Why Google is Flawed - Account from a Fictional Expert... Let's assume that I am world renowned expert on solar panel technology. I have written extensive in-depth and peer-reviewed articles about the latest developments in solar panels. However, because I am an "expert" my articles rarely contain the term "solar panel". I prefer to use the term "photovoltaic cells" this is way more accurate description than "solar panel". However, will the Google bot find my articles by keyword? Probably not, I only ever mention the term "solar panel" or "solar panels" about once in my articles. The non-academic folks who sprinkle the term "solar panels" (and probably sell solar panels) into every 10th line will probably outrank me. This is why Google is flawed. The Goolge bot especially since Penguin 2.0 will go looking for keywords but often relying on keywords is such a crude way of searching. Now, I would like your opinions?
You make a very good point there, but I guess the same could be said for any search engine. However, if you use the technical jargon, people won't understand it anyway...
You've got a point there BUT say if you have hundreds of in-depth and quality articles, Google will eventually look to your site as authoritative not to mention links to your posts will naturally come. Although there are a lot of manipulations happening for SE, writing with readers in mind is a way to go - after all, content is king!
Your argument is flawed. The world renowned expert isn't interested in the traffic that comes from "solar panel" searches. Your expert doesn't want to deal with newbies and doesn't use the language that newbies will find accessible. By talking about photothingies the expert is pitching to other industry experts who know that a search for "solar panel" won't deliver the technical resources that they are looking for. The bigger problem that your expert will suffer from is that s/he won't be able to generate fresh content as often as spammers will and that will cause problems. The inbound links won't be as plentiful but will hopefully be "better quality" than the spammers can get. If your expert does have newbie focussed goods or services then the expert needs to pitch the content at their level - standard sales stuff there. Don't talk down to your audience!
Just wanted add one more thing to what sarahk just posed above, when building content for your website Google Penguin isn't what you should be worried about, its Google Panda. Quite honestly, with every update Google releases it seems to me that (less is more) when it comes to keywords density and the like.
But surely if Google really wants to serve its audience...it will serve up the best quality possible. If I am a nerdy high-schooler who is doing Physics project....I am going to find Herr-Professors articles on photo-voltaic cells much more interesting than some sales blurb on solar-panels. I mean where does does Google draw the line in terms of serving up content written for marketing AND content written that is actually rigorous and very in-depth (and no sales bias). I am noticing the opposite...ever since the last update. Any domain names with a keyword in their title seem to have outranked those without a keyword in their domain name. For the people reading this I have nothing against sales or marketing....it is the lifeblood of any business but, like a lot of people, Goolge's vacilliations have been really bugging me lately!!!
I believe its a typo that you wrote: keyword in title I wasn't talking about domain names. You were talking about content and I was very clear by typing keyword density and I thought it should be clear enough that I meant in content as we're discussion content issue. Anyways, I totally understand where your coming from (been there my self), so good luck with whatever your doing or trying to do.
Patricianian, I know you did not mention about domain names...that was me just going off on a tangent...about another annoyance I have with Google... But anyway, keyword density you think is less important now with Google?
And this is my simple opinion: It is true Google Bot may not find your page insufficient enough to be ranked and added into expected category. It is confirmed your site probably would not being ranked higher for your expected category due to your writing style. It is also true another site with less content will be ranked better than your site. Now, You may need to read these simple interesting 'news': Google use Robots only to crawl. The decision to rank and categorize a site is rely on Many things. Once all reports about your site being collected, the system will analyze it, assign the rank and added it into specified category. Higher site with better score will be ranked better for that category. Google didn't rank a site based on the keyword and content only. I guess everyone already understand about it. Google use recommendation from greater site to also rank a site. this is why an article from university (.edu/.gov) will be ranked higher even if they only use related keyword. keyword plays no important rules since few years ago. Did anyone remember the fate of Meta Keyword which usually used in a site? Big G didn't like it and have abandoned it for years. They think the same thing after they found out the best way to measure a site without using keywords. We should think lucky big G still using keyword to measure a site. Future webmaster would think "How big G will measure my site" rather than "What keyword I should insert into the articles". Don't worry to use less keyword or no keyword at all in the articles. What should we worry is "What authority I got for my site". Big G welcome any opinion to measure a site. Just send an email to them and they may reply back to sender. However, show them how brilliant the idea and how skillful you are in understanding Google logarithm including, spidering and valuing a site. As long as you have a site which is trusted by authority and community, you'll be ranked higher for expected keyword.
I suggest you look in Google Webmaster Tools to see what keywords Google has found for your site. Sarahk nailed it really, you are targeting different audiences. It doesn't seem like a flaw. If I was looking to buy solar panels and instead find technical waffle like from your expert then I would feel there is a flaw. However, looking at the UK results there is an interesting set that would be very useful to read through when deciding to go ahead with it or not. As for keyword density, this situation is the same - it's a myth. Maybe you meant keyword stuffing? (Something entirely different.) Well, it was a clear part of Penguin (since its inception - they published that). Fortunately they are doing something about this spam tactic. The message Google has been trying to send (but is still falling on death ears) is focus on your audience rather than their algorithm. Audience is what counts. (Look at a website as a virtual newspaper - every good journalist knows who they must write for, who reads their stories.) EDIT: Think about it for a moment - someone searching for "solar panels" is most likely wanting to buy them. Let's take the UK results: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk...oosing-a-renewable-technology/Solar-panels-PV - "informational" (don't hate me for using the word). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel - informational again. http://www.which.co.uk/energy/creating-an-energy-saving-home/guides/how-to-buy-solar-panels/ - again informational, from a reputable site/magazine. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-solar-panels - "I don't believe it", it's informational. http://www.moneysupermarket.com/gas-and-electricity/solar-power/ - informational, albeit its a site based upon affiliate earnings, so it's more to push you to looking at other stuff on their site. Still, they are reputable, decent enough information, aren't trying to ram solar panels down my throat and they link to Energy Saving Trust. http://www.evoenergy.co.uk/ - some questionable back links, but a real company with happy customers (I'm not basing it on the ratings they put forward themselves, do a bit of research and you'll find independent sources with comments about the company). http://www.britishgas.co.uk/products-and-services/solar-panels/solar-pv.html - a reputable company pushing their product. http://www.uswitch.com/solar-panels/ - similar to #5 (informational, but makes its money by people signing up for services through their site, good reputation in the UK). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-000-carbuncle-roof-save-money-lives-154.html - a news article from a well known paper, worth reading to help learn more and make an informed decision. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/solarpower - this result is a bit questionable, as its a category with links to other articles. So, all-in-all, a decent set of results except for #10. There are informational sites (including some that are quite in-depth), a useful news article and two that are directly about selling solar panels.
Arick, thanks for your post. I know Google is not just 1-D when it comes to search but sometimes it seems like that... Ryan, Thanks for that in-depth look at results based on "solar panels" on google.co.uk. I liked your accurate commentary beside each link. But, when i go to google.co.uk and type in "solar panels uk" an exact-match domain name comes up...congratulations to them (they do have a nice site) , but how do you explain this in light of the Penguin update?
And what's the problem with this EMD? Are you sure you understand Google updates? There was an EMD update (not part of Penguin) that tackled low quality EMDs. I think you have the wrong idea about Penguin.
Quite frankly, no! I have a basic understanding that is all. For example, differences like good quality EMD's and low quality EMD's - that I plead ignorance to....your honour! But, thanks to you, I am now better informed.Cheers for the link btw. Keeping up-to-date with all this stuff is just so time consuming...
Dr-Pete's posts are well worth following. He does a lot of interesting analysis. The same with Rand Fishkin, too. It will give you a better understanding of the mysterious Google algorithm.
Google actually does a good job at associating lingo, however it can not be perfect, give them a break it is a very well built algo, nothing is perfect.
SERPpoint, I know that. But, some of the best most informative articles on a particular subject will only ever mention the keyword ONCE or TWICE.
Look up synonyms. I would recommend taking a programming course and then writing some algorithms to process text documents and categorise them. Then you will have a better idea of how.