I've read in a few places that MSN is easier to land in for keyword targeting. At least that's allegedly the first of the big 3 that can be cracked? Is there a logical explanation? Is it less complex algorithms in place than G & Y, or are they simply giving credit to new appearances of keywords that simply match up better to the search results than what the engine has seen in the past?
I don't think it is easier to crack I find it more difficult, because Google has more or less a fix algorithm so it is easier to predict, MSN seemed to be fine tuning all the time, what works well now may not work well later.
There is some truth to that I think.. In my personal opinion i think people say that because msn doesnt place as much emphasias on back links as google does.. But dont get me wrong back links are still a very big big factor.. Just not as much as google, so people when they got a new site and see on msn they get ranked higher at 1st.. Thats just my theroy on why "some" people say that. Im interested to read what others think about the subject as well.
Their algorithms are definitely different I think msn places more emphasis on on screen optimization rather than backlinks.
It seems that MSN puts less weight on backlinks and more emphasis on the actual content of your website.
I'm not so sure if it "emphasizes" on content and not off page parameters, as I have seen junk pages with lots of backlinks reach the top.
I am not sure, but I get a lot more traffic from MSN than Google - and considering that there are a lot more poeple using Google, it would be cool to get a bit more traffic from the big G.
yes msn and yahoo are more focussed on on page optimization, content and google is towards backlinks. if you have a good content at your site, its high possibility that you will get better ranking in msn and yahoo... --Thanks...
imo its because domain keywords matter alot in MSN so if yuou have a good domain you end up ranked high right quick
I find it more harder to crack. This is because theyre always competing try to be better than google, So they are always making changes.
I wish we could get an opinion from an authority speaker here. I have mixed results with various sites and it's really hard to determine what it is that MSN likes as of today.
for us. I'd ascribe it to algorithim tweaking as well. All of the websites we develop are optimized to the max from an onpage perspective, but MSN doesn't seem to acknowledge as consistently as G & Y.
Agree that Google is more important in the end. However, if MSN is the first place you can have your site show up, then I think it would be helpful to know how you do that (what is the driving factor that gets an MSN appearance). I was thinking MSN would be a good measuring stick for some sites that I don't have live yet (just thinking ahead). When someone makes an MSN appearance in the top 10 for their keywords, then it's a way to know you're making headway, even if it isn't Google... Anyway, that was the thinking behind the original question.
This is why I think MSN is really a better search engine than G (in my opinion). If you are a searcher, do you really care how many back links the pages in the serps have? No, I just want to read the content. In my opinion (again my opinion), rating a site based on back links is one of the most stupid things in the world. In a nutshell, if a site is created yesterday with 0 backlinks, but has the content that I want to see is on this site, G doesn't want to show me this content. Another stupid thing about rating by back links. You are supposed to get back links from authority sites in your industry or niche. This is supposed to be the best way to get nice google rankings. In how many niches or industries are the authority sites your competitors? Probably many. Why would my competitor want to link to me? I encourage many people I speak with to try alternative search engines (alternative to G). Hopefully someday people will start using live.com more often.