I have discussions on the topic of keyword phrases every day. And, if I have just one dollar for every time I had to make a strong point that with search engine rankings less is more — yours truly would be on an island with a satellite dish posting to my various Blogs!

Relevancy is defined as “the relation of something to the matter at hand.” Now, how relevant you are is what those little search engine algorithms will decide based on the content, code and other factors related to your site and on a page by page basis. So let’s make it easy for them! Instead of trying to cram the top 10, 20 or 30 things you are about into every page — think less is more!

Using Realtors and Real Estate Web sites which I have worked on for over a decade, it is not uncommon for real estate clients to want to stuff every possible city and/or county they cover into their sites when we discuss SEO and SEO strategies. I’ve always advised the less is more approach and to only concentrate on your top 3 phrases for your top page and then we can cover city, by city and county by county on internal pages that are only about that one city or county. Less is more! Let your pages be about only one thing so they can be most relevant for that one thing.

If you insist on the stuffing approach, any real estate web site that is all about one city, or one county will always rank higher than the site about 10, 20 or 30 cities. It is common sense that other sites will be more relevant for that one city or county being searched for than another site trying to cover all the bases with 10, 20 or 30 city listed on every page. More dilutes your relevancy. Get it?

Imagine my delight to read a post today about Forgotten Fundamentals of SEO - One Page Per Keyword. This article mirrors the recommendations I’ve provided before their were even the acronyms SEO or SEM being tossed around! (See my related articles noted below this post for more on this very important topic.)

Less is more makes sense. The more you are about, the less you are about any one thing! Keep that in mind when creating your list of targeted phrases. You can also check out my Bullseye Marketing article and free worksheet to get you off to a running start!

At your service,
Judith

Many I talk to think getting listed in Google is, or should be, easy. They believe their site to be the best (many irrationally so) and think that they should just be on the top page — above the fold — if for no other reason than they desire it.

You can read any number of my articles and posts on search engines (some of the most popular listed below this post) about the reality of getting good organic rankings to effectively shatter those misconceptions. But even if you do everything right and as you should based on Google’s published criteria — you still can find yourself scratching your head as to why your site doesn’t capture desirable rankings.

Today, on the Official Google Blog, the VP of Engineering, Search Quality Udi Manber, posted about the difficulty and intricacies of Google’s efforts to provide the most relevant results and best user experience. Of course from their POV. I completely understand the challenge Google or any search site faces — as well as what they have accomplished to date and process on a minute by minute basis. It is downright amazing! But, having used search from the start, Google, IMNSHO, is not as good at making those quality determinations as they have in the past or give themselves credit for today.

Years ago, I began to loose confidence in Google’s ability to serve up the most relevant, current, quality sites for the searches I make. Yahoo! and Live Search seem to be doing a better job of helping me to find the quality reputable current sites I’m looking for. On Google, I constantly find 404s, way (way, way, way) outdated sites and experience ongoing examples of better sites not getting those coveted positions determined by Google’s bipolar “quality” algorithm.

I understand that quality is subjective. I understand the Google cannot publish the definitive guide to top rankings on their platform. So let’s get that out on the table. But I can site, as probably any experienced marketers can do the same, case after case where site rankings just make no sense — from a “quality” POV. (Maybe time to add human beings back into the process rather than relying on algorithms alone?)

Udi mentions how they need to keep certain things secret so marketers do not game the system. Understandable. But if the sites that were the most valuable, reputable and updated were able to garner decent rankings, maybe marketers wouldn’t be tempted to try and play the system. Remember, I am talking about valuable, reputable, updated “quality” sites — not just any site or page. With Google the cream doesn’t necessarily rise to the top.

This article is a must read for everyone who really has yet to embrace how Google views their role to offer the results so many think are deserved or easily attained; but many times fall short.

Introduction to Google Search Quality

At your service,
Judith