5 ms·

SEO rigging? That's mostly having links from other reputable sources. If this software is good, other good sites will link to it rising it up in the search resu

by dalore 11y ago

SEO rigging? That's mostly having links from other reputable sources. If this software is good, other good sites will link to it rising it up in the search results. Lot's of open source projects come up top of the results when you search for stuff because of this fact.

mootothemax 11y ago
>SEO rigging? That's mostly having links from other reputable sources. If this software is good, other good sites will link to it rising it up in the search results You have tell Google what your site is about, otherwise it's pretty hopeless; you're pretty much well asking Google to guess what terms the site should rank for. The five-minute-basics this site needs are to create a meaningful title tag (getting "YouTube Downloader" in there would be a great start. With zero research, maybe even "YouTube Downloader - Save Videos for Later"), create a friendly meta description that'll tell people what it's about in the search result pages, and use an H1 where it's currently using a TD with "subtitle" class. It wouldn't hurt to also have a short bullet-point list of uses cases, just to get related search terms - e.g. "save youtube to my computer" - that the big G can use to direct users to the site. >Lot's of open source projects come up top of the results when you search for stuff because of this fact. The problem is so bad, I know lots of people - myself included - who hunt for projects first on Github, and Google a distant second. Google is capable of some quite incredible things; using mind-reading to find out the important parts of a project or what it relates to, sadly, isn't one of their core strengths.
- OJFord 11y ago
  > The problem is so bad, I know lots of people - myself > included - who hunt for projects first on Github, and > Google a distant second. Seriously? I search with `site:github.com` all the time.
  - mootothemax 11y ago
    >Seriously? >I search with `site:github.com` all the time. Yup - I find that Google's index isn't always as fresh as Github's, and being able to filter by code vs. repository vs. issues and then by language if necessary is a great help. Basically, for me, finding open-source projects is a real unsolved problem!
  - jefurii 11y ago
    DuckDuckGo has !github, !gh, !ghcode, and !gist. https://duckduckgo.com/bang?q=github https://duckduckgo.com/bang?q=github
    - TheGrassyKnoll 11y ago
      And don't forget !yt for YouTube search from DuckDuckGo. (!bang will show you almost 8000 bang options)
    - OJFord 11y ago
      That just takes me to GH search results, though. My point is I find that I have more success with Google's indexing than Github's own (same with SO; many others).
- dalore 11y ago
  Google pretty much ignore or place a very very low value on meta description and titles since it's so easy to game. External links, from high ranking reputable sites is where the most value is at since they are hard to game. Example would be linking to this project page from the wikipedia page for youtube. Also the text used for links is important. Yes google is a mind reader and it does figure what your page is about. It's actually not that hard using natural language toolkits to process the text on the page and figure it out. See http://www.nltk.org/ http://www.nltk.org/
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
cookiecaper 11y ago
>SEO rigging? That's mostly having links from other reputable sources. If this software is good, other good sites will link to it rising it up in the search results. This is a myth perpetrated by Google and it's entirely false. The fact is that if you aren't actively engaged in spa--err, SEO--, you will be outgamed and crushed by anyone moderately competent at spa-- err, "internet marketing". I make a point of replying to this because my established, objectively-superior-in-every-tangible-way company was creamed by a bad copycat that had a pre-existing spam apparatus, despite our one-year head start and, as already stated, every conceivable advantage (we were cheaper, more effective (their stuff basically didn't work at all), and much more attractive (they were using a crappy WordPress template; we had a beautiful custom design created by professional designers)). I was dumb enough to believe Google's statement that if you're good, you'll gain organic links and your rank will rise. Our SEO strategy was based on writing a lot of blog posts and hoping their relevance and high-quality information would facilitate a rise in the ranks (our competitor had no content at all; just a landing page promoting his bad knockoff product). This strategy had basically no effect. Making good content and/or products and crossing your fingers simply does not work if you have commercial competitors. >Lots of open source projects come up top of the results when you search for stuff because of this fact. Technical projects that are either so ubiquitous it wouldn't make any sense for Google to display anything else, so niche that there is no real commercial competition targeting non-technical people, or both. As can be clearly seen with youtube-dl, if it's a keyword that other parties are interested in monetizing, you have to either play the game or lose. The game is not what Google or Matt Cutts say it is (that's disinformation), the game is what actually gets you to a high ranking on Google.
- CM30 11y ago
  Did you actually approach the media, authorities in the niche, Techcrunch, etc? Because you can't just rely on 'on site' SEO to succeed. Adding a bunch of content on your own site is good, but what's really needed is to get authorities elsewhere to link to it. So you need to get good at marketing/PR, in the sense of talking to people with popular sites and social media channels. You can do a ton of stuff on your own site, but it's irrelevant if you're not being linked to or mentioned elsewhere. And one good link from say, the New York Times or BBC or some other popular site is worth a ton more than a thousand spam links from low quality domains.

by dalore 11y ago

mootothemax 11y ago

>SEO rigging? That's mostly having links from other reputable sources. If this software is good, other good sites will link to it rising it up in the search results You have tell Google what your site is about, otherwise it's pretty hopeless; you're pretty much well asking Google to guess what terms the site should rank for. The five-minute-basics this site needs are to create a meaningful title tag (getting "YouTube Downloader" in there would be a great start. With zero research, maybe even "YouTube Downloader - Save Videos for Later"), create a friendly meta description that'll tell people what it's about in the search result pages, and use an H1 where it's currently using a TD with "subtitle" class. It wouldn't hurt to also have a short bullet-point list of uses cases, just to get related search terms - e.g. "save youtube to my computer" - that the big G can use to direct users to the site. >Lot's of open source projects come up top of the results when you search for stuff because of this fact. The problem is so bad, I know lots of people - myself included - who hunt for projects first on Github, and Google a distant second. Google is capable of some quite incredible things; using mind-reading to find out the important parts of a project or what it relates to, sadly, isn't one of their core strengths.

OJFord 11y ago
> The problem is so bad, I know lots of people - myself > included - who hunt for projects first on Github, and > Google a distant second. Seriously? I search with `site:github.com` all the time.
- mootothemax 11y ago
  >Seriously? >I search with `site:github.com` all the time. Yup - I find that Google's index isn't always as fresh as Github's, and being able to filter by code vs. repository vs. issues and then by language if necessary is a great help. Basically, for me, finding open-source projects is a real unsolved problem!
- jefurii 11y ago
  DuckDuckGo has !github, !gh, !ghcode, and !gist. https://duckduckgo.com/bang?q=github https://duckduckgo.com/bang?q=github
  - TheGrassyKnoll 11y ago
    And don't forget !yt for YouTube search from DuckDuckGo. (!bang will show you almost 8000 bang options)
  - OJFord 11y ago
    That just takes me to GH search results, though. My point is I find that I have more success with Google's indexing than Github's own (same with SO; many others).
dalore 11y ago
Google pretty much ignore or place a very very low value on meta description and titles since it's so easy to game. External links, from high ranking reputable sites is where the most value is at since they are hard to game. Example would be linking to this project page from the wikipedia page for youtube. Also the text used for links is important. Yes google is a mind reader and it does figure what your page is about. It's actually not that hard using natural language toolkits to process the text on the page and figure it out. See http://www.nltk.org/ http://www.nltk.org/
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

cookiecaper 11y ago

>SEO rigging? That's mostly having links from other reputable sources. If this software is good, other good sites will link to it rising it up in the search results. This is a myth perpetrated by Google and it's entirely false. The fact is that if you aren't actively engaged in spa--err, SEO--, you will be outgamed and crushed by anyone moderately competent at spa-- err, "internet marketing". I make a point of replying to this because my established, objectively-superior-in-every-tangible-way company was creamed by a bad copycat that had a pre-existing spam apparatus, despite our one-year head start and, as already stated, every conceivable advantage (we were cheaper, more effective (their stuff basically didn't work at all), and much more attractive (they were using a crappy WordPress template; we had a beautiful custom design created by professional designers)). I was dumb enough to believe Google's statement that if you're good, you'll gain organic links and your rank will rise. Our SEO strategy was based on writing a lot of blog posts and hoping their relevance and high-quality information would facilitate a rise in the ranks (our competitor had no content at all; just a landing page promoting his bad knockoff product). This strategy had basically no effect. Making good content and/or products and crossing your fingers simply does not work if you have commercial competitors. >Lots of open source projects come up top of the results when you search for stuff because of this fact. Technical projects that are either so ubiquitous it wouldn't make any sense for Google to display anything else, so niche that there is no real commercial competition targeting non-technical people, or both. As can be clearly seen with youtube-dl, if it's a keyword that other parties are interested in monetizing, you have to either play the game or lose. The game is not what Google or Matt Cutts say it is (that's disinformation), the game is what actually gets you to a high ranking on Google.

CM30 11y ago
Did you actually approach the media, authorities in the niche, Techcrunch, etc? Because you can't just rely on 'on site' SEO to succeed. Adding a bunch of content on your own site is good, but what's really needed is to get authorities elsewhere to link to it. So you need to get good at marketing/PR, in the sense of talking to people with popular sites and social media channels. You can do a ton of stuff on your own site, but it's irrelevant if you're not being linked to or mentioned elsewhere. And one good link from say, the New York Times or BBC or some other popular site is worth a ton more than a thousand spam links from low quality domains.