Classic Literature Serp - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Classic Literature Serp

Sam, I think I do get your point. I'm new at SEO, but very impressed
by your ability/results. I'm always trying to learn, so let me comment
and feel free to let me know if I don't get it.

Point 1 ... The way I see it, if you can get ranked so well with
little effort, I can't imagine how well you would do if you decided to
go all out. Meaning content, backlinks, etc.

Point 2 ... I thought there was a distinction between SEO and
Copywriting (did I use the right term). If you are copywriting, you
are concerned about content. Obviously if you are optimizing a page
(SEO) for a search engine, you are concerned about keywords, but not
necessarily content.

Point 3 ... I believe your point is to prove how easily you can take a
site and get it ranked. If it was about content, I didn't see that as
a condition to the bet or did I miss it?

Point 4 ... I also believe Sam, that you are quite aware of and smart
enough to know that if you wanted your site to sale or as a
informational page, you would add the needed content. In this case,
the point is not content, but getting the stie ranked well. Again,
isn't that the point. Hell, if I could get my site ranked well and it
was going to be my primary site, I would add the needed content. But
again, that is not the point here. Sorry, if I sound like a broken

If someone tomorrow challenged me to a race and I crossed the finish
line beore they did, I won. But afterwards  they decided that how I
ran the race or that there was no content to the race becuase I ran
naked, then they are blind to the original challenge. All of sudden
how I ran and what I wear is more important then the race itself.

I also say, why bother putting a lot of effort in to a site with
content that you are not keeping.  To do so, would kinda be foolish. I
trust Sam, if you were planning on keeping one of these sites, you
would dress it appropriately.

Again, way to go. The fact you did it your way, showed that it can be
done without much effort seems to be more impressive then if you would
of written a 10,000 word site that would not rank any better. Even if
the 10,000 page site proved it read better, got more backlinks, etc,
that would be another race, wouldn't it?

For that matter, if you would of done a 10,000 page site just to prove
you can win a race, I may of shook my head and said "man, doesn't that
guy have better things to do with his time."

Thanks Sam for the insight


Re: Classic Literature Serp


  You basically got it all right or close enough to understand what I
was doing with thse two sites. I don't plan on keeping them very long
and may not even persue getting them listed higher on page one. I may
just let them drop out if they don't go higher on their own from this
point. I think I've made my point with these two sites even if they
don't go higher up on page one. The only thing I feel bad about is that
Shakespeare had to take 2nd place to a message board forum. Oh the
slings and arrows we suffer!

Re: Classic Literature Serp

Sam, I was reading through the other threads and read something that
may help me understand. Sorry, can't quote dave here, but his statment
was something along the line that adding content would make doing SEO
work harder. If that is true, then I see why others keep bringing up
content. Since you was kind enough to reply to my last post, here is
my thought.

I'll keep it simple. I create a web page. I place my keywords in all
the right places so search engines find me on that key word. Now if I
add more content, this will somehow dillute my keywords so they are
not as significant/relevant to a search engine search. Is this right?

If the above is the case, then I have to be careful that I keep adding
more of my keywords to the additional content I add...correct?

Could I also look at it this way. If content is important, instead of
putting all content  on one or two pages, I break it up in to several
pages. I may have little content per page, but I would have several
pages linked together that were ranked well, plus the pages would
still give the content would just be on several pages.

I still say it does not take away from your point. Mostly becuase if
the above is true about content, I'm sure you are smart enough to know
this and if you would add more content you would add the approriate
density of keywords. With that said, I think you proved a point and
since you are not planning on keeping the sites why make the effort of
adding content to a site you won't keep.

Dave and you definetly have some insight in to this SEO stuff. To me,
it seems you two just chosen different paths on how to do it. There is
no reason that both ways are not right and the way to go may depend on
the type of site you are creating.

I do have a question about hiddent text. Why hide it? In this case, I
don't think your point is how pretty your site is, but keyword
signficance. Since you are not concern with the look, why not just
list the text as is at that bottom. For that matter, one of the most
successful sites I have seen does just that. It isn't pretty, but he
listed all his words  at the bottom in plain view for all to see. He
makes a good living and he could care less that it wasn't flashy or
pretty. For that matter, he felt the less flash the more chance of
being ranked well. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't gross or ugly, but
all these words at the bottom with commas in between didn't seem to
serve a purpose until I asked him about it one day. His reply was "I
make $8000 a month and those keywords are going to stay put" Since he
was a friend of mine, he emailed me his click bank statments to prove
his point. He has been doing this for years. No doubt he has the
knowledge if he wanted to do CSS, javascript, flash, etc, but he
didn't see the point. But if someday it does make a difference, I'm
sure he will switch over quickly.  So I stopped trying to learn all
this flash stuff and concentrate now more on good html code and seo

see ya.......erin.

Re: Classic Literature Serp


 Don't even try to put content on the index page of a site. The index
page should be your entrance page and nothing more. The content should
start further in either on a main page when you click an enter link or
the main could be a sitemap to all the main pages that house your
content or sometimes even your index page can have the sitemap to the
internal content rich pages of the site.

 I've seen some really badly designed sites from people here in this ng
who claim to be webmastersm web designers and seos. Sites that have
100kb on the index page that scroll down into eternity with links spread
all over the place with no ryhme or reason as part of a rambling text
that goes on forever. One thing I'll say about Dave is that his sites
are designed well keeping the viewers in mind even though he lacks
certain seo skills.

 Lastly keywords on the page are not as important as keywords used in
your link anchor text from your backlinks from other sites you're linked
at. You do need a certain amount of keywords on your pages however but
it's a minimal amount whereas outside link keywords the more the

 As far as hidden text it's for effect and does absolutely nothing to
boost a site in the serps. Hidden text hasn't worked in years and people
here who say your site can get banned for using them are seo illiterate.

Re: Classic Literature Serp

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you do the content right your index page can take loads of related

Quoted text here. Click to load it

So make the page that introduces your site introduces your business a
sitemap!!!!! You get worse.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's not bad design per se, just not ideal for Google since they
stop indexing after 101KB. You have no room to talk about bad design,
you don't even keep up to date with basic things like CSS.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Time to check those emails of yours again-

Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:38:37 -0800

All my on code experiments are finally coming together now and I think
I've developed the ideal on code for a phone sex site for google:

That's the newest re-do, just uploaded it. It moved from page 11 to
8 and with this latest re-do should move to page 1 in a week or two.

What I found works in this order:

1. keywords as part of title

2. <h1> plus <font size=7> plus <i> for header tag same as meta title

3. Using simple left/right tables for the page design

4. using <font size=5> for the text content

5. <h2> header tag using keywords same as page title but add the word
links or something else

6. Anchor text on all pages should have at least one link that's only
keyword(s) as the text that points to the index page, and at least one
link that uses the index page title as anchor text that points to the
index page.

7. Optional: Having the year and cpyright next to the domain name url
2004 c url (url as link to homepage with only keyword(s) pointing to
homepage domain root address. This is optional and don't know for sure
if it does anything. Just one of those feeling right to me things.

More things that might work:

1. Using form boxes - these probably work as many information sites
them that are listed high up right now. But they have to be cgi form
boxes that search your own site in order to work. So you can't just to
an email mailto form box or a form box that searches google or
else. those won't work. Has to be your own form boxes that use cgi or
something else maybe php that google will accept.

2. Something about the coding at google blogspot pages - I know for a
fact this works whether you want to believe it or not. It only works
with google blogspot coding and no other blog coding. So blogs in
general and CSS in general won't make any difference. Only the version
of coding used on google blogspot sites will make a difference and
it a real giant boost at the serps. this is a fact not conjecture any
longer. To proove this to you I will do a lingerie or better yet an
site using google blogspot coding and you'll become a believer then!

So which of the above skills am I lacking then, LOL

Do you still believe the above or have you moved on with 6 months more
links spamming under your belt?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That would be November last year I told you that. Prior to that you
wouldn't add keyword rich anchor text because you were afraid the
guestbooks you were spamming would rank higher than your site!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why add all the keywords then?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only if Google looks at the page, the likelihood of this is very low,
but it does happen. All those sites that got penalised recently for
adding hidden links for example.

-- /

Site Timeline