Thread: Content and key word density

I recently viewed an article written by an "SEO expert", who was attempting to make the case that Google values linking over content relevance. In fairness, he does not throw content out but just gives it a lower value. His logic is based on the easily observed fact that there are many sites with high PR and position and low key word density. He cites the example that searching on the key word "computer" reslults with Apple at the top of thousands of matches even though "computer" appears only once on the front page of Apple's web site. Deducting from this linear view he concludes that since content--as determined by key word density--does not lead to PR and position then it must be links that account for high position. I can't say with certainty that links are not more important than content but I can say that his conclusion is faulty. One can theorize from the Apple example and similar ones that key word density is not important for relevance and I would agree.

Why do I think that this is the case? First its easily observed as in the Apple example and second from experience in finding simple solutions. Here is an example. Many years ago I developed a knowledge base to write medical (mental health condition) treatment plans. I started with the DSM IV which is a manual for diagnosing mental health conditions. Basically, what I did was to use the symptoms and their frequency and occurrence over time to suggest the diagnosis and treatment. In a way I was conducting a search for the mental health diagnosis though the things associated with the diagnosis, i.e. symptoms, without having to mention the diagnosis. It is incorrect to draw conclusions from one personal example but I can speculate that search engines do something similar to determine content relevance, otherwise all one would have to is to create a page and make sure your key word(s) has a high density. Hmmmmmmm, isn't that what many "SEO experts" do?

Google has 100,000 or more servers in their network giving them a mega super computing ability. Using such power for a linear equation such as key word density equals relevance is absurd on its surface. On the other hand, it does not take a rocket scientist to create a thesaurus like knowledge base for popular key words and terms. The knowledge base could easily be programmed for self learning and self correcting as more and more sites are indexed.

As I already stated this is speculation and is one possibility in hundreds, but my guess is that Google and the other search engines use an associative approach to key word relevance as opposed to a linear approach. Among other things this explains low key word density and high page position while maintaining a high value on content.

Maybe the title should be: "Content, Key Word Density And Linking-One Big Circle" After all, isn't linking another associative technique?

I think what you're saying is that Google doesn't necessarily look at the page just for the words "real estate" when analyzing a page for content. It also looks at words associated with "real estate", such as: homes, property, land, Realtor,...

I've read about this theory from a few different sources (please don't ask me to try and remember where ) and it does make sense to me.

Originally Posted by frobn

I recently viewed an article written by an "SEO expert", who was attempting to make the case that Google values linking over content relevance. In fairness, he does not throw content out but just gives it a lower value.

BZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT! Go to the back of the class.

The definitive article on G is the Hilltop paper which among other things discusses "hub" sites and "authority" sites. Yes, inbound and outbound links are the key factors in hub and authority sites, but its a bit more complicated than Google bombing a site with 50k links (although that did work for a while).

With that being said, it's important to have a basic comprehension of how algorithms work in general.

The Hilltop paper and a basic understanding of how algorithms work point out why you cannot make direct correlations between your site and the top ranked sites for a particular KW. However, when you use extremely large sample sizes you can begin to draw more definitive conclusions.

Now, let's think about things from a practical standpoint. Why would any legitimate web site owner want their link text to differ from the content that is present on their web site? Isn't the point of advertising (i.e. inbound links) to promote your product and get people to buy from your store (or visit your web site)?

"In this age, which believes that there is a short cut to everything, the greatest lesson to be learned is that the most difficult way is, in the long run, the easiest." (Henry Miller)

"In this age, which believes that there is a short cut to everything, the greatest lesson to be learned is that the most difficult way is, in the long run, the easiest." (Henry Miller)

Scratching my head trying to remember when I said that

Lol! :d :d :d :d :d

Originally Posted by HHI Golf Guy

Now, let's think about things from a practical standpoint. Why would any legitimate web site owner want their link text to differ from the content that is present on their web site? Isn't the point of advertising (i.e. inbound links) to promote your product and get people to buy from your store (or visit your web site)?

Excellent question. Why would they? My thought is that linking, content and word density are part of one large circle. Each boosting the other. I recently asked our content writer for 30 pages of content for a new project I am working on. My instructions were for key word density of 5 - 8%. Based on what I now believe, key word density does not need to be that high and I am going to change the target to 3 or less and build in a more natural linking scheme. I can't predict for certain if the natural associations will boost seprs but from a practical standpoint it will pay off because the content will be more effective and that should be one's goal. In other words, I am going to treat Google like any other visitor looking for relevant information.

HHI, I viewed your sites on several occasions and it appears your style is compatible with what I am saying and with my beliefs. In fact, I have asked our content writer to learn from your site. I am not going to copy your content but perhaps a little of your style. I hope I didn't give away any of your trade secrets .

Originally Posted by frobn

HHI, I viewed your sites on several occasions and it appears your style is compatible with what I am saying and with my beliefs. In fact, I have asked our content writer to learn from your site.

That may or may not be a good idea. Depending upon my target demographic for a particular web site (or even a page within a site) I will change styles.

Most of my sites target a very specific niche. If you're not careful, you might end up alienated your own "perfect customer".

Originally Posted by HMiller

I think what you're saying is that Google doesn't necessarily look at the page just for the words "real estate" when analyzing a page for content. It also looks at words associated with "real estate", such as: homes, property, land, Realtor,...

I've read about this theory from a few different sources (please don't ask me to try and remember where ) and it does make sense to me.

I think it is more subtle than that. If you take the example of Apple coming up first and reverse it by searching on Apple, Apple computer again dominates the first 100 or more matches. Why? When someone mentions apple I still think of the fruit first, but I may the be the exception. Apple has come to be associated in our minds with computers so much so that they are now synonymous. This didn't happen overnight but it slowly grew into our consciousness. Now think of how a computer works, it has no preconceived ideas that are not programmed into it. Let's take real estate for an example. Imagine google's 100,000 computers scanning web pages and making a notation for each and every word that appears on a page with the term real estate. Computers don't sleep and never get tired. When one breaks down a clone takes its place. So the computers just lazily make notations then at some point when together they have billions of notations they examine them for correlations. They find things like conch and eyebrow house on pages with key west and real estate. Or maybe plantation when Hilton head and real estate are on the page. Or art deco with South Beach. Slowly over time the 100,000 computers know what is likely to be on a real estate page in a particular area. From this slow meticulous and methodical scanning comes relevance. Primitive but effective and much the same way we humans have made the association between Apple and computer. Notice in this example that relevance is the association between a particular meaning of words peculiar to a particular area. I think this is why HHI correctly cautioned me about not copying his style too closely.

If the above is true, someone may ask, why do SEO experts focus on key word density and why do they tell us to make them stand out with <h1> and <b> tags and place them strategically on the page? For one thing these tips do help especially when there is little else on page that search engines consider relevant. To be fair, SEO expects do tell us good content is important, but if that all that is to SEO what why do we need experts? It is also human nature to try to outsmart or outfox the powers to be. In the long run though it may be best to treat key word, linking and good content as a large circle with each part supporting the boosting the other parts.

Disclaimer. I have no way of knowing if this is how google or other search engines work. My opinion is that search engines take many approaches to determine relevance through associations. How they do it is not nearly as important as knowing that the result is an upward spiral towards relevance.

IMHO google does not give weight to content. I can not remember which real estate market I was searching and I think it was in more than one. Ranked in the top 15 for a primary real estate phrase was an online drug order company who had set up a real estate agents page and had a few links on it.

Originally Posted by Las Vegas Homes

IMHO google does not give weight to content. I can not remember which real estate market I was searching and I think it was in more than one. Ranked in the top 15 for a primary real estate phrase was an online drug order company who had set up a real estate agents page and had a few links on it.

That is an interesting observation and what you say may be true. It is too bad that you did not make a note of the site because if google gives PR and position in some logical manner then something has to be going on. You said the site's main focus was pharmaceuticals, did not have much RE content and had only a few RE links. I would imagine without much RE content there could not have been much key word density. So in this case all 3 pillars of SEO were weak. One specutlation that comes to mind, suppose that the content Google gives highest weight to is informational and that this site had the important "real estate informational" associations (important to Google) that put it into a top RE informational site.

In our local Key West market the top two sites are not RE sites but are loaded with local content. My quick analysis of these sites tells me that they lack specific RE key word density but the associative words and phases to "Key West Real Estate" are strong. Perhaps in your citing, and I can only speculate, many non-obvious associations were present. What they are, if they indeed exist, would take much more analysis.

Even if Google ignors content it still does not lessen the need for relevant content for the visitors who do arrive at your site.

One last point, while we can speculate from one or a few examples, it is impossible to draw any conclusions. Such examples, however interesting, may just be flukes or due to a bug in the underlying program.