Hello, I'm not very experienced copywriter, but really like it. I've heard a lot about SEO, but still have some questions. Does this system really work and you need to use as many keywords as you can? Because sometimes it is not so easy to wright a high quality content, using these "necessary" words all the time.
I don't excessively type the keywords in the content, I prioritize the flow of the story rather than the keyword.
Readers don't want to see garbage that doesn't make sense. If your articles have a bunch of random keywords strewn throughout that affect the readability of the article, JUNK IT. You are only adding to the proliferation of junk content on the web by concentrating on stuffing your article with as many keywords as possible rather than crafting a readable, well-written article.
For the most part I now ignore the keyword issue with articles I publish and focus entirely on trying to write/publish well written and interesting articles. The reason is simple. I have found that what I think are the important keywords really aren't. Users have the darnedest ways of defying logic with the search phrases they use. As an example, in the past month users used over 100,000 different search phrases to end up on my site. It is simply better to "paint with a broad brush" then focus on a narrow bunch of key words. The "long tail" of search can be a highly effective way for users to find your sites.
there is nothing wrong in including your keywords just don't go mad and make sure any copy reads natually. keywords are important in the consideration of keyword density. place your keywords often throughout your body copy. the search engines will scan your site and pick up keywords. these keywords will help you rank very high. the above is just some blurb. there are 35 words. i have focused on the word "keywords". it appears 5 times. that is a density of 14%. this is just too much keep it simple but do not go overboard
I am certainly not implying that keywords shouldn't be included in your content. But I do not believe they should form the basis of your article. It's fine to include words that are relevant to what you believe readers are searching for - but as you mentioned, the above blurb had "keywords" written too many times. That definitely affects the readability of your article.
Am I wrong, or is there some new algorithm in the search engines that now read relevant content - or related content? Like, if you're main keyword was "doll hair" that the search engines would equally place relevance on content also including things like "Barbie hair" or "ken's new doo" and what not (very dramatic and goofy examples, but still). Am I waaay off? I like writing based on topic, not on keyword. And it seems to help a lot. I do use keyword placement in the really heavy text styles (heading, title, etc), but I do not like to lace the keywords all throughout the content. To me it just looks to much like garbage. And I'm not a landfill.
Oh I know. How about you write an article with nothing but keywords that is about nothing but keywords with a headline that's all keywords. Weeeeeeeeee
I don't worry about keywords when I'm writing for my own purposes. A few here and there is fine. Usually once in the title, and maybe once in each paragraph (depending on the length of the article). My clients, on the other hand, always insist on a certain number of keywords. If they say use it 15 times in one 500 word article, then I better use it 15 times. It drives me nuts.
If you're writing about a specific topic, the keywords should naturally appear. It's impossible to write on a topic without actually mentioning the topic a few times. Keywords should just happen, they should not be forcefully placed in content.