does google really care about onpage seo?

The Miserable Failure bomb doesn't work anymore, largely because they burn out themselves because of people linking to articles about it etc and altering the SERP's. However the concept still works.

I'm #1 for a username i commented on several Dofollow blogs, and the term isn't used on my whole site. Also the other form of Google Bowling, is using keywords on the page but taking them out of context much like Matt Cutts blog ranking page 1 for "Buy Cheap Viagra"

 

on-page optimization does lots of positive effect on a site regarding the ranking in SERP. simply by providing the needed content, enough emphasizing of keywords and strategical placement of each keywords and even anchoring text will be loved by SEs.

 

The bomb still works. If the whitehouse puts the word "miserable" and or "failure" on that page, it'll pull up #1 again. It's happened recently too. I think "failure" triggered it. Google just makes sure that the words are actually on the page to prevent bombs that don't make sense. You can't link to www.yahoo.com with a million "porn" links and make yahoo pull #1. But if yahoo puts the word "porn" on their homepage, those links will make it pull up #1.

 

I can recall reading about Google's attempt to combat the bombing effect a while ago. I think this was the link.

 

darrens without knowing the sites in question it is virtually impossible to tell you what is going on.

 

Yes google really care about onpage seo

 

Well as I said to you in another thread the Applied Semantics patents have absolutely nothing to do with LSI.

As for the tilde operator if you examine it carefully you will see that it uses a small and very poor set of real synonyms. For example ‘shell’ has many synonyms; ammunition, armament, bullet, cartridge, carcass, framework, peel, husk, seashell etc., etc. However Google recognizes very few of these with a ~shell search. Anyhow synonyms tend not to co-occur but rather appear in the same or similar context.

I agree, particularly as he has quoted my post on the subject

- Michael

 

There more myths and errors in that post then factual statements.

I'm with Aaron Wall on this one: LSI or something else, does it really matter? I'll leave the debates about angels on a pin to others. I think Homer is right to emphasize context/content relevance, whatever algorithms Google may be using to identify this.

Note that, as quoted in the Garcia article, Matt Cutts does not say Google isn't using LSI. He says he will neither confirm nor deny that Google is using LSI. Don't you find it rather curious that he should make such a statement?

 

Not if you are from the Humpty Dumpty school where in Through the Looking-Glass, by Lewis Carroll he says "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". If you are not from the Humpty Dumpty school and you want to debate the topic rationally then yes it does matter.

Not in the slightest. If you ask Matt if they are using "phrase-based indexing" on any other of the 1001 possible technologies you will get the same answer.

- Michael

 

I'm not debating the definition of the term. I'm saying that whatever Google is using, they have demonstrated that they have the capability to identify the theme or focus of on-page content and to use that in evaluating links.

So, again, in the context of the question posed in this thread, does it matter if they do that using LSI or something else?

 

How about if Yahoo! had something related like ¨adult movies¨ on it instead?

 

Are you saying they just have the capability or that they actually do it?

It only matters if you understand something about LSI or cannot define the "something else".

- Michael

 

Should it really matter what the technology is called? Who says Google is using a technology already in existance rather than its very own version having a similar effect?

 

Definitely LSI and co occurrence is on the rise and is being implemented more and more in Google...If you want to be known as an expert then use some expert verbiage on your site it will definitely help....

 

It boils down to that google want to act like a human being and treat sites that are good for humans good in the serps.

 

from the sites I'm seeing recently, humans LOVE to read content that is duplicated on thousands of sites online. And ones that aren't updated since 2004. Etc etc etc.

 

What sites is that?

 

I thought we had stuck a fork in this myth and killed it?

 

That's a direct quote from DP member Michael in another thread. Not a great way to begin your career as a DP member.

 

Yes, that is a major key. Without knowing the Google algorithm, we can't know for sure. But it is widely believed that anchor text on incoming links to your page counts as text on that page. Some (by no means all) have even suggested that the incoming link anchor text counts as much or more than a natural occurrence of the same keyword(s) in the text of the page itself. That's debatable, but my strategic use of targeted incoming link anchor text has brought much success getting those keywords onto Google's front page.