Home – New Forums Tech talk Cutts ing through the smoke … keyword stuffing can be good for SEO!

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #981877
    Snakeman
    Participant
    • Total posts: 329
    Up
    0
    ::

    Okay, in recent years it’s been repeated so widely that keyword stuffing is bad for SEO, most people believe the claim. Well I don’t!
    Here’s some more evidence that is just a week old!
    We killed backlinks of trademark bootleggers using our registered trademarks to get infringers sites below ours in organic search. The infringers lack assets, (one is a man barely out of his teens who still lives with mum and dad!), so we cannot waste time and money suing them.
    Anyway, our methods worked on the third parties that DO have assets and for the first time in a while we got our sites back to one for the trademarks we have owned for years.
    Then within the last 4 weeks or so, three bootleggers stuffed their sites with our trademarks as keywords, usually at the rate of several times in the metatags and at least once for each trademark in their body text of their pages.
    Guess what? They jumped us again in search and with very few relevant backlinks, although I should mention they have a huge number of backlinks for other terms giving their sites credibility with the engines, even though the bulk of their links are also paid, (so don’t believe for a minute paid links don’t work!). Now this all applies to the big three, namely bing, google and yahoo.
    Now I’d like to hear what others have to say about my claims here, even though I expect others to assert some unknown third factor at play.
    All the best

    #1133428
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,463
    Up
    0
    ::

    Can’t speak on this specific aspect, but if true it would suggest that all those other aspects some here cling onto as “facts” because “Matt Cutts/Google said so” may also need to be taken as variable in their actual effectiveness. As with many things, the real world doesn’t always match the theoretical one.

    #1133429
    Divert To Mobile
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,751
    Up
    0
    ::

    Is it possible the g people could be manually adjusting your site because you bash them in the forum?

    Steve

    #1133430
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,463
    Up
    0
    ::
    Divert To Mobile, post: 151678 wrote:
    Is it possible the g people could be manually adjusting your site because you bash them in the forum?

    Steve
    Ha ha ha! :)

    From Google, nothing would surprise me! ;)

    #1133431
    Vossy
    Member
    • Total posts: 71
    Up
    0
    ::

    Hi Snakeman,

    I don’t really understand your question… and could you please clarify by adding an example search term.

    It seems to be about others using your Trademark terms in content and ranking above you…but it could also be about content theft…so I’m trying to understand it.

    Cheers

    #1133432
    Snakeman
    Participant
    • Total posts: 329
    Up
    0
    ::

    Dear all, as it happens I don’t Google bash much as opposed to discuss them, which befits their status as the dominant search engine. Most of what I post applies to Bing/Yahoo, dogpile and the rest. Anyway, I have seen some serious bashing of Google by some on forums elsewhere and when I checked the bashers sites, they often ranked on top for their chosen keywords, so I doubt that anything manual is going on with us, especially as we win a number of key searches, including some for which we have no words only trademark rights – as in general search terms. (Try snake catcher Melbourne for example, and you see http://www.snakebusters.com.au/sbsmel1.htm come up on top and we’ve been there for years). Same applies for snake removal Melbourne.
    My perception is that search engines hate doing things manually as it involves man-power and labour and they prefer to automate everything – something I can offer insights into elsewhere.
    Anyway, here is the story at this end as it goes so far, a year back we sent out cease and desist letters to infringers, who took our threats seriously, which is justified as we have successfully sued bootleggers several times and have even taken control of a bootleg domain not so long ago. As a result they removed our registered trademarks from their sites and this included all hidden text such as meta tags.
    However wanting to steal our clients, they then aggressively backlinked using our trademarks from bogus domains they bought up and third party sites with anchor text with the trademarks. This was enough to get them above us in Google search (and Bing, etc). In other words off page SEO, not on page SEO.
    In December/January, we made a decision to become more proactive in the trademark protection area and directly went to the backlink owners and killed them.
    The bootleggers websites dropped like a stone from the SERPs and we were back on top.
    We are talking many thousands of dollars a week worth of clients and so the bootleggers have now tried to stem the loss of clients (our clients I might add), and with no backlinks and us watching and killing them as fast as they erect them, they have in desperation used our trademarks in their on-page text, metatags and the like.
    Their sites rankings have gone up across the board for relevant searches and in a few cases usurped us, leading us to believe in the virtues of keyword stuffing and on-page SEO.
    I might add that these bootleggers have engaged some very gun-hot SEO firms to do their work, so I can also only assume they know what works and what does not.
    All the best

    #1133433
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,463
    Up
    0
    ::

    Some better punctuation might help make those posts a little easier to read…

    But to the subject, I think most people acknowledge that keywords and onsite SEO are an important part of ranking highly in Google, so not really sure of the purpose of this thread (despite my hastily written initial post). I do know there are a couple of folk on this forum who have derided the “content is king” mantra, but I think most accept it as very important.

    And what search terms are you referring to, because the one example you give above – “Try snake catcher Melbourne” – only gets 36 searches monthly, so no doubt it would be simple to create a keyword optimised page/site to do well for that term. Maybe you can provide some examples that would be a little harder?

    #1133434
    Snakeman
    Participant
    • Total posts: 329
    Up
    0
    ::

    OK, our registered trademarks include “snake man” and “snakeman”, “snakebusters”, “reptile parties”, “Hands on reptiles”, “Hold the animals”, etc.
    Each of these gets about 1-2K searches a month in Australia or about 1/3 this in our main area of Victoria.
    But I may mention that the search for “snake catcher Melbourne” generates about 5 calls a day of which I end up going and catching 2 snakes, not much, but enough to pay the bills. The other three calls a day I refer to other people because I don’t want to travel too much, but at least I am the one with the option – not another person.
    Then of course our main business is wildlife displays and the like, but that’s another story.
    A key point to be aware of is the search terms that generate buyers and that some do while others don’t.
    People only google “snake catcher”, “snake removal” when they need one in a hurry!
    “Reptile parties” is gold in that again most people searching for this term want a party with reptiles and most are after us specifically, knowing the term equates with us as we invented the idea about 30 years back (in the contemporary sense, because I am sure that back in Roman times some hack somewhere carted a rat snake to an event).
    By contrast, searches for “snake man” are often of interest and not made with a view to buy anything.
    BUT, the thread wasn’t started to dissect our business terms and the like, but rather to seek real life experience of others here in terms of the measurable effects of keyword stuffing on SEO…
    All the best

    #1133435
    Divert To Mobile
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,751
    Up
    0
    ::

    I got this when I googled snake man

    485872.jpg

    Now that’s what I call a party trick!

    Steve

    #1133436
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,463
    Up
    0
    ::
    Snakeman, post: 151700 wrote:
    BUT, the thread wasn’t started to dissect our business terms and the like, but rather to seek real life experience of others here in terms of the measurable effects of keyword stuffing on SEO…
    Well I’m not really sure what’s up for debate though? I think most accept that using relevant keywords in site content will help a site to rank for those search terms, and if a search term is not very competitive then getting onto page 1, and maybe even to the top position, is not that difficult. Which would seem to be what’s occurred here as those terms you’ve listed don’t sound like they’d attract much competition.

    So wondering what you’re after from others is all? An agreement that yes, using keywords in your content will help you rank for them?

    #1133437
    Vossy
    Member
    • Total posts: 71
    Up
    0
    ::

    I’d like to see some evidence that keyword stuffing still works – I know some SEOs still do it.

    What I’ve seen with client sites and here on the forum is sites where they have overused keywords are being penalised – especially where they also have an exact match domain in play.

    Here is some good advice on how to fix that.
    http://seobraintrust.com/red-pen-test/

    That being said – google has stuffed up some of the search something terrible in an effort to get the balance right and I guess they will have to dial back the intensity.

    I still can’t comment specifically because there are no concrete examples to review and comment on.

    Cheers

    #1133438
    Aidan
    Member
    • Total posts: 1,125
    Up
    0
    ::

    Snakeman,

    In my opinion its wise to avoid keyword stuffing, SE’s moved on from the old fashioned ‘keyword density’ thing a long time ago and are now much more sensitive to KW stuffing attempts. I don’t believe there is such a thing as a perfect ‘density’ but it would be easy to spot stuffing by algorithm.

    Here’s a fact (not an opinion) – it is possible to rank for a search query without that search query appearing in a pages content or title. We can take that as one of the indicators of how factors other than keyword inclusion/density/stuffing are important.

    Cheers

    #1133439
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,463
    Up
    0
    ::
    Aidan, post: 151824 wrote:
    Here’s a fact (not an opinion) – it is possible to rank for a search query without that search query appearing in a pages content or title.
    Would like to see a couple of examples of this if possible?
    #1133440
    The Copy Chick
    Member
    • Total posts: 963
    Up
    0
    ::
    Snakeman, post: 151700 wrote:
    OK, our registered trademarks include “snake man” and “snakeman”, “snakebusters”, “reptile parties”, “Hands on reptiles”, “Hold the animals”, etc.

    A quick search of “reptile parties” and you do come in rather low (17th on the page), but you’re number 1 for “reptile parties Melbourne”. I’d imagine most people would use location as part of a search for a service, so perhaps all is not lost.

    I also find there is no clear navigation menu on the site, there is little continuity in design and layout between pages, and several pages appear to have keywords stuffed at the top with no relevance to the rest of the page… all of which I believe can harm your search ranking.

    Perhaps resolving a few of these issues would help improve your rankings.

    #1133441
    Aidan
    Member
    • Total posts: 1,125
    Up
    0
    ::

    There are several examples but probably the most famous example I know of is the one that has been used by SEO teachers, probably since SEO began.

    Do a search for the term ‘click here’ you should see an adobe.com page ranking well for it. There is no mention of the phrase ‘click here’ on the page, at least not the last time I checked.

    You’ll also see plenty of examples if you monitor search traffic queries to a busy-ish website. Those ones will mostly come from synonomic relationships and semantic indexing rather than the anchor text of back links, though back link anchor text can sway this too.

    Then there are all the pages ranking for a phrase search which don’t actually contain the phrase but do contain the words individually – a search for ‘meta keywords’ for instance should bring up a W3Schools page which does not have the phrase on the page or in the title tag.

    I hope that helps.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.