Finding the good keywords

[TomB]

That makes my google analytics graph page look pathetic, so pathetic i'm not even going to put a picture up.

I'm away to cry

 

[Scottish Business Owner]

Tools such as WT and KWD show you search volumes. Without that it's a bit tricky and not something you can fiddle in Excel.

d

Dave,

The tools that Scott suggested seem to offer a bit more in terms of connected searches etc. Whilst they dont quantify volume they do express volume in scores of low, average good etc and also show you what advertisers are spending money on. I find this subject really difficult and I know this is fundamental to moving on to other aspects of seo etc.

Is there anywhere online that shows someones thought process when looking at this data to try and establish which keywords to optimise for?

I dont know if you've came accross Aaron Walls tools in this area, do you rate them at all. I'm also a member of his new training venture do you think this is money well spent?

 

[Former Member 1]

I think you will find that in return for what is a free service (Google) many average users are prepared to put up with some noise and for the most part get what they want.

SOME noise would be fair enough... Personally I'm finding many searches produce so much chaff that it's becoming obstructive. And I do know others that feel similarly. The search I just mentioned is not unusual...

Try typing these into either Yahoo or Google...

rolex dealers in edinburgh

computer components livingston

welding supplies west lothian

Plenty of results... How many are relevant? How many take you directly to sites that can give you the information you need?? And those three strings actually provide relatively strong results... Gift Horse or not Google isn't really producing the goods. And that's bad for everyone.

Is this the result of the current obsession with SEO I wonder?

To an extent I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I'm not anti-SEO or anything like that. And for certain types of site SEO is really the only practical option as far a driving traffic to the site is concerned.

But, as a user the inconsistencies of the search engines do worry me, and cause me to question the value of SEO to my business. Personally; I do have a business to run, and have neither the time, inclination or particularly the skills to become buried in SEO myself. And that's where the 'black art' perspective comes into play.

If SEO were as simple and consistent as providing good content then my search for porsche parts would have produced porsche parts and not fake rolex viagra nonsense... Or even many whole cars.....

Likewise were it not a constantly shifting bed of sand then constant attention would be unnecessary. Similarly the inbound links issue (I'm not unaware of why these are important BTW). As a user, I care not how many inbound links a site or page has... I simply want to find it no matter how unpopular, isolated or unique ...I just want to find it; and the search engines don't particularly help me do that....

In the words of Shirley Conran life (truly) is too short to stuff a mushroom. And from that perspective perhaps the most useful 'keywords' we might use are those we exchange in a forum such as this, or by good ol' fashioned knocking on doors. Ironically perhaps I've found the most consistent search engine results were obtained by selecting an handful of fairly obvious keywords, lobbing them in and simply forgetting about the whole issue....

 

[ScottJ]

Matt, I pretty much agree with you, I'd say Google is far better than MSN/Yahoo at dealing with spam, the internet is still young and social input will help engines grow and change, it's a fluid process for them.

Ultimately search engines always need to use key signals & factors in an algorithm to rank sites and in doing so will always leave themselves open to manipulation by people who find and exploit them, but I can say this, they are far better at dealing with a lot of the spam than they were 3 years ago and I'd also like to think in the coming years they will get better still.

 

[Former Member 1]

I'd also like to think in the coming years they will get better still.

That's certainly to be hoped for.... I've been using the internet at home since the early 90's. And in a work context for almost 20 years... So I pretty much remember the likes of Yahoo and Google in more innocent times. I'd say in about the past five or so years the value of the search engine has become diminished. And that's very unfortunate.

In about the past 18 months to two years I've noted a return to more traditional marketing techniques. Techniques that would have been typical 20 years ago. Mailshots, phone calls... Much of it focused on driving me towards web sites...

I think what I'm saying is that, much as the mathematical basis on which search engines base their findings has been and remains both a source of fascination and a powerful weapon the the webmaster's armoury, there are a few 'red flags' on the horizon. We all know the old joke about the statistician who drowned in a pond with an average depth of half an inch!

I'm sure many of us have read Anthony Fallon and Graham Jones' thoughts on the matter. And I can't say I'm entirely taken by their arguments. But for those playing the long game it might be as well to pay heed to that twittering in the ranks. By that I mean perhaps exploring the psychology of the user a little and perhaps trusting the old noggin.

Perhaps (in terms of selecting the best keywords) there's something in balancing what the mathematical analysis is suggesting with what, quite simply instinctively seems right.... After, of course donning one's wizard's hat, waving one's magic wand and chanting the appropriate incantations

 

[Scottish Business Owner]

I think Scott is correct in what he's saying, Google do a better job in my opinion in providing better result to searches than the other two main players. I do however also agree with Matt in that there is a load of non-relevant search results muddled in.

Over the past six months or so I've been learning quite alot about SEO and apllied the basics as Scott has highlighted to a number of sites with some success (success to the extent that it led to business). I find the whole area fascinating.

There are two types of seo, white hat and black hat and there are people out there who practice black hat which is the more unethical approach which effectively manipulates the search engines to get better results. There is a general consensus that this mostly only results in short term gain and it doesn't take too long before Google et al get wind of it and suddenly sites are getting banned etc.

I've been where you've been Matt being completely disillusioned and sceptical of seo but now I recognice it's value and I think it's quite easy for most sites to adopt certain basic seo requirements. Bear in mind as well that SEO is an unregulated industry which has it's fair share of conmen, much of the information on seo that is available online is either out of date or very poorly researched. One of the reasons I learned what I have about seo is because of forums like this who keep you on the straight and narrow as to what to belive and not to. People like Dave at Redevo produce quality information that he gives away for free.

I'd love to convince that SEO can work but like you doing it yourself takes time. Yet again your contribution on this thread has been excellent but i'd love to get an opportunity to change your mind about this

 

[ScottJ]

SEO is just tweaking what is already there to your own benefit and trying to get yourself heard just like the real world, it is... in an online sense... 'word of mouth'

If there were two accountants on the same street in Edinburgh side by side and one of them put up a nicer sign that stuck out and caught peoples attention and also gave out flyers and promoted themsleves while the other one complained about lack of business even though they shared the same street you would have no sympathy, you cannot expect to rank in Google without a little effort and if you put it in and your neighbour complains they are not getting the same love you wouldn't shed a tear, after all it is business, no one has the right to a high ranking.

 

[Former Member 1]

Don't get me wrong; I do accept what you're both saying....

I'm just at a point though where search engine positions are concerned, I'm almost past caring, and looking at alternative ways of bringing traffic to the site. In fact for me, in promotional terms, things have gone full circle and I'm back where I was 20 years ago. Only difference is instead of a glossy brochure I have a web page....

What's more an awful lot of folk I meet seem to be in the same place with this.....

 

[Scottish Business Owner]

Matt,

When you talk about offline marketing in the shape of direct mail etc I would assume that you structure the direct mail in such a way to try and get a response. There are accepted layouts etc that people will use to try an communicate their message.

I kind of see the basic seo pretty much the same as the layout of a direct mail piece (not sure here if the seo guys will agree). Like any form of marketing this all needs measured to make sure you get a return on your investment. I would agree though if you've tried it and it's not giving you a return then you're right to move on and get something that does provide a better return. I dont want to be ramming seo down your throat because I know it's not for everybody

 

[RedEvo]

I'm just at a point though where search engine positions are concerned, I'm almost past caring, and looking at alternative ways of bringing traffic to the site. In fact for me, in promotional terms, things have gone full circle and I'm back where I was 20 years ago. Only difference is instead of a glossy brochure I have a web page....

What's more an awful lot of folk I meet seem to be in the same place with this.....

Going back to Scott's excellent posts and analogies if, in days gone by, you created your own rubbishy flyer using clipart and stuck it next to someone else's glossy, professionally designed flyer the chances are people would think you were cheap and they were the real deal - probably. It's about quality control.

In many ways SEO is simply about quality control also.

d

 

[Former Member 1]

Going back to Scott's excellent posts and analogies if, in days gone by, you created your own rubbishy flyer using clipart and stuck it next to someone else's glossy, professionally designed flyer the chances are people would think you were cheap and they were the real deal - probably. It's about quality control.

Ok Dave, so SEO is about quality control...

Again I stress I

 

[Former Member 1]

Matt,

When you talk about offline marketing in the shape of direct mail etc I would assume that you structure the direct mail in such a way to try and get a response. There are accepted layouts etc that people will use to try an communicate their message.

I kind of see the basic seo pretty much the same as the layout of a direct mail piece (not sure here if the seo guys will agree). Like any form of marketing this all needs measured to make sure you get a return on your investment. I would agree though if you've tried it and it's not giving you a return then you're right to move on and get something that does provide a better return. I dont want to be ramming seo down your throat because I know it's not for everybody

Well that's a sound balanced view. And, as I've said, I'm not really Anti-SEO. But I do think, at the moment, it's a bit of a bandwagon that people have jumped on which hasn't necessarily to the benefit of anyone.

Anecdotally it would appear NOT to be working for many people. But It's difficult to prove a negative with the sort of statistical analysis SEO Proponents cite; indeed that's not the purpose of such statistics. And , to be honest I think there's something of a 'monkey tree' element to the pursuit of SEO stats... As there is with the focused chasing of any kind of stats....

 

[Scottish Business Owner]

Matt,

When you talk about chasing stats I wholeheartedly agree. Visits, Impressions, search engine position, they dont matter a jot if they dont convert into sales, anything else is just vanity. Whether you've got 200 hits or 2millions it's ultimately sales that count.

I dont tend to get bogged down in those types of stats but I really think it's essential to measure you're seo just like any other form of marketing, surely thats a fundamental?

 

[Former Member 1]

Matt,

When you talk about chasing stats I wholeheartedly agree. Visits, Impressions, search engine position, they dont matter a jot if they dont convert into sales, anything else is just vanity. Whether you've got 200 hits or 2millions it's ultimately sales that count.

I dont tend to get bogged down in those types of stats but I really think it's essential to measure you're seo just like any other form of marketing, surely thats a fundamental?

Absolutely... And even the most 'distorted' of stats will have useful information in them. My point is I think instinct has to play a part here too. For instance how many times have you heard of investors walking away from an 'opportunity' because is just 'felt wrong' ...or for that matter investing BECAUSE it 'seemed right'...

I don't really believe business is a science; it's more of an art. Not only will the search engines evolve as their owners react to black hat activity but user behaviour will change as people are frustrated by the same thing....

Now; ultimately, most 'art' can be analysed, statisticalised... Human behaviour can be broken down; the indefinable can be defined. And as soon as it it is changes! It's rather like those sub-atomic particles that disappear as soon as they're 'looked' at...

Unscientific and irrational as it may seem, to some extent I think instinct might be as useful a tool as many in attempting to find the 'good' keywords...