Example of Good SEO vs Bad SEO

People generally do a careful job of choosing their keywords, optimizing the title, choosing anchor text, etc.

But often they inadvertantly optimize for something totally different. Using our new tool Qirina, let's compare two sites in the same market. One does much better in the serps than the other.

Good SEO: masterrussian.com. Based on the text on the front page of this site, Qirina correctly identifies the niche as "russian language" (see analysis) .

Bad SEO: listen2russian.com. Qirina identifies the niche as "flash player" (see analysis).

This is because the on-site SEO hasn't been checked carefully enough and the phrase "flash player" shows up too many times in comparison to the keywords being targetted. "flash player" shows up 10 times, "internet explorer" 4 times, and "learn russian" only 3 times.

No surprise then that masterrussian.com is at the #1 spot for "learn russian" whereas listen2russian.com is at the #8 spot.

Conclusion: very simple on-site SEO mistakes can tank your site no matter how much you fuss about anchor text, backlinks, etc.

 

Yep, you really have to be an advocate for your sites, do everything you can do to get people using GOOD anchor text.

This is why Adobe used to rank #1 for "click here."

 

you like totally missed the point, but whatever.

 

Good seo means add original content and update your site daily.
bad seo means duplicate content.

 

Its a pretty decent tool but having something more informative than "If the niche has not been correctly identified, this site's performance can be substantially improved by better on-site SEO." would certainly help.

 

it depend, I often seen a duplicate content's site got nice position on SE

 

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah I guess I will link to a page with detailed explanations and resources or something.

 

I'm not sure of the efficacy of this tool as it appears to pull irrelevant data and there is no way to "guide" it
e.g. it shows a KW "x251c" that is non-existent and no way discernible to change "probable niche" to better gauge the on-page SEO factors.

 

I think the major thing to be concerned with is keyword phrases on your website. While I doubt having "Adobe Flash Player" in 3-5% of your words on your website would be a major detracting factor, it certainly would help to have it toned down to 0-1%.

Though, I will admit that this factor becomes especially important if you're worried about on-site links to other pages in order to increase the weight of a keyword phrase on each page to the next.

 

every people choose a careful job and make a good design

 

I must totaly agree with you on this. There are a lot of cases where established sites rank much higher with duplicate content tha sites that originally had that content.

 

I'd love to answer your post but you'd have to post in English or some other language I understand. This is just gibberish.

I feel like Alice in Wonderland. Somebody wake me up.

Oh absolutely. Finally someone is making sense.

 

i think there is not a perfect definition of good or bad seo but it totally depends to the way an individual does and remark it under white hat or black hat.

 

Yes there is no single technique in good seo as well as in bad seo.

 

Good and Bad depends on the way we do the things.

 

Having good on-site seo is very important. Keyword density is important, and having keywords near the top of your page is important. Keywords in the title, domain, and H1 tag is most important for on-site SEO.

 

Clueless nonsense based on nothing.
is that why your own site is not on page one of google?