6 ms·
Successful Site in 12 Months with Google Alone
- naish 17y agoThe article has some good points, even if some are rather outdated. Published in 2002!
- lallysingh 17y ago"Remember, 80% of your surfers will be at 56k or even less." Yeah.
- wmeredith 17y agoThat's it, really. The rest of this is good stuff. Especially considering it's 7 years old.
- lallysingh 17y agoThe core methodology is good. But: - 5-12k may not be as useful as a guideline as before. - HTML 4 & JavaScript recommendations may no longer be as valid as they were then.
- callmeed 17y agoWell, I'd also add that adding a blog to a site can accomplish some of what he recommended (like adding a page per day). Also, using mod_rewrite and clever routing can accomplish things like folder names with keywords.
- omnipath 17y agoWhat is wrong with that assumption? I assume a lot of people are starting to browse from cellphones, mobile connections, more foreign places. You wouldn't want stuff to bog down your site, just because there are people who have faster connections.
- xenophanes 17y agoNot 80% of people.
- jwesley 17y agoExactly. I'm sure this was really useful at the time, but SEO and the web as whole has changed drastically since 2002. It's gotten a lot more complicated and competitive.
- motherwell 17y agoThat is like saying the 100m for men has changed. It hasn't, you just have to be better at it than 40 years ago. Nothing has really changed: build something people want, using terminology they use, and get third party citations. Job done.
- imp 17y agoPretty basic stuff. None of it newsworthy. I notice that right now it's #8, but in the classic view it's not even on the home page. This might be one indication of lower quality on the site.
- codeodor 17y ago38 minutes later they are showing it at 3 (on /classic) and 4 on the home page.
- aaronsw 17y agoThis is precisely the problem with /classic -- even old (classic?) users use the main home page, so they're going to vote up stuff they see there. The front page is so path-dependent that taking out certain votes after-the-fact is never going to make big changes.
- gojomo 17y agoMaybe 'classic' users should be shown the classic leaderboard by default? Alternatively, maybe classic users have the same preferences, but check the site less frequently... so they follow the newer population but at a lag.
- physcab 17y agoSorry, but you need to remember that some hackers (eg me) are pretty new to this stuff. I found it helpful to have all this information in one place. For me, the ranking is justified.
- mkull 17y agooldddddddd
- chaosmachine 17y ago"If you have the budget, then submit to Looksmart and Yahoo." "Submit the root to: Google, Fast, Altavista, WiseNut, (write Teoma), DirectHit, and Hotbot." This article is more than a little past its prime.
- redsymbol 17y agoAnyone have recent experience in whether search keywords in the domain name itself matter? Separately, what about subdomains?
- mistermann 17y agoYes, I am very interested in this exact same question.
- redorb 17y agoI find the keyword in the domain does help, but it really isn't worth chasing to the point of having a stupid name.. What you really want is an "exact phrase match" I.e. "On sale laptops" gets searched for 19.9k times a month https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal https://adwords.google.com/select/KeywordToolExternal and position 1 is likely to get nearly 40% (if not more) of those clicks http://www.jaygeiger.com/index.php/2008/11/05/percentage-clicks-by-position/ http://www.jaygeiger.com/index.php/2008/11/05/percentage-cli... Thus if you can own OnSaleLaptops.com you stand to get around 10-30k hits/mo surely you can monetize that :/ hope these answers were ok, they are just my experience.
- lamnk 17y agoIt's a myth with keywords in the domain name. You can use keyword subdomains and it worked just fine. My rule is that you should have at least one keyword in the URL. And the URL should not be longer than 15 words (incl. domain, subdomain, path)
- mlLK 17y agoI'm not proud of it but I did some SEO 'stuff' for a local company (gas money) and there really was only so much I could do; they were using a flash as their navigation that targeted an iframe to generate it's content pages, if you think that isn't bad enough, I had no access to any of the *.fla files to do what I needed to. I even tried working around this with JavaScript, but it ended up not being completely compliant in older versions of firefox. . .so what did I do? I said fuck it, and rolled back their index page back to HTML4 transitional and, low and behold, it actually worked. In fact, it worked so well that I've grown to become suspicious of XHTML.
- mcav 17y agoThe pendulum has finally swung away from XHTML; developers are starting to understand that HTML is not inferior to XHTML. The HTML5 unification process -- such that XHTML and HTML are actually just syntactically different -- should help kill the XHTML-is-better meme for good.
- mlLK 17y agoroger wilco
- lawrence 17y agoThis post was the SEO bible back in 2003, and a lot of folks used it to go back to basics following the infamous Google "Florida" update. I think it's held up pretty well. In addition to WMW, Brett runs a pretty good SEO conference called Pubcon.