How Do I improve me SEO

[DangerDave]

As we have said here and in the SE forum MANY MANY MANY times.... be very careful who you take SE advice from and dont take what people say as 'gospel' or as 'fact', because most of the time they are just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

+ madisonsummers.jpg will only pull in Google Image hits for "madisonsummers". Separate words in urls with dashes.

.. and where exactly is the evidence/proof for this statement??

It is my opinion that that statement is 100% wrong.



scottybuzz,

IMO you should ignore most of the advice in this thread and concentrate on finishing and improving your site.

A quality site that has good "content" will have much more benefit than putting a dash in a url or renaming images.! Focusing on minutia or over-optimising ths site now would be a waste of time and resources.

As stated this is an opinion... not a fact, or gospel, and it is your inalienable right to completely ignore me..

DD

[Simon]

Originally Posted by DangerDave

... it is your inalienable right to completely ignore me.

He forgot to add "...at your peril"

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Simon

He forgot to add "...at your peril"

I believe that when it comes to DD, "at your peril" is a given.

[Halfdeck]

Originally Posted by DangerDave

.. and where exactly is the evidence/proof for this statement??

It is my opinion that that statement is 100% wrong.

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...5&postcount=28

You're free to disagree, but I prefer you bring some facts on the table instead of just disagreeing with me Dave.

A quality site that has good "content" will have much more benefit than putting a dash in a url or renaming images.! Focusing on minutia or over-optimising ths site now would be a waste of time and resources.

You only need 2 things for sweet Google traffic (I heard it on the grapevine):

1. Revolutionary website
2. Great marketing.

I don't see how we're in disagreement there.

P.S. "I ain't scared of no ghosts..."

[Halfdeck]

.. and where exactly is the evidence/proof for this statement??

Here are two searches on Google Images targetting image files named "perfectmilfs-[xxx].jpg." If Google did actually parse urls, it shouldn't have any problem finding the images when I run a search for "perfect" and "milfs."

Here's a search for "perfectmilfs."

According to DangerDave, those images should also come up when I search for "perfect" and "milfs."

As TJ Pat also pointed out, Google made it clear their crawlers do not parse keywords in urls.

As we have said here and in the SE forum MANY MANY MANY times.... be very careful who you take SE advice from and dont take what people say as 'gospel' or as 'fact', because most of the time they are just plain wrong.

One example is Matt Cutts recently stating Google slightly favors <strong> over <bold> then having another Google engineer show him the actual code where its clear both elements carry the same exact weight. Another is Jill Whalen claiming PR doesn't matter, then doing an about face after Big Daddy.

Draw your own conclusions. Don't believe someone just because he/she is supposeduly an authority on Google or because you feel like you're about to be run over by a truck.

[DangerDave]

Halfdeck lets get something straight..... I said 'IN MY OPINION', at NO time did I say anything was fact.

I don't believe I have ever said anything that I have posted in regards to Google is fact.

My only disagreement is with people that post so called "facts" about Google when they could not possibly know the facts they are expounding, as they do not work for Google, and/or of no evidence to support that 'fact'


My point is that specific naming of individual images is unlikely to make any major difference to search results for the web or for images.

.. and there are many people that would offer the opinion that naming all your images for specific keyword on a page, could/would be 'over optimising' or 'spammy' in Googles eyes.


I have never EVER said I was an authority on Google, I don't call myself GoogleGuru or anything bullshit wanky name, and I dont ever tell people to do specific individual things to the pages or sites.(Unless I am directly asked by them to do so)

I post my "opinion" and almost without fail post the caveat that it 'is' and opinion and should be taken as such.

I have also never posted any 'facts' about Google except for the standards that I have been posting for many years.

Fact - Quality content(text)
Fact - Incoming links
Fact - Relevant links

.. and these are still true.


You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to disagree.

DD

[plateman]

hey DD if your not to biz chasing spammers you should come to se chat tonight

I think with learning seo first you should contrate on goog basic site construction with good content and when you start to get se hits - read and attend se chats and try stuff...

asking on a board its hard to soak anything up and what one tells you may not work for you as differnt things work for differnt kinds of sites, time and back links is hard to replace with any kind of fancy seo that someone might tell you...

[plateman]

talking about image tags is the last thing that site needs, first it needs incoming revelant links from other sites and revelent surport sites built off of the root, trade links, and age, most sites under 3 years old G wont give you the time of day and yada yada yada

[Bill]

Well, I was actually not going to have an SE chat tonight, I was planning on taking a vacation for a while and come back in a month with a slightly modified form of the chat.

But if you can get Dave to agree to come and talk I'd be happy to delay my vacation for a week.

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by plateman

hey DD if your not to biz chasing spammers you should come to se chat tonight

I only trust SE info from Danger Dave, Linkster and the voodoo lady in the French Quarter.

[plateman]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

I only trust SE info from Danger Dave, Linkster and the voodoo lady in the French Quarter.

I wasnt trying to be a smart ass...towards DD he knows me and knows I have high respect for him - I get around and seen dave nabbed a few drive by spammers scammers lately

[Chop Smith]

No rounds to be fired.

So you saw the emoticons but missed this:

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

I only trust SE info from Danger Dave, Linkster and the voodoo lady in the French Quarter.

To make it plain, I respect Danger Dave's and Linkster's opinion. The self proclaimed search engine gurus fall in the same category as the voodoo lady in New Orleans.

BTW, the voodoo lady is a rude bitch. She listens to jazz, has a staff and has no desire to help newbies.

[Halfdeck]

My only disagreement is with people that post so called "facts" about Google when they could not possibly know the facts they are expounding, as they do not work for Google, and/or of no evidence to support that 'fact'

DangerDave, I don't believe anything I read no matter who said it unless I see some kind of proof, even if he/she works for Google. That said, in this thread I made an attempt to qualify what I wrote with "I heard it on the grapevine." In other words, I'm not speaking from experience, so its not something I can confirm.

My point is that specific naming of individual images is unlikely to make any major difference to search results for the web or for images.

.. and there are many people that would offer the opinion that naming all your images for specific keyword on a page, could/would be 'over optimising' or 'spammy' in Googles eyes.

I advised scott not to rename his images and that URLs "doesn't really matter" because I also believe the amount of work people spend on on-page voodoo isn't worth inching up a couple of spots on page 10.

Still, I believe on-page optimization is more effective when ranking in Google Images than in the main index, simply becaue there are less ranking factors involved. For example, Google Images ignores anchor text. If Google doesn't use linkage data to figure out what images on a page are about, then it must rely more on on-page factors (i.e. keywords in h1, title, ALT, few words above/below an image, keywords in image url). That by itself should give much more weight to tweaks that usually have minimal effect when ranking in the main index.

The rest of what you wrote I completely agree with.