need to get incoming links to your pages from relevant sites with good anchor text. The content is king part comes in to play because sites with good content will naturally find it easier to acquire those links as webmasters are more likely to willingly link to, and even unilaterally link to, quality sites.

PR is an obsolete factor in the SERPs.

I never mentioned PR. I mentionedrelevant links and anchor text. Those two factors outweigh everything else in Google algorithm including PR.

[canadafred]

miserable failure

Not a good example due to its incredibly manipulated status and obscure nature. Try another one. I'll do this all night. Show me!

[stymiee]

Not a good example due to its incredibly manipulated status and obscure nature. Try another one. I'll do this all night. Show me!

That's the point. The page hasnothing to do with that search phrase and yet ranks number 1. Why? Because in Google algorithm anchor text even supersedes the content on the page. Any page can rank number for any search term if it has enough inbound links with the right anchor text. That's a perfect example of links are important in SEO with Google.

[canadafred]

That's a perfect example of links are important in SEO with Google.

You have provided an example of a mutated experiment gone mainstream to become the #1 SEO secret ever. This deception is thanks to good marketing. As long as this perverted perception of fact permeates SEO strategies all over the world, the better ethical SEO experts become. So keep it up, keep going with this and convince as many short-cut seekers as you want, but they will get better visional in time, they will see better soon and they will look at those who have pushed this on them as SEO experts, my counterparts in a desecrated passion.

The obscure term has no meaning and is not in a competitive niche keyphrase market. If the keyphrase had any value whatsoever, you would have a position however weak.

In this case, pitiful as it is, anchor text is sufficient to drive it to #1 because of the keyphrase market conditions. If you think in a minute that I am going to allow you to pass this nonsense on unchecked, you have underestimated my constitution.

Try another example, not so blatantly useless, so I can more explain some of the hazards of this type of web site promotion expertise of begging others for undeserved importance.

Seeking externally for empowerment in any way is not a sustainable SEO strategy, in the real world. As a matter of fact, this type of ranking technique has very little to do with search engine optimization at all. It is rooted in the misguidance of powerful deceivers. The globe's a-frenzied for a piece of the apple pie.

Search engine manipulators, they’ll try anything to move that little green line up a notch, thinking it has some kind of god-given reward at 10. Such perpetuating nonsense.

[stymiee]

You seem to think that external factors are not a part of SEO. You are sorely mistaken. All of the major search engines use external factors, primarily links, in their ranking algorithms and for good reason. On page factors are under direct control of the webmaster and can be manipulated. Off page factors are not under the control of the webmaster and cannot be manipulated nearly as easily. This allows for a more "natural" way to determine a page's relevance.

[canadafred]

You seem to think that external factors are not a part of SEO. You are sorely mistaken. All of the major search engines use external factors, primarily links, in their ranking algorithms and for good reason. On page factors are under direct control of the webmaster and can be manipulated. Off page factors are not under the control of the webmaster and cannot be manipulated nearly as easily. This allows for a more "natural" way to determine a page's relevance.

I realize that external factors affect the rankings. In many cases that I come across in challenging SERPs, the leaders are there mostly due to external factors exclusively. The have no content of significance!

The best SEO is the one who begs for importance the most. Let's get real.

Continue this propogating deceit. The link angle is broken. Manipulators.

[stymiee]

Sounds like your real issue is with spammers.

Anyway, as long as links play an important factor in the search engines' algorithms, and they do now and will for quite some time, anyone remotely concerned with SEO will have to seek them to improve their rankings. Not to mention seeking incoming links goes beyond SEO. They're also great for bringing in traffic. So why wouldn't someone seek incoming links?

[canadafred]

So why wouldn't someone seek incoming links?

Nothing, as long as it is a natural occurrence.

Any SEO technique that considers seeking externally to empower sub-standard content because in itself cannot generate enough merit on its own, is manipulating the content’s credibility by artificially enhancing its importance. The search engines clearly warn us against this. You are talking about a previously effective and trendy SERP manipulation technique whose day has passed you by. Sure, you’ll still find the postured fluff around, but it is on the search engines chopping block. Go ahead; deceive with all your might these little textual anchors that push the green line up. It is a pointless pursuit.

Today, search engines are rewarding web pages for their unique well crafted content in a much more sustainable and powerful way than any link manipulating strategy. Link strategies disassemble at the coming of an ethical SEO freight train. All around me are the freed people with no more purpose in SEO left; perpetuating a pitiful deceit in order to eat. PR beggards.

The search engines will continue to target link brokers, link farms and all unnatural linking strategies of all kinds. They will undoubtedly continue to evolve to better filter out the fluff; out of their own need to survive, and there will still be those like you with trendy SEO unqualified advice.

[stymiee]

You are right that the search engines are out to weed out bogus links farms and such. Google has grown quite good at it although Yahoo and especially MSN are still in their infancy at it. But to suggest a webmaster should simply sit on your hands and wait for the links to roll on in is ludicrous. Seeking incoming links is a natural part of promoting any website and to suggest that seeking links will cause your site to be penalized is a gross over-generalization.

The search engines don't warn us against seeking links. They warn us against manipulating the SERPs. Just because it is possible to manipulate the SERPs with links doesn't make seeking them bad. Making a link farm: bad. Adding your site to directories: good.

You talk about the search engines rewarding quality content. Do you know how they do it? By judging the incoming links to those sites. It's actually a logical, and interesting, method to do so but it makes sense. If there was a better way to do it they would be using it. Not to say such a system doesn't exist. It's just that no one has found it yet. If you want we can go back to the old Altavista way of ranking pages: counting keywords. Then we can have more pages stuffed with keywords all over again.

Today, sites with high quality links pointing to them outrank sites that don't. It cannot be denied. You can avoid getting links to your site if you want to, just don't expect to rank well in the SERPs.

[Rankenstein]

Far from warning us against getting links, Google specifically say it's the way to increase your ranking:
"In general, webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by increasing the number of high-quality sites that link to their pages."
From:
http://www.google.co.uk/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34432&topic=8524

[canadafred]

Far from warning us against getting links, Google specifically say it's the way to increase your ranking: "In general, webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by increasing the number of high-quality sites that link to their pages." From: http://www.google.co.uk/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34432&topic=8524

You almost sound like you are making a good point, unfortunately you too have been mislead in this green bar frenzy.

You are referring to PageRank pumping I am assuming. Google has repeatedly warned us about unnatural linking startegies being in their sights. Links are indeed a big factor today that drive useless, irrelevant and valueless content to the top of the SERPs. This loophole has been overly exploited. In fact, it is a dangerous game and should not be deployed on normal business web site promotions.

SEOs all have a choice. Of the thousands of filtering and discovery systems that Google uses to rank web pages, do they really want to jump onto the linking bandwagon? Just think about it SEOs, think about your client's investments. What would be the professional, ethical thing to do with your customer's investment? Increase the web site's importance externally? Doesn't sound like a very stable Internet marketing plan in my eyes.

Ever have this thought: What is going to happen in the SERPs tomorrow? Do you care about tomorrow?

Ethical SEOs should stick to what is traditionally is unaffected by manipulation trends. Simply create brilliant content and offer it to the search engines for perusal. The winners will always end up to be the ones that play fair, don't look for short-cuts and play safe. It takes a lot longer to get there of course. It is only those that employ sound search engine optimization techniques that have the opportunity to not only attain top positions in competitive niche keyphrase markets but to sustain a dominating Internet presence.

It's the wishy washy SEOs that give my profession a bad name. Trendy manipulators, PR beggards and link startegists. Whatever the trendy manipulation tactics are does not make for sound SEO advice to the unsuspecting.

[stymiee]

Man, you are insane.

What's really funny/scary is you quote Google's report on Meta tag usage and claim that is proof they use Meta tags in their algorithm but then take a quote from Google where they explicitly tell you that getting high quality links in a good thing and then say it is hogwash. Do you actually hear yourself when you speak? Seriously.

[canadafred]

Do you actually hear yourself when you speak? Seriously.

Yes I do. I have accepted that others like you twist my arguments around to discredit me. That comes with being honest. I am under non-stop attack by services like yours. I accept that as part of being an ethics advocate in such a volatile industry.

My message may get garbled with all the clouds of chaos about me stirred by every faction a black hats, but it is a simple message.Business web sites should focus on content quality and presentation of that content, nothing else, for that is the art of SEO.

[Rankenstein]

Huh? OK canadafred:
The lad in the first wanted to know how to rank higher - I gave him Google's general (and true) advice. Get links. That's straight from the horse's mouth. (For me the links should be from sites with the same general theme as the sites I'm doing for, but that is irrelevant).

You say don't bother getting links. Which begs the question, from which alternate dimension are you channeling your bunkum? Your advice is certainly spot on for getting people to link to you. That's not in doubt. But to say that people shouldn't bother with getting links when Google says you should, any decent SEO knows you should, webmasters even before IBLs affected rank at all knew you should...it's not ethical, it's just dumb.

I write content myself. Probably around 40,000 words in the last few months. I write it all myself. It's what people want. It's on topic. So what? It's important but it is nowhere near the be-all and end-all. Anyone who says it is, is wrong. No argument. I'm telling you.

If Google says do it and it will increase your rank, do it. Anything else is gibberish.

[Bleys]

I have been having some fun reading some of the lunacy you've been spouting in this thread, canadafred (though I worry about anyone who actually listens to it). I had no intention of participating, until I got to the following:

You almost sound like you are making a good point, unfortunately you too have been mislead in this green bar frenzy.

You are referring to PageRank pumping I am assuming.

I think that's a rather good illustration of the reason why no one should listen to you. You very obviously did NOT read the link that Rankenstein posted. Let me post it again just in case you forgot: http://www.google.co.uk/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34432&topic=8524

You seem to claim that Google is talking about PageRank here, and not about SERPs. Au contraire, my friend. If you had actually bothered to read the link, you'd have noticed that it begins with:

Sites' positions in our search results are determined automatically based on a number of factors, which are explained in more detail at http://www.google.com/technology/index.html .

(Emphasis mine.) This document isspecifically about SERPS.

Your debate tactic seems to be one of "if they don't agree with me, I'll just make up an answer to suit my needs." Why should anyone trust your "knowledge" of Google and SEO once you've made it clear that you don't actually bother to read anything that Google themselves says on the topic?

[canadafred]

Man, you are insane.

What's really funny/scary is you quote Google's report on Meta tag usage and claim that is proof they use Meta tags in their algorithm but then take a quote from Google where they explicitly tell you that getting high quality links in a good thing and then say it is hogwash. Do you actually hear yourself when you speak? Seriously.

First of all, there is no proof of nothing either way, is what I said. To suggest omitting the Keywords tag is a proposition that has no merit. There are two things that do prove that Google does not ignore them and leaves the door wide open to assume that it still has uses for them, when they are available. Until otherwise notifed, that is all I have to go on in making a decision to continue using Keywords tags.

1. Google does not indicate that they ignore them, the Keywords tag.
2. The Keywords tag was created by the search engines themselves as well as the Description tag, because of this, the search engines certainly cannot penalize a web page that uses them appropriately and HTML tags that become obsolete are no longer valid in markup standards. Until some Google official or web coding standard body declare this a fact, it becomes bad SEO advice to give.

Secondly, my entire position regarding link strategies deployed in any effort to artificially enhance mediocre content stands firm. It is a pointless pursuit and subject to penalty. It does not matter to me that this is the standard SEO technique for today. It is wrong. A good search engine optimizer never needs to beg external sources to empower content, to give a web page's own content more value. A flimsy structure those link strategies nowadays, a threatened breed. Google's got a big chopping block and knows how to use it.

[Rankenstein]

My god, you want more? Alrighty then.

"When your site is ready:
Have other relevant sites link to yours...
...Make sure all the sites that should know about your pages are aware your site is online...
...Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites."

From: http://www.google.co.uk/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769"

Do me a favour and read the page this time.

Or, we can go at it another way, since quoting Google's official guidelines which directly contradict you has previously proved futile (obviously that's too trendy for you and Google are self-evidently beggards and PR pumpers).

Q: What is the one thing you absolutely, indisputably need to be in Google?

Take your time.