Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

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

Threaded View
Hey U-netters,

Because Im shooting for a 3 word generic phrase, Im having legitimate
trouble getting my KW density down on my main page to acceptable
Gu-Gal levels (same happening over at Yeah-Who too, but not too
worried about those goofs).    I'm 90% sure I'm tripping OOP filters
at both places and am lower in the SERPS than I could be.

abstract example (keywords have been changed to protect the guilty)

Lets say I wanted write a good, well ranked page for the 3 word
keyphrase "child day care", I have quite a few variation phrases
available to use in my content:

kids daytime care
children's daily care
care for kids
care of children
young one's care

Now, lets assume Im also a member of two major associations that are
very heavily searched for, and, by luck, happen to be authority sites
for the phrase "child day care" as well:

National Child Day Care Association of Professionals
Child Day Care of Western Foobar

Obviously, since Im a member of both, I would really like to
incorporate those associations into the content of the page. (actually
into all my pages site-wide)

Here's the problem:
I have written and re-written my page many times over using "natural
language" but I always end up well over acceptable density range for
my main phrase. If a human were to hand rank the site they would see
that it's really not "stuffed" at all.  However the filters aren't
human  Here's some sample densities (webmasterworld tool):

"child day care" - 24% - 4 occurrences (including title, but not
"child care" - 31% -  6 occurrences
"day care" - 15%
"care" - 33%
"child" - 21%
"children" - 13%

For what it's worth, Mickey-Soft Nutworks SE currently loves the site
and ranks it amazingly well for all phrases, but Go-go has me mired in
the mid 300's.   I think I may have actually picked up a manual ban
from Yes-hoots as they have crawled all my pages, list very few (and
dropping), but Im well ranked south of the border on mx.yes-hoots.com.

It seems a bit silly that I would actually have to strip the site's
content back so it's "better" for an SE than it would be for a human
actually reading it, but I suppose that's what I have to do.  For
example I can only use the phrase "child day care"  2 times per 300
word page before I bump the upper limits of recommened densities.

Anyone else face this same issue of having "natural language" content
writing take your KW density too high across the board?   How did you
handle it?  Ignore it?  Obey the SEs?

Any thoughts? Experiences?

Jill L.

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ignore it, or moreover: I don't measure KW density. If it doesn't read
natural, I change it until it does.

John                       Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
                                             or have them custom made
                 Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Those were my first thoughts too, John.   But then, of course, I
realized just how few SE clicks Ill be enjoying while ranked at #342.
Probably on the order of....  'none'.  

That's a pretty painful result considering the time put into the site.
I probably could have tossed up any old site, done no SEO on it, and
gotten the same results. It's along the lines of "now that Ive jumped
on this damned bus, when to get off?"  

Answer: I can't just yet..  

I'm pretty sure Im almost 3x  the "unofficial acceptable densities"
for several KWs that I would like to eventually be google-able for.

Before I can take your advice to heart though, let me ask you this
follow up question:  Do you know what your KW density is, for your
most effective SE phrase?   Would you mind doing a quick check?


If you're less than 1/2 of me I going to start pruning the page
anyway.   You can email it if you like.  I realize you'd be posting
some info you might not want hanging out for others.  addy below.

Jill  ---        "j" plus "lebar" doing some business at  "creative"
plus "alliances" add a dot here "org"

(sorry for the cryptic munge)

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:07:46 +0100, Jill L.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Can't you just water your site down? Add some irrelevant text?
Replace KW with other words?


Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:44:57 +0100, Borek

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sure, I can do that.  And I understand that I will have to do it if I
want to pull my site out of the 300s in the Go-go SERPS.   But that
was sort of what I was lamenting in my OP.   By having to add lots of
extra text, and substituting lots of pronouns, and then still having
to remove my professional association credentials to get to a KW
density to make a SE happy seems so "un-natural" to me.  

From my POV, that is breaking the natural language.  If I gotta do it,
I certainly will. In fact, Im already on it.  But it's quite apparent
I do not have a fluid 'content writing' technique  if Im spending so
much time on rewriting, then replacing again, words because Ive used
them too many times.  

My OP was actually wondering if anyone else was having similar issues
when writing for generic 3 KW phrases.  Or whether it's just my own
style of writing that's hanging me out to dry in the SERPS.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
2 words of the 3 word phrase are quite replaceable, one is not at all,
so Ive done that to a pretty large extent.    What ends up happening
is that the page slowly starts becoming weighted towards substituted
words instead of my original targeted phrase.  Kind of a see-saw

I guess that's just what happens when you're new to this whole SEO
ball of wax.   If it were easy, we'd all be #1 for our terms, right?

Thanks for the comments, Borek.

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Do you mean that the percentage of keywords in the whole text should be
What about this page for the word "Italien"?
What could I improve (apart from the number of internal links)?

      Luigi Donatello Asero

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:11:54 GMT, Jill L.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Then don't do it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, you don't gotta. Gotta think more, maybe, yes, but if it feels
wrong to your professional self then don't do it..

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Maybe you should get that ebook by Karen Thackston, um, here

http://copywritingcourse.com/keyword /

it has stimulating ideas in it.     


www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
         The buffalo have gone

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

"Jill L." wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I cannot take yur word for it that kw density is the problem with your
site -- and i don't think anyone really can.

For one, my kw density is high and i rank #1 - #5 at google for 99 out
of 100 kws and kw phrases that i aim for, so i do not cannot see why
this is your problem.

For two, for all i know your site is 99% flash sideshows with images for
buttons and the only text is in plain, never bolded, never linked, hever
headlines, never strong text and there are fewer than 50 words per page.

In other words -- i have no clue why you think your kw density is
killing your rankings -- but i would be glad to have look at your site
and see if i agree that this is yur problem.

True life example of why you just ought to list your URL and let us
check it out:

I had a two-hour conversation last night with a man who had helped
design a page that plagiarized one of my pages -- turns out the site has
242 pages and every single one is a plagiarism of some site or another
-- but THAT is not the point -- the point is that after two years and
thousands of dollars invested (and the use of Dream Weaver, Overture
KWs, and Web Position (hack-ak!) Gold, the site is going to be going
down due to non-renewal of the domain name in less than two months
because the traffic was less than 100 visitors per day and "nothing ever
sold". In other words, it was a complete business failure. And why? Five reasons:

1) every page has exactly the same <title>Title Here</title> text
2) star site design with dead-end "fingers" insted of net design
3) menu bars are images, not live type
4) great kw density, but no kws are used as intra-site links
5) no intra-site linking at all except from menu (image) bar

And this site LOOKS good! It sports great graphics, it loads fast, it
offers unique freebie programs for play, and the text is fine (hey, it
ought to be, considering how much is stolen fom my site!) -- but it
still has below 200th plce ranking at google on chosen kws.

My point? I talked to this guy for two hours and he never understood why
the site didn't rank well. He liked the way it looked and the services
it offered so much that he could not imagine a search engine would not
care about that -- and he felt that the "public" simply didn't like the
topic! And no matter how often i told him that his problems were
structural, not cosmetic (and named them, as above), he ddn't get it.

So, here you come and tell me your trouble is that you have two much kw
density and i have no confidence that this is the issue at all --
because often site designers can't see the forest for the trees.


cat yronwode

P.S. The amazing true-life upshot is that this guy is offering to give
me -- for free! -- the entire two-year-old domain -- domain name, page
layouts, fancy graphics, and all. If i accept, all i need to do is write
original text for 242 pages (not a big chore...;-)) and do a site-wide
find/replace to create intra-site links on the chosen kws and kw
phrases, plug my own products into the commercial end of the site,
replace the image-menu with text-menu, add a bread crumb tril header or
footer, link it to nd from my other sites. Since the site is more or
less a niche version of my own site, the fit would be great. All i'd
really need is the capacity to survive on 4 hours of sleep. Tempting,

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

catherine yronwode wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm with Catherine on this one, there are so many things that may result
  in bad rankings and keyword densisity is way down the list - if it is
even there at all. I've seen sites rank #1 with keyword densities
(excluding code) from 0% to 100%.

http://www.abcseo.com /

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:15:17 -0700, catherine yronwode

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Thanks for your reply Cat.  Such doubting Thomases in here.   ;o)~

Quoted text here. Click to load it
here's why I think my problems are KW density related.  Tell me what
you think.  ( back to those hypothetical keywords from my OP)

Lets say again I had over-optimized my site for the phrase "child day
care"  &  "child day care seattle", too.

Then let's say I landed the following Gu-Gull Rankings with it:

"child babysit company" - #1
"child babysit company seattle" - #1
"kids care seattle" - #2
"kiddie daycare seattle" - #3
"seattle care day" - #5
"child day seattle" - #11
"child care seattle - #18
"child day care seattle" - #32
"child day care" - #342

( BTW, Im #1-#5 for all those very same terms on Mickey-Soft Nutworks,
if that matters at all)

Notice that my G rank gets pushed lower and lower, the closer those
search terms get to my 'optimized' phrase.   In other words, the trend
that I see in my SERPS  is inverse to what Im shooting for.  Weird.
The only thing I can think of, is that Im tripping an OOP filter with
my keyword density.  

Thus, I end up ranked lowest for my most optimized phrase & highest
for a phrase that doesn't even actually exist as a complete phrase on
my site.   I happen to have the highest KW density for "child day
care" & the lowest KW density for "child babysit company".

Coincidence?   or OOP filter?     Im still not sure either way.

Im doing an experiment with the site right now, to see if my theory is
correct.  But overall, my phrase isn't super competitive-- yet
anyway-- so I shouldn't need to perform SEO miracles or magic to land
1st page GO-GO SERPS.  Basic white hat should do the trick.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
    {snipped story about fella who didn't follow basic SEO guidelines}

If you currently google for "geriatric consultation agency", my ".org"
site should be listed first. ( At least until Go-Go shows up and grabs
my experimental pages & re-indexes them)  Im a bit shy about posting
the actual site name/url for corporate reasons-- but check the 'staff'
page, I should be on there.

Thanks again for your post & thoughts.


PS, I'm pretty sure I saw you on a cable TV travel show-- visiting
unusual destinations in California a while back.

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

"Jill L." wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again, i cannot respond because you show no CONTENT samples.
What you mean by "optimized" and "over-optimized" is just a big unknown.

Let's talk about what IS known.

I rank #1 at google for the term < love spells > -- try it, click on the
link and tell me if the page is "over-optimized" by your mysterious and
unknown standards.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Okay. So i went to that top-listed site and it crashed out my browser.

Now i'll have to restart and fire up a different browser if i want to
see it -- and hope it doesn't crash that one out too.

Is it possible that the root of your problem is that your site is too
high-tech for the google bot and also too high tech for people seeking
your services, so that they can't link to it and thus provide you with
valuable IBLs?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yep, that was me -- on the History Channel!

cat yronwode

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:30:33 -0700, catherine yronwode

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hi Cat --

I saw you had some trouble &  got a 404 on the netscrape v4.css file
you were supposed to be served.  Im attempting to fix that right now.
It shouldn't have crashed you, just served up a plain vanilla page for
your  v4.77 browser.

at least I  think it was you in my log
Mozilla/4.77C-CCK-MCD++(Macintosh PPC) from santa
rosa, ca?

thanks for trying to access it.   When I saw your raw log entry I
wrote/replied to my original node on this thread, so there's some info
in that post for you too..


Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:30:33 -0700, catherine yronwode

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Actually, what happens is if you do Google for

"geriatric consultation agency"

then your mention in Google Groups, this thread, comes up.

If you Google for

geriatric consultation agency

then up comes the creative alliance site which I suppose might be you
as I couldn't open it.


www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
         The buffalo have gone

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

Big Bill wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Bill, she said that only .79% of folks couldn;t open her site, due to
having older browsers -- and here are TWO of us in one newsgroup for
whom it won't open, both of us search-engine mavens. I have a feeling
that the figure of .79% is wrong.

Last year i was told that my browser fell into the "15% which new SEO
pros were ignoring." I thought that was a more accurate number -- and
also that the attitude expressed was a silly waste of the client's
money, as any store that turns away 15% of potential customers based on
the make or model of their car is not going to do as well as the
all-inclusive store.

I know also that Jill's service -- elder care -- is often sought for by
elders themselves, or by their late-middle-aged children -- in other
words, folks with older computers. It is rarely searched for by the
elders' grandchildren with souped up new machines.

Case in point: my mother died in October at age 90. Her last computer
was an IMac G4 running system 9 and Netscape 4.x. If she had died at age
88, her last cmputer would have been a Macintosh Performa running system
8.x and Netscape 4.x.

My mother was actively searching for elder care / geriatric service
management (and finding such services herself) for help with legal
issues, shopping and house cleaning services, getting rides to hospitals
for check-ups, daily meal delivery and social support when she broke her
hip, et cetera -- right up until her final year of life when she began
to require full-time in-house care.

She and her entire network of elderly, educated Jewish retired women all
use computers -- most of them gifts from their aging baby boomer
children -- and most of them use Macs as their kids are in the arts and
grahics industries.

These older women are not interested in upgrading to newer browsers or
newer operating systems. They come from the Depression era mentality of
"use it until it wears out" -- and they want to save money for their
kids nd grandkids, not waste it buying shiny new toys for themselves. if
a site won't open for their older browser, they get frustated and move
on to a lower tech site. They love google and the Guardian newspaper
online (a world-class news site with low graphics usage that is low tech
browser compatible), and they also actively use Yahoo Groups for their
hobby groups (because it is compatible with Netscape 4.x).

Now, here comes Jill with a site that's perfect for these elder to find
the services they need -- or for their kids to do so and show the to mom
while at her house, on her computer -- and the site won't open because
mom has an older browser.

Bad idea.

If any demographic group on Earth needs sites that are older-tech
friendly, it is geriatric services clients.



cat (not quite geriatric myself, yet) yronwode

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:39:47 -0700, catherine yronwode

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't believe I'm a maven, Cat, them's girlies. Or even a maeven, as
them's, um, Celtic girlies.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Depends on what the site's about. If it's anything up to the minute
and boffo and gee whizz, then potential buyers likely won't be
visiting using Mosaic.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I'm using IE6 on 98SE so I'm not modern.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nearer than me though, tee-hee!

www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
         The buffalo have gone

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:39:47 -0700, catherine yronwode

Quoted text here. Click to load it


I think your feeling/assumption about the "15%" may be correct for
your own site, or some nebulous "average" one on the 'net, but it's
*way* off for my site.   I'm not sure where that mythical "15%" is
from, but my actual stats are lower.    Much lower for the % of older
browser usage I'm seeing.    Here's my site stats from last month.
(They also reflect my percentages over the past year pretty accurately

web logs from the last whole month recorded  - Nov '05:

OS name.........visitors......%
Windows XP.....891...86.2 %
Windows 2000...79.....7.7 %
Unknown..........37.....3.6 %
Mac OS............15.....1.4 %
Linux................8.....0.8 %
Windows 98........2.....0.1 %
Windows 95........0.....0.0 %

MS Internet Explorer....................931....90.2 %
..........MSIE 6......916
..........MSIE 5.5.....11
..........MSIE 5.01.....1
..........MSIE 5.0......3
Opera.......................................37.....3.6 %
Netscape...................................19.....1.8 %
......Netscape 7.1.....17  
......Netscape 5.0......1
......Netscape 4.5......1
UP.Browser (PDA/Phone browser).....11.....1.2 %
Konqueror...................................9.....0.9 %  
W3C HTML Validator.......................1.....0 %

Our web logs reveal that the percentage of combined NN & IE browsers
version 5 or older visitors is:   6 / 1032 visitors  =  0.5%.   Over
the last year, it has varied between 0% and 1%, so the ".79%" figure I
gave you was our actual yearly average for older browsers.  I didn't
make that figure up.  It's  a years worth of data, not a "feeling".

We actually get almost twice as many pda/cell phone visitors each year
(1.3%)  as we do older browsers (v5 and down).  As I noted in my
previous post, business-wise it makes no sense to worry about the
older browsers, and I still stand behind that.  Im turning away less
than 1% of the visitors to the site by ignoring those browsers, and I
made a conscious choice to do so.   Rather than worry about that,
statistically, it'd be a much smarter business decision for me to
worry about creating some WAP pages, or style sheets for the cell
phone mini-browser crowd.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Yes, the elders do look at care services online themselves sometimes,
but they are usually not the primary decision makers.  You would be
correct that their late-middle-aged adult children are the primary
decision makers for them about 2/3 of the time. What we see at our
agency is that the elders are actually reluctant to ask for, or even
accept outside help, and usually need convincing to do so most of the

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Actually, not true at all.  I think you might be making a wrong
assumption here.   Among our current clients, around 18-23% of the
power of attorney or medical health care proxies or trust
administrators are grandchildren or second generation family
relatives.    They are the ones making medical care & financial
decisions right along side their parents.  So, "rarely searched for by
the elders' grandchildren", would not be a terribly accurate

Quoted text here. Click to load it
This strikes me as quite a sweeping series of generalizations
(assumptions?) about how all elders might behave based on a single
personal experience in a small social niche close to your mother.
(most obvious one being Jewish retired women and reason for their
choice of OSs)    

I'll dodge arguing with you over it, by simply stating: Less than 20%
of all the elders our agency has cared for in the last 3 years even
has access to a computer in their primary place of residence.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
I think yet again, you could be making an incorrect assumption about
who our web visitors currently are, and who I should be targeting on
the SEs.   Did it occur to you, that over 70% of our visitors are
actually other care agencies, looking to find someone to make a
referral to in our city?  

Care agencies and managers are the 'movers and shakers' in our
industry.   After Google, They are my target website visitor--- not
the elders themselves. Agencies are the ones who have active
referrals, in hand, ready to go, while they are using the SEs.  BTW,
the next group that we are looking to target are the elder law
attorneys.  After that, would be social work professionals who deal
specifically with the elderly.   Next would  be the "late-middle-aged
adult children" of the elder in need, and their children
(grandchildren of the elder).

Finally, after all those other demographic groups are properly
targeted at the site, we would want to shoot for the elders themselves
since they are primary decision makers only about 1/3 of the time.

Reason for targeting geriatric professionals first?   Simple.  Out of
137 possible clients we talked to in the past year, only 8 of them
came to our agency "out of the blue". (I.e. yellow pages - 6, website
surfing - 2, ouija board-?)   In other words, well over 90% of our
clients this year came in via professional referrals and affiliations.

To sum up: If your assumption is that our site design needs to worry
mostly about losing 1-2 visitors a month using NN4 & other older web
browsers, you're pretty far off base.   Sure, I may lose a few folks
at the door by ignoring them, but the Im mainly courting geriatric
industry professionals w/ modern browsers, and armed with cell phones.
Job one at the site is to aquire & please those folks.

I do feel bad that you showed up trying to help me out a bit, and my
site crashed your browser.  That's a bummer.  

I also appreciate you taking the time to administer the marketing 101
refresher course for me so I will certainly take NN4 priorities under

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Assumption is often called the mother of all screw-ups. You've made a
few of them about our business, industry, and the channels that we
actually use to pull in the majority of clients....    ...So, Duh,

...and to think I just wanted to focus on KW density, silly me.
Live and learn.  

Best to ya,

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 07:02:36 GMT, Jill L.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I think we all knew you were wrong about that.

www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
         The buffalo have gone

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:15:17 -0700, catherine yronwode
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Hi Cat --

I think you just tried to take a peek at my site, thanks for stopping
by ---

Mozilla/4.77C-CCK-MCD++(Macintosh PPC) from santa
rosa, ca?

Wow.   I can honestly say I didnt expect anyone to show up with a 4.7
netscrape browser though.    The site was written for css compliant
browsers that can handle the "@import url()" command...

...so im sure you got a plain text html file delivered to your browser
when you arrived.   sorry about that.

One of the biz decisions we made was to basically ignore styling pages
for that .79% of the visitors we get with browsers lower than v5.0 of
netscape of IE.  Obviously you won't get any of the effect of the page
styling, but Im sure the content was still available since it is all
plain vanilla html.

total bummer that youre trying to help me out and got served no style
sheet. sorry again.


Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

"Jill L." wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

 That was me! I am in Forestville, Califoria, about 15 miles west of
Santa Rosa. I use two browsers -- my old Netscape (because it is also a
great usenet reader) and a 4.x IE. I run system 8.2 Mac OS on this
machine. We have 6 networked computers -- one of which runs OS X with
Safari and Firefox browsers -- but i rarely use it -- mostly that's my

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes, well, that's the way it is, though. If i had ten thousand dollars
to replace 5 aging computers, and buy the OS X versions of software
needed as well, then i would have a different browser.

Meanwhile, what you've built is a gas station that won't pump gas to
folks in a 1985 Nissan. Or a coffee shop that won't serve a cuppa java
to a 79 year old man. Or a clothing store that refuses to stock anything
in the colour blue.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nope. I got the grey screen of death. Nothing -- and the browser was

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would be glad to get plain vanilla html -- but i got zilch. Alo, i
might add, my husband is quirkier than me. He's the one running the OS X
machine -- but he does 99% of his web browseing with text-only Lynx.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No problem. I'll try next with IE. Hang on a sec...

Okay -- now i see it.

If this is the site you are talking about, i see no signs of
over-optimizing for kws. In fact, i see few intra-links and very little
opportunity for keyword campaigining of the type i do -- and that works
for me. Many (not all) of your links are for stupid, non-kw phrases like

services available
variety of services
wide variety of services
more detailed service listings

and, frankly, "more" is as bad as the notorious "click here" link messes
created by under-informered retail business web site buillders during
the 1990s.

You want your lnks to be on your kws, not on random verbiage like
"variety" and "available."


Have you tried going to google and entering < more detailed service
listings > in as a search term? There's your 51 million cmpetitors on
that term.

And < wide variety of services > returns 121 million comppetitors.

As for <  more... > -- well, that comes up in 5 BILLION pges at google
-- and the #1 ranked site for that term is CNN, which you will never
beat -- so don't even try.


You certainly realize that < more detailed service listings >, < wide
variety of services >, <  more... > are not kw terms for your site. They
will never come up in a natural search for your services, so why build
around them?

Instead, use your actual kws in the links.

Yes, i know, you do have a few kw links on the page -- but not enough --
and the point i am making is that you are WASTING good opportunities to
point to your own pages with truly targeted anchor text by squandering
your anchors on bland and over-broad phrases (< services available >
could apply to any business from a pet grooming salon to a fork lift
rental shop) and procedural terminology (<more... >) is the < click here
Quoted text here. Click to load it

So that's my two cents.

Nice colour choices and illos, by the way. Nice service, too.

cat yronwode

Lucky Mojo Occult Shop

Re: Lowering KW density on 3 word phrases

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:11:27 -0700, catherine yronwode

{snip lots of stuff to implement}
Quoted text here. Click to load it

thanks for taking a peek, making suggestions.  


Site Timeline