Wow I almost forgot abou0t this discussion.

I do fully take your points on board. I do believe Google have the technology to do semantics or LSI, however I simply see no evidence. I am not narrow minded enough to think I can build a sites link profile and nothing else, it simply astonishes me how much weight Google put on links.

The last comment back was a knee jerk reaction done on my iPhone, so I probably could have thought it through a little better. The research I did was simply a view based on facts, I wish on page optimisation was assessed a little different but thats just not the way at the minute.

If you have any data on semantics that show the benefits or some results I would live to read it, thanks for the link I’ll check it out as well.

As you say two different sides of the coin, I know what works for me but respect your opinion.

Thanks for the resources and happy new year!

I just got back here wandering through my inlinks reports from yahoo..

I’m sorry for the late responce, but I don’t usually post a comment with the intention of starting a discussion.

You’re not bitching at all, in fact, I’m delighted to see an author replying to such harsh and groundless criticism in a nice way. I don’t think your comment was a waste of time. No written content is a waste of time on the internet.

So, back to our topic.
Well, I’m pretty much going to disappoint you with my response – I don’t really have any data to compare with yours to give you a good point because I optimize for a local market, and with that said I can only tell you that we’re on the opposite sides of the line.

There are SEO’s who don’t give crap about semantics and there are semanticists who don’t really go too deep with link building. No need to define who is who, I hope.

About Rand linking to your stats – I’m not questioning your credibility here. I’m pretty sure you’re doing way better than me, due to everyday life-related factors or simply to commitment to SEO. I greet you for that.
However, one thing I learned by dealing with business persons is that no matter how credible the guy is, mistakes are human, and as a partner said once “you shit, just like everybody else”.

Also, I still think your comment count would’ve gone up if your stats were “the thing”. Or maybe they are, but not many people appreciate that?

And so, without saying something too meaningful, I think we’re just going for a different approaches.

I started learning semantics about 2 years ago and here’s something that really boosted my studies in the right way – http://bit.ly/3CJFGh
You might have already read that, but if not – I hope you find it a solid ground for research.

And don’t mind comments like my previous, I’m sure you’re about to see many like this in your web experience. Everyone has the right to have a bad day, once in a while, is it not so?

Have a happy new year celebration.

Regards,
yMladenov

Ok, let me start by saying I respect any opinion when it comes to SEO, however the info in this article does not relate to opinion, it is factual correlation data. Given this let me try and address your points.

First, no I’m not a designer, in fact my design skills are probably pretty amateur. I am an SEO and have ranked many sites for competitive terms not to mention ranking this site “google seo”, “seo techniques” etc…. after 6 months of work.

Second I am not saying don’t have a density, proximity, prominence edge to their algorithm. What I am saying is that when it comes to ranking for competitive terms the power of your link profile counts with on page keywords taking a clear back seat.

I take your point about semantics and word relations however I remain skeptical about it, not saying Google don’t have the technology but I see no real evidence of them using it. (Search ‘car’ and then ‘cars’ 6 of the results on the first page differ between keywords – is that really a semantic algorithm??)

Third – My research is what it is, a low percentage of sites are making use of their headings and the sites with the higher keyword density aren’t the sites ranking the highest for their target keyword. If you don’t trust my opinion on the matter maybe one of the biggest SEO sites may help you see that on page and heading optimisation is losing value. (Rand Fishkin links back to some more of my rubbish unfounded research from the post, you’ll have to tell them to check their sources, as they are linking back to a designer talking rubbish )

Fourth – The post is not intended to be linkbait, it is not meant as an opinion, these are facts, the sites were structured as the results show. Dust bin??? Thats harsh but I’ll let you.

Fifth – There is 2 reasons why comments are low on the post 1) My blog is small and still making a name for itself (but growing fast) 2) Most experienced SEO’s know that onpage factors are losing value, especially when it comes to high value keywords.

I am sorry if this comment sounds a little bitchy, but I think your comment was a little aggressive.

I tell you what so were both happy, you keep laughing at my silly research and mocking it and go back to concentrating on density, proximity and that other stuff, I”l build a solid, optimised link profile and issuing crappy research posts that get picked up and linked to my seomoz.org.

I thought again I hope the response is OK.

(This comment is a serious waste of my time, so I hope anyone who reads it appreciates it )

Double-check your data, because SE’s (not only google) still have their ranking based on things such as POSH, SOC, keyword proximity and density algorithms. That is, semantics.

Not to mention that there are rumours of SE’s taking the human factor from social networks, etc.

Your research points exactly the other way. Get 100 people to point their fingers at a trash can and it will be a hit?!

If you don’t believe me it’s ok, but take a look at your comment count. If your data had something true, it would be a major discussion. Not to mention I was referred by a SEO’s profile in Facebook.

So, think again.

Cheers,
yMladenov

Yep that is pretty much it. Let me be clear though, longtail less competitive terms still seemed to be weighed against on page factors so I would stillbe mindful of incorporating keyword phrases into deep pages and posts.

‘mould the title – write what you like – be happy’

Sounds good.

Now just to get those top ranking sites to link back to ours.

lol, ye I think stuffing went out a while ago, however I have to admit to seeing quite a few sites bolding everything in the first paragraph and keyword stuffed title tags. I have a few sites I could test the stuffing on, the problem is they don’t really rank for anythign and the ones that do I don’t want to risk, I’ll have to see what I can do. I really think on page is all about natural content and making sure google can find it and index it, the rest is in the links, however I am going to look at some longtail serps and see what the differences are.