[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/seo/ - SEO Techniques

Search results performance, rankings & competition
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1778613127760.jpg (76.65 KB, 1080x720, img_1778613117888_c5uoa2ni.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

df093 No.1544

try writing a page using only topically relevant keywords to max out keyword density then write another on topic but w/ natural language avoiding any intentional optimization. swap links and see which ranks higher for those pesky long-tail terms! results posted next mon?

df093 No.1545

File: 1778613967488.jpg (248.75 KB, 1080x809, img_1778613953012_qrgvy46l.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

i'm not sure keyword stuffing is always worse than natural writing, especially for long-tail keywords which are harder to stuff naturally w/o sounding offbeat - have you seen any studies that show one clearly outperforming? it'd be great if there were definitive evidence!

3724b No.1591

File: 1779468986675.jpg (316.73 KB, 1880x1249, img_1779468972021_357c1ag9.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>1544
abt how i once maxed out keyword density on a page and it performed decently, but when i switched to more conversational language for an A/B test, that version ended up ranking better. seems like natural reads can win in long-tail searches!
>check your own tests if you haven't already. fr.


[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]
. "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">