- 42
- Sphinn It!
Posted By: mpilatow 152 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.searchenginepeople.com)
Category: SEO
14 Comments
14 Comments
Save the date for:
SMX Local & Mobile - San Francisco, CA (July 24-25) See the agenda, and register now!
SMX Sao Paolo - Brazil - (Aug. 7-8)
SMX China - September 23 & 24, 2008
SMX Stockholm - September 23 & 24, 2008
SMX East - NYC - (Oct. 6-8) Registration is now open.
SMX London - November 4 & 5, 2008
Comments
Keyword density seems intuitively real. It just seems to make sense. Getting over that bump of seeming reality, really understanding that KD is pure nonsense has been (don't laugh!) one of the hardest things I learned in SEO.
"Getting it" is, I think, a real win.
Thanks for the sphinn, Mark!
Ruud,
That is a wonderful article - and one that needs to be shared! You presented this in a clear and consise way that made sense of the nonsense =)
Great article, Ruud. .. and of course Latent Semantic Analysis and Long Tail Searches make it all even less relevant, even if it had ever been in recent years.
Ruud: I Just received this message in SU "EXCELLENT link to "How Search Really Works: The Keyword Density Myth." Im sure Ill spend a considerable amount of time with it. Have a great day and thank you!"
Just thought you should know that there are more than Ruud lovers that got alot out of this post. (smile)
aaawwww... jeez Welford my friend... please avoid the LSI BandWagon would ya? That one just gets me going. Certainly methodologies relating to phrase based and other semantic models are worth looking at, I just don't want to go down the road of assumptions that is Latent Semantic Analysis and search engines.
LSI is unlikely to be directly used by Google et al to return organic results. It would be a trustworthy tool for advertising (Adwords) or for determing commercial intent (MS labs).
Keyword density is not just "less relevant": it's never been relevant.
@PotPieGirl, happy you like it.
@SpostareDuro -- aww, shucks you make me feel all good about myself :)
@theGypsy that's a nice rant. I hope to touch upon the subject in this series.
@ Ruud - I was going to comment on yer post when I read it but that was the wee hours of this morning and was bagged. I was recently also talking about the death of KW Density in a guest post for VanGogh (Steven) a while back; Phrase Based Optimization; A second look
...and have older stuff as well as a TON on semantic related concepts and phrase based optimization. Feel free to hook up any time to chat that goodiness, it's a small crowd that can actualy stay awake with those convos
theGypsy, according to a recent Vanessa Fox interview, Google isn't that smart.
http://www.reachd.com/ViewBlog/87/
@ HD - while I am not a rider on the LSI BandWagon, I also don't buy that they are altogether brain dead. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that shows some interest in semantic phrase relationships and probabilistic matricies. The main thing for me is that the purchase of Applied Semantics spawned a sub-culture of 'LSI Mythology' in some SEO circles - which is a bit of a leap IMO.
They're not braindead but LSI "in the wild" has some major drawbacks. In a commercial environment (with manipulated language) LSI is more likely to show Latent Commercial Intent (tongue in cheek) than semantic intent.
Nice link, good video, Halfdeck. Thanks!
Of course KWD matters it doesn't matter more than trust, and links/anchor text but of course it matters.
now of course every time I post an example some engineer comes along and kills it, even though it was working fine for months or years before.
Great post, Ruud! It's truly amazing how many SEO professionals still cling to the idea of "keyword density".
This isn't the first time that a reputable source has shot it down, but it's good to see a fresh treatment of the topic.
@graywolf - it doesn't matter. For every example you pull up, there will be mutliple examples that go the other way.
A key note here is this: there's a difference between "keyword density" and having at least one occurence of a given phrase within the copy. Multiple occurences on a document are no more valuable than the first occurance, but if there's not even one occurence, then you have a big problem (regardless of what is contained in your meta info)
you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink ...