McDar Experiment

Why not discuss it here? It is still on the topic. The only exception would be if you wanted to discuss it more privately then you could start a new thread in the 'underground' section of the forum.

 

Bob,

I don't think it needs to be private. I did discover a few bugs in the Keyword Tool I want to fix as well.

One "bug" is that when you put our domain name in the search, it does not limit the results to just your main page. The results will actually represent the first page found from your site in the results. I want to fix the tool so it accurately displays the page returned for your site.

...give me a little time to fix this and I will present the example here.

 

Now that is real interesting because on my timber site I placed the index page thinking that G would come around in a little while but to my surprise I ended up at no 2 for a phrase that now I wish I didnt have in my title and I'm having a job to get google to accept anything else as a "theme" for the site as at this moment but it is early days.

This is where I get the opinion that Freshbot sets the "theme" for the site and then all else follows - so if you want to get up and running quickly you must get the first page absolutely dead on with a group of other pages in the first instance of putting it down.

I look forward to it and, as Compar says, let's have it here.

 

OK - still some bugs but good enough for now!

This is a simple experiment with manipulating the page title.

Go to the Keyword Analysis Tool (link below) and enter in

Site: www.mcdar.com
Keyword: sleeping bags tents

The results show a page returned form the site we entered at
position #17, 1 Backlink, and #12 for allinanchor.

These numbers all fall within the numbers in the results for the other top ten sites. Not great numbers but maybe close enough!

If you look at the page titles for the top ten sites (Note: I made the keyword a hyperlink so you could go right to the search). You'll notice in this case MOST of the titles have the keywords in them.

I really have not optimized any page for this search but I have just changed the title of the page returned in #17 position to see what effect it will have on it's placement for this search.

Title was - McDar Camping Equipment
New Title - Sleeping Bags Tents - McDar Camping Equipment

I will watch to see what effect this change will make.

Caryl

 

Update:

I just did a search for Sleeping Bags and could not believe my eyes! (I know it won't last, BUT).

Sleeping Bags - McDar Outdoor Gear

position#104 allinanchor#32

I think that is great for a page that is barely 48hrs. old and certainly all of the links to it have not been discovered yet.

I know it will be changing.

Caryl

 

I got similar for your search but I also got in the pages column

24 for site:http: . ( 0.12 seconds) ttp://www.mimi.privat.t-online.de/shop/index.html Similar pages http:/www2.mozcom.com/~zaec/ Similar pages http:/web.tiscali.it/longonimarcoulm/ Similar pages [ More results

and links in the large numbers, 5.000.000 or so!!!

What will make this interesting though is if the overall position gets to come down when that Title was placed originally as Mcdar etc...

If you search on G for sleeping bags you are now 100 with the new title

If it stalls it might be because of McDar still in the title ...any other comments here?

and the solution would be to take out your name...bless you.

 

Foxy,

Could you PM me with details of the problem you experienced in the results.
ie exact url used and search term? Does it give the same results when you repeat the search?

I was working the tool yesterday, maybe I messed something up.

Thanks,
Caryl

 

IMPORTANT TO NOTE:

As we are constructing this experiment from the beginning, most elements are very controled.

ALL anchortext to the page sleeping-bags.htm say ONLY sleeping bags - NO EXTRA terms ie. new sleeping bags or mcdar sleeping bags

I just checked out our page and find that we are
#32 for allinanchor search for sleeping bags. (plural)
#n/a for "" "" "" sleeping bag (singular)

Google is NOT stemming Anchor Text!

I have found so far... If your target keywords are ex. Sleeping Bags
Anchortext:
Sleeping Bags (only) - most weight
Sleeping Bags BlaBla - less weight
BlaBla Sleeping Bags - even less weight
Sleeping Bag (singular) - NO weight - as far as anchortext is concerned.

Caryl

 

I think all your conclusions above are correct with the exception of stemming. I think Google stems. Maybe it just takes them a little longer. My pharmacy site is highly optimized for 'online pharmacy'. It is the only thing I use in the anchor text. But Google ranks the site higher in the SERPs for the plural version "online pharmacies". I do think the plural version appears in the content, but that is the only place.

Do you have the singular phrase in the content on the page anywhere? Possibly, and this is pure speculation, Google needs to be able to fine the stemmed version somewhere on the site before they will rank for it. If they had this rule in their algo it would prevent stupid stemming mistakes. Just a thought.

 

Bob,

I think you misunderstood my post. The numbers I was comparing were allinanchor

In the regular search results, the page ranks 103 for sleeping bags and 108 for sleeping bag.

Keword density is reported as follows...

sleeping bags 15.35 % 61.67

sleeping bag 10.09 % 59.51

So, it could be argued that the discrepency in SERP placement is due to keyword density. It very well may be.

I ran side by side searches using the Google Datacenter Watch tool and here is a comparison of the two sites.

1st: Sleeping Bag
#1 position . Camping Accessories, Gear, And Supplies : allinanchor: #22
#14 position . Barbie Glamour and Glitter Sleeping Bag allinanchor: #1

2nd: Sleeping Bags
#1 position . Camping Accessories, Gear, And Supplies : allinanchor: #1
#n/a position . Barbie Glamour and Glitter Sleeping Bag allinanchor: #n/a

Please note that "Barbie Glamor" is from a real big site 8150 pages, 8010 links.

I guess, at this point, I would target plural and hope it encompasses, in some way, the singular. But I don't think it works the other way around.

Caryl

 

Bob,

I have just checked the "Barbie" page for keyword density and found that you are indeed right again. In that the "Barbie" page has a keyword density of 3.64% for sleeping bags AND there is NO OCCURRENCE of "Bags" (plural) on the page.

FYI - from Shawn's Keyword Suggestion Tool
sleeping bags 633.0 searches/day
sleeping bag 222.0 searches/day


Boy, would I like to play with that "Barbie" page, one "s" at a time. Just to see how many "S"s it would take to make it come up for sleeping bags.

Caryl

 

Let's take this thread in yet another direction. McDar, you are one of the last webmaster who still seems to be using frames. I always thought the general wisdom was that the SEs didn't like frames.

I just looked at what Google has cached for the page we are working on and all they have cached is the frame with the sleeping bags. I wouldn't suggest we change anything now because we don't want to introduce more variables in our experiment, but I would like to have a discussion about the use of frames.

 

Well, shoot...

 

I have and do use them every where with some amazing results in both framset and iframe forms.

What is good is the noframes as it enables you to achieve hi density and links in an unorthodox way without upsetting the punter

It allows for the relevant page to be linked to "found" and then using js redirect bring up the "bigger picture" - similarly for iframes

 

A major problem I heard discussed with frames is a link to an inner page would bring the page up without the frameset.

I have no problem with this as a javascript is called on the load of a page to check for the frames. If not found, the frames are loaded and the referring page is loaded in it's appropriate frame.

I like using frames in that I can link to a page on another site to offer a visitor more information, but I can choose to load that external page in the main window of our site and not send the visitor off to a new site, possibly losing them.

I designed a site for a fishing guide that books Fly Fishing "Sports". Most of his customers are from out of state, some from out of the country. On his site, they can not only reserve their dates for fishing, but they can view all of the bed and breakfasts in the area, book a flight, and rent a car. (All without leaving his website!)

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:

The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
Position#n/a allinanchor:#n/a - 04/08/2004
position#104 allinanchor#32 - 04/09/2004
Postion#232 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/11/2004

also important to note:
on 04/08/2004 the page came up for these searches.
Ledge Sleeping Bags #2
McDar Sleeping Bags #2
Deep Creek Sleeping Bags #2

Today it does not come up for any of them!

I've decided that it would be easier to observe progress, or lack there of, if I just continue to add to the history.

 

Another interesting observation for today!

The "snippets" Google is using in many of the results are the META DESCRIPTIONS!

 

They are known to use that but not the meta keywords

I've had a suspicion recently that they have been using it a bit more....!

 

Many people have been "lulled" into thinking that since Google does not pay attention to them anymore, they have since been omitting them.

I have seen threads on different forms addressing this issue. There was always the voice of reason chimming in to warn these folks that "just because Google does not use these anymore, most of the other search engines do, so keep using them". That advice may have fallen on deft ears though.

Some people may be paying a price if thier keywords are NOT there.

 

I think that is because of the frames. But it is also the reason that you always want to include a meta description and write it so that you would be happy to have it used to actually describe your site.

BTW I think this thread just set the record for the first thread to exceed 100 posts. Not bad considering that there are only three of us active on it.

I don't know if Shawn should give us a gold star or expell us