Article printed from SiteProNews: http://www.sitepronews.com
  HTML version available at: http://www.sitepronews.com/archives.html

Google's Good Writing Content Filter 
By Joel Walsh (c) 2005

The web pages actually at the top of Google have only one thing
clearly in common: good writing. Don't let the usual SEO sacred
cows and bugbears, such as PageRank, frames, and JavaScript,
distract you from the importance of good content.

I was recently struck by the fact that the top-ranking web
pages on Google are consistently much better written than the
vast majority of what one reads on the web. Yet traditional SEO
wisdom has little to say about good writing. Does Google, the
world's wealthiest media company, really only display web pages
that meet arcane technical criteria? Does Google, like so many
website owners, really get so caught up in the process of the
algorithm that it misses the whole point?

Apparently not.

Most Common On-the-Page Website Content Success Factors

Whatever the technical mechanism, Google is doing a pretty good
job of identifying websites with good content and rewarding them
with high rankings.

I looked at Google's top five pages for the five most
searched-on keywords, as identified by WordTracker on June 27,
2005. Typically, the top five pages receive an overwhelming
majority of the traffic delivered by Google.

The web pages that contained written content (a small but
significant portion were image galleries) all shared the
following features:

:: Updating: frequent updating of content, at least once every
   few weeks, and more often, once a week or more.

:: Spelling and grammar: few or no errors. No page had more than
   three misspelled words or four grammatical errors. Note:
   spelling and grammar errors were identified by using Microsoft
   Word's check feature, and then ruling out words marked as
   misspellings that are either proper names or new words that
   are simply not in the dictionary. Does Google use SpellCheck?
   I can already hear the scoffing on the other side of this
   computer screen. Before you dismiss the idea completely, keep
   in mind that no one really does know what the 100 factors in
   Google's algorithm are. But whether the mechanism is
   SpellCheck or a better shot at link popularity thanks to
   great credibility, or something else entirely, the results
   remain the same.

:: Paragraphs: primarily brief (1-4 sentences). Few or no long
   blocks of text.

:: Lists: both bulleted and numbered, form a large part of the
   text.

:: Sentence length: mostly brief (10 words or fewer).
   Medium-length and long sentences are sprinkled throughout
   the text rather than clumped together.

:: Contextual relevance: text contains numerous terms related to
   the keyword, as well as stem variations of the keyword. The
   page may contain the keyword itself few times or not at all.

SEO "Do's" and "Don'ts"

A hard look at the results slaughters a number of SEO bugbears
and sacred cows.

:: PageRank. The median PageRank was 4. One page had a
   PageRank of 0. Of course, this might simply be yet another
   demonstration that the little PageRank number you get in your
   browser window is not what Google's algo is using. But if
   you're one of those people who attaches an overriding value
   to that little number, this is food for thought.

:: Frames. The top two web pages listed for the most searched-on
   keyword employ frames. Frames may still be a bad web design
   idea from a usability standpoint, and they may ruin your
   search engine rankings if your site's linking system depends
   on them. But there are worse ways you could shoot yourself in
   the foot.

:: JavaScript-formatted internal links. Most of the websites use
   JavaScript for their internal page links. Again, that's not
   the best web design practice, but there are worse things you
   could do.

:: Keyword optimization. Except for two pages, keyword
   optimization was conspicuous by its absence. In more than
   half the web pages, the keyword did not appear more than
   three times, meaning a very low density. Many of the pages
   did not contain the keyword at all. That may just demonstrate
   the power of anchor text in inbound links. It also may
   demonstrate that Google takes a site's entire content into
   account when categorizing it and deciding what page to
   display.

:: Sub-headings. On most pages, sub-headings were either absent
   or in the form of images rather than text. That's a very bad
   design practice, and particularly cruel to blind users. But
   again, Google is more forgiving.

:: Links: Most of the web pages contained ten or more links;
   many contain over 30, in defiance of the SEO bugbears about
   "link popularity bleeding." Moreover, nearly all the pages
   contained a significant number of non-relevant links. On many
   pages, non-relevant links outnumbered relevant ones. Of
   course, it's not clear what benefit the website owners hope
   to get from placing irrelevant links on pages. It has been a
   proven way of lowering conversion rates and losing visitors.
   But Google doesn't seem to care if your website makes money.

:: Originality: a significant number of pages contained content
   copied from other websites. In all cases, the content was
   professionally written content apparently distributed on a
   free-reprint basis. Note: the reprint content did not consist
   of content feeds. However, no website consisted solely of
   free-reprint content. There was always at least a significant
   portion of original content, usually the majority of the page.

Recommendations

:: Make sure a professional writer, or at least someone who can
   tell good writing from bad, is creating your site's content,
   particularly in the case of a search-engine optimization
   campaign. If you are a SEO, make sure you get a pro to do
   the content. A shocking number of SEOs write incredibly badly.
   I've even had clients whose websites got fewer conversions or
   page views after their SEOs got through with them, even when
   they got a sharp uptick in unique visitors. Most visitors
   simply hit the "back" button when confronted with unpalatable
   text, so the increased traffic is just wasted bandwidth.

:: If you write your own content, make sure that it passes
   through the hands of a skilled copyeditor or writer before
   going online.

:: Update your content often. It's important both to add new
   pages and update existing pages. If you can't afford original
   content, use free-reprint content.

:: Distribute your content to other websites on a free-reprint
   basis. This will help your website get links in exchange for
   the right to publish the content. It will also help spread
   your message and enhance your visibility. Fears of a
   "duplicate content penalty" for free-reprint content (as
   opposed to duplication of content within a single website)
   are unjustified.

In short, if you have a mature website that is already indexed
and getting traffic, you should consider making sure the bulk
of your investment in your website is devoted to its content,
rather than graphic design, old-school search-engine
optimization, or linking campaigns.

================================================================
Joel Walsh is the owner, founder and head-writer of UpMarket
Content. To read more about website content best practices, get
a consultation with Mr. Walsh, or get a sample page for your
site at no charge, go to the SEO website content page:
http://www.upmarketcontent.com/website-content/#seo
================================================================

Copyright © 2005 Jayde Online, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.

SiteProNews is a registered service mark of Jayde Online, Inc.