Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

Jill L. <TotallyMunged (AT) TooManyUsenetEmailHarvesters (DOT) com> wrote:

Anyone else face this same issue of having "natural language" content
writing take your KW density too high across the board? How did you
handle it? Ignore it? Obey the SEs?

Ignore it, or moreover: I don't measure KW density. If it doesn't read
natural, I change it until it does.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:07:46 +0100, Jill L.
<TotallyMunged (AT) TooManyUsenetEmailHarvesters (DOT) com> wrote:

I'm pretty sure Im almost 3x the "unofficial acceptable densities"
for several KWs that I would like to eventually be google-able for.

Can't you just water your site down? Add some irrelevant text?
Replace KW with other words?

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=EBAS&...-stoichiometry
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&...ion_equilibria
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&...n_calcul ator

"Jill L." <TotallyMunged (AT) TooManyUsenetEmailHarvesters (DOT) com> skrev i
meddelandet news:5vloq1drft1b90rt2gsuc8bf8k5t53hujb (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:44:57 +0100, Borek
m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:07:46 +0100, Jill L.
TotallyMunged (AT) TooManyUsenetEmai...ters (DOT) com> wrote:

I'm pretty sure Im almost 3x the "unofficial acceptable densities"
for several KWs that I would like to eventually be google-able for.

Can't you just water your site down? Add some irrelevant text?

Do you mean that the percentage of keywords in the whole text should be
lower?
What about this page for the word "Italien"?
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/faktaomitalien.php
What could I improve (apart from the number of internal links)?

--
Luigi Donatello Asero
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv...ersattning.php

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:07:46 GMT, Jill L.
<TotallyMunged (AT) TooManyUsenetEmailHarvesters (DOT) com> wrote:

On 23 Dec 2005 18:03:26 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Jill L. <TotallyMunged (AT) TooManyUsenetEmailHarvesters (DOT) com> wrote:


Anyone else face this same issue of having "natural language" content
writing take your KW density too high across the board? How did you
handle it? Ignore it? Obey the SEs?

Ignore it, or moreover: I don't measure KW density. If it doesn't read
natural, I change it until it does.

Those were my first thoughts too, John. But then, of course, I
realized just how few SE clicks Ill be enjoying while ranked at #342.
Probably on the order of.... 'none'.

That's a pretty painful result considering the time put into the site.
I probably could have tossed up any old site, done no SEO on it, and
gotten the same results. It's along the lines of "now that Ive jumped
on this damned bus, when to get off?"

Answer: I can't just yet..

I'm pretty sure Im almost 3x the "unofficial acceptable densities"
for several KWs that I would like to eventually be google-able for.

Before I can take your advice to heart though, let me ask you this
follow up question: Do you know what your KW density is, for your
most effective SE phrase?

I know what it is. It's irrelevant, is what it is. Depending upon your
IBLs, of course. And unless that factor is accounted for, which you
make no mention of, it's like saying something is big. Big compared to
what?
If you take my meaning..

BB


--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:11:54 GMT, Jill L.
<TotallyMunged (AT) TooManyUsenetEmailHarvesters (DOT) com> wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:44:57 +0100, Borek
m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:07:46 +0100, Jill L.
TotallyMunged (AT) TooManyUsenetEmai...ters (DOT) com> wrote:

I'm pretty sure Im almost 3x the "unofficial acceptable densities"
for several KWs that I would like to eventually be google-able for.

Can't you just water your site down? Add some irrelevant text?

Sure, I can do that. And I understand that I will have to do it if I
want to pull my site out of the 300s in the Go-go SERPS. But that
was sort of what I was lamenting in my OP. By having to add lots of
extra text, and substituting lots of pronouns, and then still having
to remove my professional association credentials to get to a KW
density to make a SE happy seems so "un-natural" to me.

Then don't do it.

From my POV, that is breaking the natural language. If I gotta do it,
I certainly will.

Well, you don't gotta. Gotta think more, maybe, yes, but if it feels
wrong to your professional self then don't do it..

In fact, Im already on it. But it's quite apparent
I do not have a fluid 'content writing' technique if Im spending so
much time on rewriting, then replacing again, words because Ive used
them too many times.

My OP was actually wondering if anyone else was having similar issues
when writing for generic 3 KW phrases. Or whether it's just my own
style of writing that's hanging me out to dry in the SERPS.

Maybe you should get that ebook by Karen Thackston, um, here

http://copywritingcourse.com/keyword/

it has stimulating ideas in it.

BB

--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

"Jill L." wrote:

On 23 Dec 2005 18:03:26 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

Jill L. <TotallyMunged (AT) TooManyUsenetEmailHarvesters (DOT) com> wrote:


Anyone else face this same issue of having "natural language" content
writing take your KW density too high across the board? How did you
handle it? Ignore it? Obey the SEs?

Ignore it, or moreover: I don't measure KW density. If it doesn't read
natural, I change it until it does.

Those were my first thoughts too, John. But then, of course, I
realized just how few SE clicks Ill be enjoying while ranked at #342.
Probably on the order of.... 'none'.

I cannot take yur word for it that kw density is the problem with your
site -- and i don't think anyone really can.

For one, my kw density is high and i rank #1 - #5 at google for 99 out
of 100 kws and kw phrases that i aim for, so i do not cannot see why
this is your problem.

For two, for all i know your site is 99% flash sideshows with images for
buttons and the only text is in plain, never bolded, never linked, hever
headlines, never strong text and there are fewer than 50 words per page.

In other words -- i have no clue why you think your kw density is
killing your rankings -- but i would be glad to have look at your site
and see if i agree that this is yur problem.

True life example of why you just ought to list your URL and let us
check it out:

I had a two-hour conversation last night with a man who had helped
design a page that plagiarized one of my pages -- turns out the site has
242 pages and every single one is a plagiarism of some site or another
-- but THAT is not the point -- the point is that after two years and
thousands of dollars invested (and the use of Dream Weaver, Overture
KWs, and Web Position (hack-ak!) Gold, the site is going to be going
down due to non-renewal of the domain name in less than two months
because the traffic was less than 100 visitors per day and "nothing ever
sold". In other words, it was a complete business failure. And why? Five reasons:

1) every page has exactly the same <title>Title Here</title> text
2) star site design with dead-end "fingers" insted of net design
3) menu bars are images, not live type
4) great kw density, but no kws are used as intra-site links
5) no intra-site linking at all except from menu (image) bar

And this site LOOKS good! It sports great graphics, it loads fast, it
offers unique freebie programs for play, and the text is fine (hey, it
ought to be, considering how much is stolen fom my site!) -- but it
still has below 200th plce ranking at google on chosen kws.

My point? I talked to this guy for two hours and he never understood why
the site didn't rank well. He liked the way it looked and the services
it offered so much that he could not imagine a search engine would not
care about that -- and he felt that the "public" simply didn't like the
topic! And no matter how often i told him that his problems were
structural, not cosmetic (and named them, as above), he ddn't get it.

So, here you come and tell me your trouble is that you have two much kw
density and i have no confidence that this is the issue at all --
because often site designers can't see the forest for the trees.

Cordially,

cat yronwode

P.S. The amazing true-life upshot is that this guy is offering to give
me -- for free! -- the entire two-year-old domain -- domain name, page
layouts, fancy graphics, and all. If i accept, all i need to do is write
original text for 242 pages (not a big chore...;-)) and do a site-wide
find/replace to create intra-site links on the chosen kws and kw
phrases, plug my own products into the commercial end of the site,
replace the image-menu with text-menu, add a bread crumb tril header or
footer, link it to nd from my other sites. Since the site is more or
less a niche version of my own site, the fit would be great. All i'd
really need is the capacity to survive on 4 hours of sleep. Tempting,
though.

catherine yronwode wrote:

So, here you come and tell me your trouble is that you have two much kw
density and i have no confidence that this is the issue at all --
because often site designers can't see the forest for the trees.

I'm with Catherine on this one, there are so many things that may result
in bad rankings and keyword densisity is way down the list - if it is
even there at all. I've seen sites rank #1 with keyword densities
(excluding code) from 0% to 100%.

----------------------
http://www.abcseo.com/

"Jill L." wrote:

Lets say again I had over-optimized my site for the phrase "child
day care" & "child day care seattle", too.

Then let's say I landed the following Gu-Gull Rankings with it:

"child babysit company" - #1
"child babysit company seattle" - #1
"kids care seattle" - #2
"kiddie daycare seattle" - #3
"seattle care day" - #5
"child day seattle" - #11
"child care seattle - #18
"child day care seattle" - #32
"child day care" - #342


Notice that my G rank gets pushed lower and lower, the closer
those search terms get to my 'optimized' phrase. In other
words, the trend that I see in my SERPS is inverse to what Im
shooting for. Weird.The only thing I can think of, is that Im
tripping an OOP filter with my keyword density.

Again, i cannot respond because you show no CONTENT samples.
What you mean by "optimized" and "over-optimized" is just a big unknown.

Let's talk about what IS known.

I rank #1 at google for the term < love spells > -- try it, click on the
link and tell me if the page is "over-optimized" by your mysterious and
unknown standards.

If you currently google for "geriatric consultation agency", my
".org" site should be listed first. ( At least until Go-Go shows
up and grabs my experimental pages & re-indexes them) Im a bit
shy about posting the actual site name/url for corporate reasons-
- but check the 'staff'page, I should be on there.

Okay. So i went to that top-listed site and it crashed out my browser.

Now i'll have to restart and fire up a different browser if i want to
see it -- and hope it doesn't crash that one out too.

Is it possible that the root of your problem is that your site is too
high-tech for the google bot and also too high tech for people seeking
your services, so that they can't link to it and thus provide you with
valuable IBLs?

PS, I'm pretty sure I saw you on a cable TV travel show--
visiting unusual destinations in California a while back.

Yep, that was me -- on the History Channel!

cat yronwode
http://www.luckymojo.com/weirdus.html

"Jill L." wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:15:17 -0700, catherine yronwode
claypool (AT) sonic (DOT) net> wrote:
but i would be glad to have look at your site
and see if i agree that this is yur problem.
{snip}
True life example of why you just ought to list your URL and let us
check it out:
{snip}

cat yronwode

Hi Cat --

I think you just tried to take a peek at my site, thanks for stopping
by ---

Mozilla/4.77C-CCK-MCD+{C-UDP;+EBM-APPLE}+(Macintosh PPC) from santa
rosa, ca?

That was me! I am in Forestville, Califoria, about 15 miles west of
Santa Rosa. I use two browsers -- my old Netscape (because it is also a
great usenet reader) and a 4.x IE. I run system 8.2 Mac OS on this
machine. We have 6 networked computers -- one of which runs OS X with
Safari and Firefox browsers -- but i rarely use it -- mostly that's my
husband's.

Wow. I can honestly say I didnt expect anyone to show up with a
4.7 netscrape browser though. The site was written for css
compliant browsers that can handle the "@import url()" command...

Yes, well, that's the way it is, though. If i had ten thousand dollars
to replace 5 aging computers, and buy the OS X versions of software
needed as well, then i would have a different browser.

Meanwhile, what you've built is a gas station that won't pump gas to
folks in a 1985 Nissan. Or a coffee shop that won't serve a cuppa java
to a 79 year old man. Or a clothing store that refuses to stock anything
in the colour blue.

...so im sure you got a plain text html file delivered to your
browser when you arrived. sorry about that.

Nope. I got the grey screen of death. Nothing -- and the browser was
frozen.

One of the biz decisions we made was to basically ignore styling
pages for that .79% of the visitors we get with browsers lower
than v5.0 of netscape of IE. Obviously you won't get any of the
effect of the page styling, but Im sure the content was still
available since it is all plain vanilla html.

I would be glad to get plain vanilla html -- but i got zilch. Alo, i
might add, my husband is quirkier than me. He's the one running the OS X
machine -- but he does 99% of his web browseing with text-only Lynx.

total bummer that youre trying to help me out and got served no
style sheet. sorry again.

No problem. I'll try next with IE. Hang on a sec...

Okay -- now i see it.

If this is the site you are talking about, i see no signs of
over-optimizing for kws. In fact, i see few intra-links and very little
opportunity for keyword campaigining of the type i do -- and that works
for me. Many (not all) of your links are for stupid, non-kw phrases like

services available
variety of services
wide variety of services
more detailed service listings
more...

and, frankly, "more" is as bad as the notorious "click here" link messes
created by under-informered retail business web site buillders during
the 1990s.

You want your lnks to be on your kws, not on random verbiage like
"variety" and "available."

<sarcasm>

Have you tried going to google and entering < more detailed service
listings > in as a search term? There's your 51 million cmpetitors on
that term.

And < wide variety of services > returns 121 million comppetitors.

As for < more... > -- well, that comes up in 5 BILLION pges at google
-- and the #1 ranked site for that term is CNN, which you will never
beat -- so don't even try.

</sarcasm>

You certainly realize that < more detailed service listings >, < wide
variety of services >, < more... > are not kw terms for your site. They
will never come up in a natural search for your services, so why build
around them?

Instead, use your actual kws in the links.

Yes, i know, you do have a few kw links on the page -- but not enough --
and the point i am making is that you are WASTING good opportunities to
point to your own pages with truly targeted anchor text by squandering
your anchors on bland and over-broad phrases (< services available >
could apply to any business from a pet grooming salon to a fork lift
rental shop) and procedural terminology (<more... >) is the < click here

of the 21st cntury).

So that's my two cents.

Nice colour choices and illos, by the way. Nice service, too.

cat yronwode

Lucky Mojo Occult Shop
http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue

Big Bill wrote:

"Jill L." wrote:

If you currently google for "geriatric consultation agency",
my ".org" site should be listed first.

Actually, what happens is if you do Google for

"geriatric consultation agency"

then your mention in Google Groups, this thread, comes up.

If you Google for

geriatric consultation agency

then up comes the creative alliance site which I suppose might be
you as I couldn't open it.

BB

Bill, she said that only .79% of folks couldn;t open her site, due to
having older browsers -- and here are TWO of us in one newsgroup for
whom it won't open, both of us search-engine mavens. I have a feeling
that the figure of .79% is wrong.

Last year i was told that my browser fell into the "15% which new SEO
pros were ignoring." I thought that was a more accurate number -- and
also that the attitude expressed was a silly waste of the client's
money, as any store that turns away 15% of potential customers based on
the make or model of their car is not going to do as well as the
all-inclusive store.

I know also that Jill's service -- elder care -- is often sought for by
elders themselves, or by their late-middle-aged children -- in other
words, folks with older computers. It is rarely searched for by the
elders' grandchildren with souped up new machines.

Case in point: my mother died in October at age 90. Her last computer
was an IMac G4 running system 9 and Netscape 4.x. If she had died at age
88, her last cmputer would have been a Macintosh Performa running system
8.x and Netscape 4.x.

My mother was actively searching for elder care / geriatric service
management (and finding such services herself) for help with legal
issues, shopping and house cleaning services, getting rides to hospitals
for check-ups, daily meal delivery and social support when she broke her
hip, et cetera -- right up until her final year of life when she began
to require full-time in-house care.

She and her entire network of elderly, educated Jewish retired women all
use computers -- most of them gifts from their aging baby boomer
children -- and most of them use Macs as their kids are in the arts and
grahics industries.

These older women are not interested in upgrading to newer browsers or
newer operating systems. They come from the Depression era mentality of
"use it until it wears out" -- and they want to save money for their
kids nd grandkids, not waste it buying shiny new toys for themselves. if
a site won't open for their older browser, they get frustated and move
on to a lower tech site. They love google and the Guardian newspaper
online (a world-class news site with low graphics usage that is low tech
browser compatible), and they also actively use Yahoo Groups for their
hobby groups (because it is compatible with Netscape 4.x).

Now, here comes Jill with a site that's perfect for these elder to find
the services they need -- or for their kids to do so and show the to mom
while at her house, on her computer -- and the site won't open because
mom has an older browser.

Bad idea.

If any demographic group on Earth needs sites that are older-tech
friendly, it is geriatric services clients.

Duh.

Cordially,

cat (not quite geriatric myself, yet) yronwode