For the next few weeks, I'm working on re-authoring and re-building the Beginner's Guide to Search Engine Optimization, section by section. You can read more about this project here.
Keyword Usage & Targeting
Keywords are fundamental to the search process - they are the building blocks of language and of search. In fact, the entire science of information retrieval (including web-based search engines like Google) is based on keywords. As the engines crawl and index the contents of pages around the web, they keep track of those pages in keyword-based indices. Thus, rather than storing 25 billion web pages all in one database (which would get pretty big), the engines have millions and millions of smaller databases, each centered on a particular keyword term or phrase. This makes it much faster for the engines to retrieve the data they need in a mere fraction of a second.
Obviously, if you want your page to have a chance of being listed in the search results for "dog," it's extremely wise to make sure the word "dog" is part of the indexable content of your document.
Keywords also dominate our search intent and interaction with the engines. For example, a common search query pattern might go something like this:
When a search is performed, the engine knows which pages to retrieve based on the words entered into the search box. Other data, such as the order of the words ("running shoes" vs. "shoes running"), spelling, punctuation, and capitalization of those terms provide additional information that the engines can use to help retrieve the right pages and rank them.
For obvious reasons, search engines measure the ways keywords are used on pages to help determine the "relevance" of a particular document to a query. One of the best ways to "optimize" a page's rankings is, therefore, to ensure that keywords are prominently used in titles, text, and meta data.
The Myth of Keyword Density
Whenever the topic of keyword usage and search engines come together, a natural tendency to use the phrase "keyword density" seems to arise. This is tragic. Keyword density is, without question, NOT a part of modern web search engine ranking algorithms for the simple reason that it provides far worse results than many other, more advanced methods of keyword analysis. Rather than cover this logical fallacy in depth in this guide, I'll simply reference Dr. Edel Garcia's seminal work on the topic - The Keyword Density of Non-Sense.
The notion of keyword density values predates all commercial search engines and the Internet and can hardly be considered an IR concept. What is worse, KD plays no role on how commercial search engines process text, index documents, or assign weights to terms. Why then do many optimizers still believe in KD values? The answer is simple: misinformation.
If two documents, D1 and D2, consist of 1000 terms (l = 1000) and repeat a term 20 times (tf = 20), then a keyword density analyzer will tell you that for both documents KD = 20/1000 = 0.020 (or 2%) for that term. Identical values are obtained when tf = 10 and l = 500. Evidently, a keyword density analyzer does not establish which document is more relevant. A density analysis or KD ratio tells us nothing about:
- the relative distance between keywords in documents (proximity)
- where in a document the terms occur (distribution)
- the co-citation frequency between terms (co-occurrence)
- the main theme, topic, and sub-topics (on-topic issues) of the documents
Thus, KD is divorced from content quality, semantics, and relevancy.
Dr. Garcia's background in information retrieval and his mathematical proofs should debunk any notion that keyword density can be used to help "optimize" a page for better rankings. However, this same document illustrates the unfortunate truth about keyword optimization - without access to a global index of web pages (to calculate term weight) and a representative corpus of the Internet's collected documents (to help build a semantic library), we have little chance to create formulas that would be helpful for true optimization.
However, keyword usage and targeting are only a small part of the search engines' ranking algorithms (as we've discussed in Section I: Retrieval & Rankings), and we can still leverage some effective "best practices" for keyword usage to help make pages that are very close to "optimized." Here at SEOmoz, we engage in a lot of testing and get to see a huge number of search results and shifts based on keyword usage tactics. When we work with our clients, this is the process we recommend:
- Use the keyword in the title tag at least once, and possibly twice (or as a variation) if it makes sense and sounds good (this is subjective, but necessary). Try to keep the keyword as close to the beginning of the title tag as possible. More detail on title tags follows later in this section.
- Once in the H1 header tag of the page.
- At least 3X in the body copy on the page (sometimes a few more times if there's a lot of text content). You may find additional value in adding the keyword more than 3X, but in our experience, adding more instances of a term or phrase tends to have little to no impact on rankings.
- At least once in bold. You can use either the <strong> or <b> tag, as search engines consider them equivalent (note: at this time we've only actually tested Google for the <b> vs. <strong> equivalency).
- At least once in the alt attribute of an image on the page. This not only helps with web search, but also image search, which can sometimes bring valuable traffic.
- Once in the URL. Additional rules for URLs and keywords are discussed later on in this section.
- At least once (sometimes 2X when it makes sense) in the meta description tag. Note that the meta description tag does NOT get used by the engines for rankings, but rather helps to attract clicks by searchers from the results page (as it is the "snippet" of text used by the search engines).
- Generally not in link anchor text on the page itself that points to other pages on your site or different domains (this is a bit complex - see this blog post for details).
An optimal page for the phrase "running shoes" would thus look something like:
Keyword usage is NOT an exact science, and it is certainly valuable to engage in testing, tweaking, and experimentation on your own sites and pages. Just keep in mind that user experience should never be sacrificed for the sake of optimization - search engines want the same things as humans, and generally speaking, if your page can earn one or two extra links by providing great content, this will far outweigh any benefit from stuffing an extra keyword repetition. SEOmoz's Term Targeting tool is designed to help accomplish precisely this feat and provides a grade to indicate how well (or poorly) a particular page is following the above suggestions.
As you perform keyword targeting, remember that search engines have advanced semantic analysis abilities - this means that they can not only detect whether your page has the right keywords on it, but whether that page is actually targeting the proper subject(s). Thus, embedding keywords as we've described above with perfect precision on a page that's actually about laser hair removal is going to be immediately apparent to the search engines. Instead of merely inserting keywords on a page and expecting rankings, make sure that the document itself contains high quality content describing or on the topic of your keyword of choice.
In the next installment, I'll finish up the basics of search-engine friendly design and cover:
- Titles, URLs, Meta Data, and Semantic Markup
- Information Architecture
- Canonicalization and Duplicate Versions of Content
- Redirection, Hosting, & Server Issues
My memory isn't all that great, but I think this is the first time that I've seen it stated that SEs don't consider the meta description tag for rankings.
It makes sense that they shouldn't, but what is that conclusion based on?
Check out Ranking Factors - click on the drop-down to get some interesting commentary.
Thanks Will. I've read that before but I've seen the statement that "The title and description tags are the most important..." so many times that I was making a connection that wasn't really there.
Right on target Dave.
And why "(sometimes 2X when it makes sense) in the meta description tag." if not used by SE. Does writing in 2x convince the user to go to your website.
That is something of a mixed signal. I guess we all have to keep in mind that SEO is a bit of Science, but also largly an Art.
The details of the algorithms are secret, and subject to change - so the rules aren't rules, but rather theoryies. But, like with the "Theory" of gravity, the evidence can be clearly seen, and the consensus of the SEO community is probably pretty close to the mark.
It does get bolded in the results - so mentioning it a couple of times if it fits naturally can help with click-throughs.
That would be my explanation - don't know if that's what Rand is meaning...
Sorry - Will's correct. I mention it because it gets bolded in the SERPs and two or more instances seems to make a big difference in CTR.
based on reality. META hasnt worked for seo for around 7 years or so now. I started in 1999 and at that time MSN did use it but it got phased out real quick!
I have had the META description work against me, especially when re-using the same description on pages with similar on-page content. It does seem to be used as a marker of uniqueness and weighs into the duplicate content equation.
Hi Rand
This will indeed be very useful for someone starting up his or her career in the SEO field
Can i complement you in one line ! and just 1 line ! ! !
I am a PPC Guy who has almost nothing to do with SEO and i keep reading SEOMoz . . .
Ankur P Mody
I love the guide and you have done a rad job. Here is how it could be a bitter better for me.
I am an SEO beginner and I can tell you the place where I get tripped up when seo'in, and would love some guidance.
It's right after you brainstorm, use keyword tools and think about what customers will search for. It takes me forever to prune down my list to the most important terms. I want to know the strategies that you guys use to effectively and quickly prune down the list. Or is it that it does take a long time to do this part of the process.
I would also love to hear how much time it takes you to do the inital (it's an ongoing process, of course) keyword research for a site. There is obviously alot of variablility in how long it takes, but I would love a ball park figure. That way I can compare myself to a pro.
COMMENT #2 lol
It's been about 2 months since I used the difficulty tool, so ignore this comment if you have fixed the problem I am talking about.
And even though I love the keyword difficulty tool it sometimes doesn't sucessfully query the yahoo search results...then I have to go through and put the information in all over again. If you could force the tool to auto retry a couple of times if they fail to query the yahoo search results that would be rad. Very few keyterms are going to turn up zero search results for yahoo :)
The difficulty tool saves us alot of time, but this 'improvement' would help us save even more.
I love the site and premium membership is getting more worth it as I get better at SEO.
Seems like this has been commented on a bit, but I also found the keyword density section a little confusing. A couple of specifics:
(1) It might've helped to briefly mention the history; people think keyword density is important because it was once important.
(2) It sounds a little funny that you dismiss keyword density but then suggest using your keyword 3X in body text. I completely understand what you're saying, but out of context it seems like a contradiction.
(3) From a purely logical standpoint, Dr. Garcia could be 100% right and the search engines could still use keyword density. His correctness about it being a bad measure doesn't preclude it being used. Of course, in practice, I 95% agree with you, so this one's a bit nitpicky.
I really like the first part; some great information on keywords that even includes a little depth I wasn't aware of (without being over newbies' heads).
Pete - considering how damn smart and talented the search engineers at Google/Yahoo!/Live/Ask are and how computationally inexpensive running term weight and semantic calculations on a document are, it seems incredibly hard to believe that they'd use KD anyway - like just for shits and giggles, even when they know it's a bad metric :)
The tough part to explain is that even though KD isn't a good way to measure your targeting, increasing or decreasing the number of instances of a particular term/phrase on a page can and does have an impact on rankings. I'll try to clarify that in the final version.
Thanks for the suggestions!
Wow, I made you swear twice in one comment. That can't be good ;)
Sorry, my third point was nitpicky; I just meant that it doesn't necessarily follow logically. Plenty of proven bad ideas are used in the business world every day. Your whole point was still 98% true, though.
It's definitely tricky to keep people from obsessing over keyword density while still helping them understand that content is important. I wonder if just a very brief history of how the engines changed and why it's no longer important would help. Basically, summarize how the engines were once very crude and just counted things up, but now they focus on content quality (and keywords are just one small part of that).
Totally agree with you. And me swearing twice (or even once) is a good thing, right? :)
What happened to the Moz dance dance fever 1970's yellow running shoes?
oh and the trump card domain name ...
any thoughts on measuring the effectiveness of these? Is it appropriate to say that having the keyword in the domain name is X times (as measured by ranking in SERPs) better than just having it in an h1? Or is that (linear) model too simple?
The problem with good search engine algorithms ia they have to be fairly mathematical for them to be consistent. So we really can't completely get away from the numbers game.
Great work Rand! The Beginner's guide has been a very useful tool for me to learn the basics on SEO. The tips you give are excellent for who, like me, wants to start a career in the SEO field ;)
ammo
Excellant job Rand!!! This is the type of information I need moving forward and I am sure to come back to review it often.
Cheers!
No matter how many times I read this article I always pick up something new.
Great work rand.
Actually being an SEO i too experienced the same thing. As you explained there is a great uncertainty in density factor while we observe the top ranking sites in SERP.
I will support my statement in some other words like, being an webmaster one should follow the "great triangle of SERP" phenomenon while preparing the contents for any page with fair amount of targetting keyword.
I also agree with the details you gave about preparing for title. One should use their primary page keyword twice and secondary for once in case of "single word keyword". And if the targetted keyword is having two words as primary then it should be used once. Ofcourse, with keeping proximity in mind for both the cases.
I appreciate the post.
Thank you.
Dharmayu Purohit
This is what I really want to read, simply excellent post. The keyword research myth is opned & clear in my mind. Thanks a lot.
Actually keyword density used to rule Altavista. To rank in AV I used to find simple html pages that were already ranking high in Google for 2 words phrases that were unrelated to what i was optimizing for (or three or fouor depending on what i was targeting). Then I would open that page and replace every instance of the phrase that was already ranking with the one I was targeting. Then I would replace all the other text on the page while being very careful to ensure that I ended up with the exact same amount of words on the page as were on the page origially.
The result was a document that had exactly the same keyword density as the original page for my new targeted phrase. And it worked so good that before the infamous "Altavista Black Monday", I was ranked #1 for the word "mp3" in AV for about 6 months. This was about 8 or 9 years ago. Since then, it has been my experience that KD is a waste of time to pursue because I can find no direct correlation between KD density and rankings. And since there are things where I can find a direct correlation (like link text), it is a better use of time to concentrate on those activities. Although I do check to make sure the KD is an acceptable range. It's kinda like those old "You might be a redneck" jokes. If your KD is over 8% - 9% because when 1 out of every 10 words is your keyword phrase, you might be a spammer :)
Well it doesn't take a scientist to figure out that keyword density is a crappy metric since a page with two keywords in a total of ten is equal to 20 keywords in a total of 100. Same density but the one with 100 words is likely to be more relavent/useful than the other.
I totally disagree with the stuff about descriptions tags because no one can know for sure what value these have, or could have in the future. That is my big disagreement with much of what is passed off as a guide for SEO. Almost all are focused on cut and dry, white or black when the real answer is neither!
The best teachers try to give new SEOs the basics to make these decisions, not a cookie cutter so they can carry on the tradition of uninspired out of the box... algo chasing... if a site is affected by algo changes then you failed your client miserably!!
Nice touch up. For the longest time, I thought that the search engines used the contents of the Meta Desciption tag to help rank pages. I only learned just recently that Google does not use it, but that its still important to have for the snippet since it can help with Clickthrough to my site. Thanks again for verifying that for me.
Hi Rand,
I am not expert in SEO so forgive me if I say something totally wrong :)
With CSS used these days to design webpages. Don't you think value given by engines to use of <B> and <strong> will not be same these days as it might be earlier.
It's a kind of grey area I think, as CSS guys suggest to avoid using HTML tags for styling and instead use CSS.
Any thoughts ?
Oh yes forgot to mention I am bit happy today that it's not only me who does silly spelling mistakes. And guys like you also do same mistakes :) You spelled "Kewyords" wrong in para 3 of your article.
Oh, and "should" is spelled wrong in the second to last paragraph. Just in case this goes straight to press without a proof read from one of the other Mozzers.
A few more nits:
"Kewyords" [as sahota caught]
"Dr. Edel Garcia seminal work"
"relevacy"
"The answer is simple: misinformation" [missing "."]
"... (as it is the "snippet" of text used by the search engines." [missing ")"]
Sorry I was a bit behind the ball with proofreading this post--all of the typos have been fixed.
Sorry, didn't realise this had been pointed out already. Can delete this if you like.
With the bold tag - go make two nonsense pages that are nearly exactly the same for a keyword phrase. Now use one with the nonsense keyword in bold and one without - note how all the engines favor the bold one (all else being equal) - that's why we still say it has some importance, even if it's a very, very tiny amount.
'CSS guys' (let's not use that term because it doesn't really mean anything, let's say 'web standards advocates' or 'standardistas' instead) don't advocate not using <b> and <strong> in favour of styling with CSS; they advocate using <strong> when a particular piece of content needs to be strongly emphasised.
For content with a lesser emphasis, the <em> tag should be used. If something needs to be bold for purely presentational reasons, then you'd just use CSS.
<b> doesn't appear to have much semantic worth anymore. The only time you'd use it would be if you were trying to replicate some typographic convention that didn't also mean the content was to be emphasised and I can't actually think of any examples of that.
Pardon a complete tangent, but I hate that <strong> and <em> won out. We had such nice, short tags with <b> and <i> and now they're gone. Even as a usability guy, I occasionally want to tell the standards people to get a life (or at least a hobby/girlfriend).
I agree with the practicalities of the issue here (short tags are better for a few reasons). But what they're after (separation of content and design) is still a good goal. Maybe it would have been nice if they had made the tags <s< and <e<. On the other hand, reading and maintaining code that actually says (in long form) what it's doing is also useful. I'd say it's a wash.
<b> and <i> should begin to slowly lose their relevance for algorithmic processing (they probably will not for a while, but they should) but they still have relevance when it comes to CTR.<strong> and <em> should still be used. CSS is about the aesthetic presentation and styling of HTML, but <strong> and <em> go beyond saying 'make this look bold or be in italics in a graphical browser', but are used to actually say 'this text is strong' or 'this section has emphasis', just as an h1 tag says 'this is a main heading'.These are tags which describe the nature of the data, not just how it should be displayed and, remembering the huge market in catering for differently ability users, <strong> and <em> are often processed well by screen-readers and other alternative browsers as well.I cannot imagine that we will see any major reduction in the weight given to these tags in the very near future.
even though I am the "nicest bloke in SEO" I still disagree, keyword density still plays a role
https://www.google.com/search?q=nicest+bloke+in+seo
Hah. That's hard to argue with, and I thought of that exact example when I read this article. The thing is though, that page now also has quite a lot of inlinks with related anchor text. Did it rank like that right out of the box?
yep ranked pretty much with a week or so
I don't normally comment on these Beginner's Guide re-writes, but Rand I think you might be confusing people a bit with the "search engines don't use description tags to rank, but make sure you use one or two keywords in it anyway" statement.
I also agree with Michael that keyword density still plays a role. I guess I need to go read Dr. Garcia's complete paper but the flaw in the snippet above is that it assumes both pages have the same keyword density. If one page has a density of 2% and another has a density of 5%, I can't help but think SEs are going to find one more relevant than the other.
I think the real lesson is, you can't force keyword density beyond what an SE would consider normal use of the human language (whatever that is).
But even then I see obvious keyword stuffing still appearing in the top SERPs every once in a while.
I do agree with the Dr. Garcia that when it comes to information retrieval keyword density should NOT matter, or at the very least it shouldn't matter as much - but I think it does come into play. At least as a factor, or a starting point before diving into distribution, co-occurrences, etc..
Like so many things in SEO, I think it plays a positive role up to the point where it flicks a switch and becomes a negative thing! I would have thought you'd have tripped that with that particular page, Michael... Obviously not.
is it just me or is michael's page not ranking for "nicest bloke in seo" (at least not in top 30) right now? i am seeing this post ranking for the term at 15 though.
even so...is "nicest bloke in seo" a competitive term? i'm sure some nice enough seo blokes are going for it but google returns less than 3,000 results for the search. so, would it really prove much if it did rank high with the repetition of "nicest bloke in seo" throughout the page?
Michael - you're confusing cause and effect (something you usually never do!) Just because a page has many mentions of a keyword or phrase does NOT mean that keyword density is the formula being used to calculate it. I believe that Dr. Garcia (and many others in the IR field) have proven without a doubt that the formula as a system of measurement is useless. This DOES NOT mean that repeating a keyword many times on a page won't make it rank better, it just means that using KD as a formula is a flawed methodology.
Oh I agree it's a flawed method for sure, but it IMHO it still plays a role, funny how they pulled that page fromt he results now isn't it
It was right there at the top of Google 8 hours ago. Wait, it's still there at #4.
I would love to know more about how they do their databases & indices - the computer science there must be awesome.
I know you are simplifying the description a little with the 'dog database' example, but might it be worth including somewhere here a bit about the range of keyphrases that search engines see every day? It still blows my mind and I imagine it must be very important for people new to search.
Apologies if that's in the plan or existing installments and I've missed it...
Will - I love the database construct methodologies as well, but sadly, I think it's out of the realm of this guide, and might actually turn off many of the marketing folks who are likely to be big consumers of this content.
Completely agree - sorry - wasn't suggesting you include deep database architecture stuff in the beginner's guide...
Great Post, I have been teaching one of my partners the basics and this was really helpful.
I recommend you use seodigger.com for keyword tracking, just trace your best competitors keywords and positions in SERP, they've done all the work allready :-).
Hi Rand,
In this topic as in many other SEO related activities, the key seems to be to have a balance. Too many or too little keywords and the results are bad. Our job as SEM's is to find the sweet spot for every site we work on.
Thanks for the always interesting post!
hmm looks like somebody at the plex didn't want my page ranking ... conspiracyt theories abound
i almost thought the same thing...but looks like you're back as the 4th nicest bloke in SEO now.
<title> <h1> <bold> <meta descriptioion>
Great Post Rand,
As you analyzed The Myth of Keyword Density, I think that there are some other buzzy myths you can run to quite often on many places on the net, that may be usefull for newbies to be clarified in advance.
There are many other SEO myths off course, not necessarily related to current KW subject. I chose those that took me some time to resolve myself.
Dusan.
p.s.
And yes, just been watching your interesting interview by Mike McDonald, and finding out about how CSS display:none property may harm page ranking horribly , maybe you should address myths that are actually not myths but presents real menace to SEO utilization, in some off your following updates...