Website Links for more traffic!

[M.D. Vaden]

Hey M.D. Vaden, oh yeah, your right, no doubt. Your website is sharp, no doubt! Good job! Do you remember where your page was in the rankings when it was barely 3 weeks old?

Mark

No I don't.

Because if I were to do it all over again, I would not go for ranking, but purely for content.

http://www.mdvaden.com/website_traffic.shtml

If I could get good rank, I'd take it. But it would not be my focus anymore.

But if you can make some progress with Google without straining yourself - sure, go for it.

I always thought you had to PAY google to have your website come up number one??? Anyone know?

You can pay Google for the sponsor ads, but sometimes other services bid so high for those spots, there is no guarantee. You might also like the page I linked to in this reply.

Good SEO only gets you so far.

Consider if 100 tree services all hired the best SEO professional. Which of the 100 companies is going to get the top 10 spots if the SEO guy applies equal genius strategy to each website?

How about a roll of the dice !!

That's why content makes sense. But SEO can fizzle-out big time in some cities. It just all depends on what city and how many websites exist for a niche.

In time, everybody is going to have a website, and trying to be #1 can become a huge distraction.

It's one thing to get to the top early in the game and hold the lead, versus coming into the game late and trying to pass everybody to take the lead.

 

[cconiam]

Good SEO only gets you so far.

Consider if 100 tree services all hired the best SEO professional. Which of the 100 companies is going to get the top 10 spots if the SEO guy applies equal genius strategy to each website?

How about a roll of the dice !!

At the risk of sounding....stupid...what's SEO???

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Good SEO only gets you so far.

Consider if 100 tree services all hired the best SEO professional. Which of the 100 companies is going to get the top 10 spots if the SEO guy applies equal genius strategy to each website?

How about a roll of the dice !!

At the risk of sounding....stupid...what's SEO???

S - Search
E - Engine
O - Optimization

Basically, a good site for search engines. It has words that can be read, not too many words, not to few, relates to the subject, images not too massive, code is relatively clean, etc..

In short, a well designed site, that search engines will "like" and hopefully reward. Making the site in a way that can be found and recorded, and hopefully introduced by the search engine to a searcher looking for that kind of website.

One very simple single aspect, would be if a man or woman typed into Google's search box these words: "Portland Tree Trimming"

If an arborist's website DOES NOT have "tree trimming" (those exact words), but instead has "pruning" or "crown reduction" or "arboriculture", then it's virtually impossible for that website to be sent to the searchers for the word "trimming".

A webpage MUST minimum, contain at least one occurance of a word, if the site is to be recorded and re-introduced for that word. The word can be in the title, in a sentence, or even hidden in the image tag. But it's got to be there.

To see part of that, feel free to visit one of my web pages, right click on an image, and choose to see the properties. You should see a scrap of text offered for the description or "Alt" tags of the images. Those don't display on the webpage, but are concealed. Sometimes, I don't even tag my images with what they really are, but with a word I want to be recorded for.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[Ekka]

A webpage MUST minimum, contain at least one occurance of a word, if the site is to be recorded and re-introduced for that word. The word can be in the title, in a sentence, or even hidden in the image tag. But it's got to be there.

Not true.​

Pmarkt also made a claim he was near top until I clarified. On the grand daddy of all search engines he wasn't, Yahoo and MSN, people still use that.

I'll stay clear of this lot I think.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Not true.​

Pmarkt also made a claim he was near top until I clarified. On the grand daddy of all search engines he wasn't, Yahoo and MSN, people still use that.

I'll stay clear of this lot I think.

You seem to have missed the mark on this one Ekka.

Especially if a search is in quotes.

But a search engine cannot find something that does not exist.

If a searcher specifically wants to find "GRASS", but a site only has "LAWN" then Google has no simple connection with that site.

There is a rare possibility of Synonym formulas being used, but I've seen no evidence of it. And if a search is in quotes, that negates it.

In almost every case, if we search of a word like "THERMONUCLEAR", websites will not display in the search results properly if they OMIT the word "thermonuclear" or forms of it.

Here's quick test to see whether Ekka's "Not true" is true or not true:

Search for "Prehistoric" on Google. See how every site provided has "Prehistoric" in it somewhere? Thus indicating the omission from the top listing of pages that don't have the word. Google already BOLDS the words for us in the Title or the description.

Search for "Library of Congress" in Quotes on Google. See how every site provided has the specific words "Library of Congress"? May be more than once. But the word or words have to exist at least once on the page.

I even advanced to the second page of results, and it's the same deal.

At least one single occurance of a word MUST exist on a webpage, to be found for a search FOR that one single word. To find "Miniwheats", then "Miniwheats" must exist on a web page.

I think what may have happened, was that Ekka misunderstood that I was referring to sites being found for exact word searches, and thought I was referring to how websites can rank in general. At least that's the only thing that comes to mind.

 

[Ekka]

Your arrogance is exemplary ... do continue .... the hole is getting so deep now we soon wont see you.

 

[lxt]

Hey Mark atleast you`re trying!! thats all anyone can do,

Ekka, dont worry his comments get better, atleast he didnt answer you with a question that has nothing to do with the topic!!

I know many idiots with a nice website that prostitute their BS, shame they call themselves Tree care professionals/Arborists & cant do half of what their title suggests..............



LXT..........

 

[Ekka]

Ho hum do dee dooo .... tap tap. Hmmm, doing research Mario?

If you do find the answer I wouldn't tell it here on an open forum, coz the line between good and great should COST something.

Frankly, I dont say much anymore but I got #1 site on Google in a 2million+ pop town with 100's of competitors so what would I know right.

In fact, you know that ole I'm felling lucky button?

Type in: tree lopping

On this google engine, oh yes, there's one for every country make sure you use the right one.

http://www.google.com.au/

Who's #1, me.

Searches even on the same server can bring different results depending on your own IP address, so some-one in say Melbourne can get a different result to me in Brisbane with this, well, with all searches.

 

[cconiam]

hmmm

You seem to have missed the mark on this one Ekka.

Especially if a search is in quotes.

But a search engine cannot find something that does not exist.

If a searcher specifically wants to find "GRASS", but a site only has "LAWN" then Google has no simple connection with that site.

There is a rare possibility of Synonym formulas being used, but I've seen no evidence of it. And if a search is in quotes, that negates it.

In almost every case, if we search of a word like "THERMONUCLEAR", websites will not display in the search results properly if they OMIT the word "thermonuclear" or forms of it.

Here's quick test to see whether Ekka's "Not true" is true or not true:

Search for "Prehistoric" on Google. See how every site provided has "Prehistoric" in it somewhere? Thus indicating the omission from the top listing of pages that don't have the word. Google already BOLDS the words for us in the Title or the description.

Search for "Library of Congress" in Quotes on Google. See how every site provided has the specific words "Library of Congress"? May be more than once. But the word or words have to exist at least once on the page.

I even advanced to the second page of results, and it's the same deal.

At least one single occurance of a word MUST exist on a webpage, to be found for a search FOR that one single word. To find "Miniwheats", then "Miniwheats" must exist on a web page.

I think what may have happened, was that Ekka misunderstood that I was referring to sites being found for exact word searches, and thought I was referring to how websites can rank in general. At least that's the only thing that comes to mind.

Well, I don't know who's right, but thanks for all the free advice. I'll be contacting web site designers this week, so hopefully they can give me the answer. I'll let you know what they tell me. Makes sense to me that if you search for TREE SERVICE and your site has those words in it, your site will come up, and to follow that thinking a web site with as many words having to do with tree care/trimming/take downs/ etc will be found by more people, since as mdvadan (I think it was him, if not sorry) said, you don't know what someone will search for.
thanks boys
Cindy...just the girl in the office

 

[Ekka]

Yes, it's good that people think like that and what makes it easier for me to beat their sites.

The amazing part out of all this arrogance is the reluctance of people to ask, as I did, "show me Ekka".

Too bad. And the sheep all blindly follow.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Well, I don't know who's right, but thanks for all the free advice. I'll be contacting web site designers this week, so hopefully they can give me the answer. I'll let you know what they tell me. Makes sense to me that if you search for TREE SERVICE and your site has those words in it, your site will come up, and to follow that thinking a web site with as many words having to do with tree care/trimming/take downs/ etc will be found by more people, since as mdvadan (I think it was him, if not sorry) said, you don't know what someone will search for.
thanks boys
Cindy...just the girl in the office

The good part, is that you don't have to know who is right - but what works.

That's why I posted a couple of test searches that someone can try, to see what works or not.

As far as ltx...

His comments are like flicking a mosquito. For 3 years, I've maintained one of the highest performing websites in Oregon. The design ain't grand, but I make money off it, another arborist makes money off it, and Google makes money off of it. If I get $100 a month in the mail from Google, I'm sure they make something, and the advertisers make something.

But back to the simplicity of words on websites, let's suppose hypothetically that someone searched on Google for:

Tree Butcher

If "tree" was not on a website, and "butcher" was not on a website, the chances of it coming up high in the search results would be near miraculous.

Searching for "tree butcher" or "tree" and "butcher" should simply display websites that actually contain those words in the code.

That's why several replies ago, I added those simple examples like "Library of Congress". That way Google's own search results bold print those words and show what does or does not show.

There is one way to circumvent this stark reality about the need for at least one occurance of a word on a webpage. That's to use Google Ads and bid.

For example, if my website did not say "Ekka" on it, but I wanted my website to display if you or someone else searched for "Ekka", I'd just list "Ekka" as a keyword in my Google Adwords account, and bid on it, like 20 cents a click.

That way, if we search for:

Ekka

My Google Ad will pop up in the sponsored results. And again, even if "Ekka" does not show up even once in my website.

And that's the only thing that makes sense. Why on Earth would my site ever show up if you searched "Ekka", if every page of mine omitted any reference to Ekka?

That's the simplicity of what I wrote earlier.

Since webpages may not be able to contain every word we would like, or the right number of uses of a word, that's why Google Adwords ads may be a good option for some companies, because you can list as many keywords as you want in a Google account.

I even test these examples myself before posting. Like the tree butcher search. When I did a test search, 2 pages of results showed "tree" or "butcher" in the webpages. And for one where it was not bolded, it happened to be part of the web address link.

As for Ekka...

My guess is the reason he's using huge bold print so much, is he wants to distract people from actually testing those keyword examples. For such searches, would show that if his site beats others as he beats his chest about, the reason is due to exactly what I wrote about. If we search "Brisbane" and "Tree" - of course Ekka's site should come up. But like I wrote, if we type "San Francisco" and "Bentgrass", the chances of Ekka's site displaying at our end are next to nil (unless he added it to his site). For Google will not connect the dots, if his site omits a single use of those words in code. (Exception using Google Ads to circumvent.)

Do a test seach on "Brisbane" and "Tree" like I just did. And what do you see?

Ekka's site. Why? Because it includes not only a single occurance of that text, but multiples.

So if Ekka wants to beat his chest to show that he can rank high without a single use of "brisbane" or "tree", I dare him to remove those from his site entirely. Not one single mention. And then we'll see if his criticism about what I wrote is true or not.

Go for it Ekka !!!

Take "brisbane" and "tree" out of your site. Not one occurance anywhere. Take if from the code, take it from the tags.

And let's see if your site can display for "Brisbane Tree" anymore. And if it ever did, it would almost certainly be due to some cached residue on the web, or some reciprocal hyperlink on someone else's website (with brisbane and tree, or course)

 

[Ekka]

The good part, is that you don't have to know who is right - but what works.

That's why I posted a couple of test searches that someone can try, to see what works or not.

As far as ltx...

His comments are like flicking a mosquito. For 3 years, I've maintained one of the highest performing websites in Oregon. The design ain't grand, but I make money off it, another arborist makes money off it, and Google makes money off of it. If I get $100 a month in the mail from Google, I'm sure they make something, and the advertisers make something.

But back to the simplicity of words on websites, let's suppose hypothetically that someone searched on Google for:

Tree Butcher

If "tree" was not on a website, and "butcher" was not on a website, the chances of it coming up high in the search results would be near miraculous.

Searching for "tree butcher" or "tree" and "butcher" should simply display websites that actually contain those words in the code.

That's why several replies ago, I added those simple examples like "Library of Congress". That way Google's own search results bold print those words and show what does or does not show.

There is one way to circumvent this stark reality about the need for at least one occurance of a word on a webpage. That's to use Google Ads and bid.

For example, if my website did not say "Ekka" on it, but I wanted my website to display if you or someone else searched for "Ekka", I'd just list "Ekka" as a keyword in my Google Adwords account, and bid on it, like 20 cents a click.

That way, if we search for:

Ekka

My Google Ad will pop up in the sponsored results. And again, even if "Ekka" does not show up even once in my website.

And that's the only thing that makes sense. Why on Earth would my site ever show up if you searched "Ekka", if every page of mine omitted any reference to Ekka?

That's the simplicity of what I wrote earlier.

Since webpages may not be able to contain every word we would like, or the right number of uses of a word, that's why Google Adwords ads may be a good option for some companies, because you can list as many keywords as you want in a Google account.

I even test these examples myself before posting. Like the tree butcher search. When I did a test search, 2 pages of results showed "tree" or "butcher" in the webpages. And for one where it was not bolded, it happened to be part of the web address link.

As for Ekka...

My guess is the reason he's using huge bold print so much, is he wants to distract people from actually testing those keyword examples. For such searches, would show that if his site beats others as he beats his chest about, the reason is due to exactly what I wrote about. If we search "Brisbane" and "Tree" - of course Ekka's site should come up. But like I wrote, if we type "San Francisco" and "Bentgrass", the chances of Ekka's site displaying at our end are next to nil (unless he added it to his site). For Google will not connect the dots, if his site omits a single use of those words in code. (Exception using Google Ads to circumvent.)

Do a test seach on "Brisbane" and "Tree" like I just did. And what do you see?

Ekka's site. Why? Because it includes not only a single occurance of that text, but multiples.

So if Ekka wants to beat his chest to show that he can rank high without a single use of "brisbane" or "tree", I dare him to remove those from his site entirely. Not one single mention. And then we'll see if his criticism about what I wrote is true or not.

And the arrogance continues, still didn't ask but argues without seeing the other side of the coin. (Why do people do that?)

Mario, I thought an open mind was part of learning.

You are dug in so deep now that I consider you buried.

Clutching to straws and trying to now suggest I'm full of **** is childish.

Keep leading these people astray, I dont care, the more you lead them the more I gain.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

And the arrogance continues, still didn't ask but argues without seeing the other side of the coin. (Why do people do that?)

Mario, I thought an open mind was part of learning.

You are dug in so deep now that I consider you buried.

Clutching to straws and trying to now suggest I'm full of **** is childish.

Keep leading these people astray, I dont care, the more you lead them the more I gain.

They don't need to be led anywhere.

For you have not showed a single keyword example that works contrary to what I wrote.

In fact, all you did was talk, talk talk. Meaning, you gave NO examples that they could type into a search box to prove my examples wrong.

And even if you tried, you have an uphill climb. Because those keywords I listed, happen to work the way I said they would work.

Please keep posting with no examples. It makes debate easy, as there is nothing to prove wrong.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Here is repeat of what I posted earlier, which Ekka challenges...

Anybody is welcome to try what's written below and see if it works or not...

You seem to have missed the mark on this one Ekka.

Especially if a search is in quotes.

But a search engine cannot find something that does not exist.

If a searcher specifically wants to find "GRASS", but a site only has "LAWN" then Google has no simple connection with that site.

There is a rare possibility of Synonym formulas being used, but I've seen no evidence of it. And if a search is in quotes, that negates it.

In almost every case, if we search of a word like "THERMONUCLEAR", websites will not display in the search results properly if they OMIT the word "thermonuclear" or forms of it.

......

Search for "Prehistoric" on Google. See how every site provided has "Prehistoric" in it somewhere? Thus indicating the omission from the top listing of pages that don't have the word. Google already BOLDS the words for us in the Title or the description.

Search for "Library of Congress" in Quotes on Google. See how every site provided has the specific words "Library of Congress"? May be more than once. But the word or words have to exist at least once on the page.

I even advanced to the second page of results, and it's the same deal.

At least one single occurance of a word MUST exist on a webpage, to be found for a search FOR that one single word. To find "Miniwheats", then "Miniwheats" must exist on a web page.

I think what may have happened, was that Ekka misunderstood that I was referring to sites being found for exact word searches, and thought I was referring to how websites can rank in general. At least that's the only thing that comes to mind.

If you tried those examples, like "library of congress" and did not get any library of congress, but other sites like Dolphins, Hawaii - or Ekka

Let me know what browser you were using !! opcorn:

For I'm anticipating, you will see "prehistoric" or "library of congress" in most of the search results.

 

[Ekka]

Still didn't ask just keeps pounding away.

I get it, your a sculpture and it's the only way you know how to make a statue right? :monkey:

Now for the record I will show your posts and the assertiveness of the message they carry bolded and grouped by posts.

One very simple single aspect, would be if a man or woman typed into Google's search box these words: "Portland Tree Trimming"

If an arborist's website DOES NOT have "tree trimming" (those exact words), but instead has "pruning" or "crown reduction" or "arboriculture", then it's virtually impossible for that website to be sent to the searchers for the word "trimming".

A webpage MUST minimum, contain at least one occurance of a word, if the site is to be recorded and re-introduced for that word. The word can be in the title, in a sentence, or even hidden in the image tag. But it's got to be there.

But a search engine cannot find something that does not exist.

There is a rare possibility of Synonym formulas being used, but I've seen no evidence of it. And if a search is in quotes, that negates it.

At least one single occurance of a word MUST exist on a webpage, to be found for a search FOR that one single word. To find "Miniwheats", then "Miniwheats" must exist on a web page.

There is one way to circumvent this stark reality about the need for at least one occurance of a word on a webpage. That's to use Google Ads and bid.

And here you can feel the frustration from the poster, for a change of pace I'll bold the frustration.

or you have not showed a single keyword example that works contrary to what I wrote.

In fact, all you did was talk, talk talk. Meaning, you gave NO examples that they could type into a search box to prove my examples wrong.

And even if you tried, you have an uphill climb. Because those keywords I listed, happen to work the way I said they would work.

Please keep posting with no examples. It makes debate easy, as there is nothing to prove wrong.

Amazing, you have never asked and then beat up on me.

Or do you consider the above an invitation ... like hey Ekka, interesting concept. So you are actually saying that it's possible for pages/sites to rank on keywords that do not exist? Do you have any examples?

But you didn't, you just beat up on me.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Still didn't ask just keeps pounding away.

I get it, your a sculpture and it's the only way you know how to make a statue right? :monkey:

Now for the record I will show your posts and the assertiveness of the message they carry bolded and grouped by posts.







And here you can feel the frustration from the poster, for a change of pace I'll bold the frustration.



Amazing, you have never asked and then beat up on me.

Or do you consider the above an invitation ... like hey Ekka, interesting concept. So you are actually saying that it's possible for pages/sites to rank on keywords that do not exist? Do you have any examples?

But you didn't, you just beat up on me.

Oooops !!!!!!

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt Ekka.

But when I search again "library of congress", only sites with one of more occurance of that word come up.

And with "prehistoric", Google still lists sites with one or more occurance of "prehistoric".

I keep trying to fail to allow your criticism the open door. But Google keeps doing this crazy thing of displaying sites for my keyword searches, that have at least one occurance of that keyword.

How do you suppose we stop Google from doing that for the main bulk of the results?

Now.... Granted... a site MAY list for some online directory, or a reciprocal link. But pertaining to JUST the website and JUST Google while Googling, there appears no way around this.

Like I said here or in PM, if I search right now for "San Francisco" and "Tree", it would be on the verge of a miracle to see your website in the top 2 pages of results, if you don't have a single occurance of those words on your website.

Heck, try typing "Brisbane" and "Tree" and see if you can get Oregon's Collier Tree Service to show up !!

Would you really expect that, since Collier probably does not have "Brisbane" in the website?

 

[Ekka]

Well you didn't try to hard.

Using words like "benefit of the doubt" insinuates that I'm wrong till proven right but that's only according to your level of knowledge. Poor wording, and you didn't ask for but pounded away.

Stop blaming Google for your failures on human behaviour.

Yes, I'm pissed off, it's taken some time for me to understand the intricacies of this and to just reveal it without some vigorous testament on a site like this is sad really.

So, since cracking you is harder than cracking granite I see I have to pleasantly guide your mindest to a path of enlightenment, under duress for my own names sake, free of charge. Wow, new slant on terrorism or interogation to get help.

Dont know if I feel like it now, however I'm willing to make a bet since you're not willing to be nice.

I'll bet you $200 Australian I can pull up a page for a google keyword/phrase search that has nothing on it pertaining to that keyword/phrase.

So, you in or chickening out?

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Well you didn't try to hard.


I'll bet you $200 Australian I can pull up a page for a google keyword/phrase search that has nothing on it pertaining to that keyword/phrase.

So, you in or chickening out?

No need to bet.

But let's see you do it.

But be sure to keep it in the CONTEXT of where the discussion stemmed from, which would be the SEO question way back yonder.

In other words, maybe you could find one.

But for a site to be WELL DESIGNED, would it be smart, or foolish, to expect a site to perform well for a search, without a single occurance of the word. But from what I can see, I'd have to work at it. Odds are I wouldn't find a Paris carpenter display for a "Boston" carpenter search, and wouldn't find a "Moscow" arborist display for a Los Angeles arborist search. But if you can do it, I don't mind seeing your keywords.

So.... you're pissed off are you?

Good - cuz I still think of you as a friend

Just said as much in a PM to someone earlier today.

 

[Ekka]

Sorry, days of free training are coming to an end.

There's not too many secrets left out there pertaining to SEOing a site. However there are some and it's times like this they remain so.

$200 vs ignorance, you've chosen ignorance, too bad, your choice and if I was wrong you'd be $200 better off.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Sorry, days of free training are coming to an end.

There's not too many secrets left out there pertaining to SEOing a site. However there are some and it's times like this they remain so.

$200 vs ignorance, you've chosen ignorance, too bad, your choice and if I was wrong you'd be $200 better off.

I want you to keep your money. Wouldn't be right taking money from an Australian like picking grapes off a vine.

That way you can spend it buying some Australian pals a beer, and shoot the chat about the ignorant Oregon guy who knows so little about SEO (but makes money off his site).