Here's a site I've been working on for a while. At first it was going to be a private membship site, but some things didn't work out and I didn't get the unqiue videos done...So, it I didn't set it up originally to be SEO friendly.

www.ShySky.com

First, this is a great domain name for BRANDING a green energy site. Two 3-letter real words that rhyme, only 6 letters.

Also, it's easy to type in. Type in domains may also be a sign of "quality". If someone cares to type in a site, the may know it and like it.

What makes this "modern seo" is I'm factoring in two main concepts:

User experience factors into the Google algo - If Google measures how users read a page, I'm guessing the longer they are on the pages the better. So I made the pages very big and long, with lots of stuff on them.

I'm hoping that because of how "big" the pages are, people will bookmark/favorite the pages and return that way, a possible indication of "quality" to Google.

The www.ShySky.com pages are "optimized" really for specific keywords, but rather a large "theme" of keywords in a bunch of different combos. I need to work on getting more targeted keywords into the content.

The content at this time is really a first draft. My first draft on content pages is to the reader. The next draft is corrections and directed to SEO.

This is a "hub" page. All you hear about is "Authority pages". But Google also loves hub pages. Hub pages are similar to authority pages in that they have a lot of good links from respected sites, unlike authority pages, hub pages LINK TO other quality, authority pages.

No ads. I want to build links and traffic first. With no ads, it's easier to get links to sites like this. ONLY AFTER getting links AND traffic, I'll post some Adsense, etc.

Another "new" concept: I'm using a lot of "target" links, which are links that point to a specific part of a page. If you notice all the "solar" links in the right column, you'll see they all point to the same "solar" page, but does point to a different part of the same page.

What this means is, some pages can have a link to 10 different area on the same big page, each area SEOed different keywords, with all the links pointed to one big page instead of 10 smaller ones.

It's also a way of randomizing links to the same page for bookmarking, etc.

You should have a lot of links pointed at one page (instead of spread out over 10 pages), but also impact relevancy by linking to very specific sub-topics on a page.

This is a the "opposite" of some traditional SEO optimized pages, which would be to have more pages, each smaller and focused on more specific topics/keywords.

And this strategy may not work at all? Or the pages may take too long to load with all the videos? Or maybe all the Youtube videos will "deduct some SEO points"? Or I'll get distracted and not promote it as I should.

The essential strategy is to get links. But instead of just linking to the individual pages, I'll also link to the target links on the pages. I'm not sure of the ratio, but I'll probably do 50/50, with 50% of a page's links going to the "main" page URL, with the other half pointing to specific targets on the page.

Remember, this site really isn't totally ready (it's close) and I need to rewrite and re-SEO some of it. But look at the strategy I'm trying to check out and make sure you understand "why" I'm doing what I'm doing.

And what do you think?

(I know you said its not ready yet)

I would add a "privacy page" a "terms of use" a "sitemap" and a "contact" page those always seem to help seo-wise

I'm very interested to know if the ancor urls (pointing to the same page) do help ... never thought of that!

Kaan

Hi Kaan and All...

There's s little more on this theory and how it may apply to Google on this thread:

Anchor Links and Google Search Snipets
http://www.dombom.com/dcforum/DCForumID33/446.html

This approach certainly does require a different way of thinking about building sites. I have my doubts that the work involved would be worthwhile for small sites.

However, for any site that I have plans for making more of an authority type site, using anchor links and creating the hub page are worth consideration. I have started in the last few months writing 700+ word articles for at least the home pages of the little sites I made or bought. This is taking what I have begun doing several steps further.

Thanks again, Kurt.

>This approach certainly does require a different way of thinking
>about building sites. I have my doubts that the work involved would
>be worthwhile for small sites.
>
>However, for any site that I have plans for making more of an
>authority type site, using anchor links and creating the hub page
>are worth consideration. I have started in the last few months
>writing 700+ word articles for at least the home pages of the little
>sites I made or bought. This is taking what I have begun doing
>several steps further.
>
>Thanks again, Kurt.

Hey Sandra,

I agree. Although www.Shysky.com "only" has 9 content pages, I could easily have made it a 50 page site, so it is a lot of work. And you're right, this experiment is more to build a hub/authority site.

It's also a form of "link bait" in that the goal is to have a page of "everything" about something, so it can be linked to more aggressively. Really good pages can withstand more gray hat strategies, as long as they are on topic.

It's also an opportunity to get more keywords into anchor text on a page, and have those links point to the same page, not divert traffic (and link juice) away.

Another possible (hopefully) benefit is that instead of getting 5 backlinks to 5 different pages, all five backlinks can point at one page, but different points in that page. Does this help concentrate the link juice all on one page?

And let's take it a step further...Here's a recent Google patent where is trying to detect the "structure" of a page and segment parts of it:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,913,163.PN.&OS=pn/7,913,163&RS=PN/7,913,163

Basically, it's the stuff we've talked about around here for years, that content and links in different parts of pages probably carry more/less weight that elements in other parts of a page.

For example, this could mean that a link in a sentence in what Google determines is the body/content of a page may be worth more "juice" that a link in what Google thinks are page comments or site navigation links.

It also could mean that certain segments of content on pages may be factored separately for SEO reasons.

Again, as Sandra pointed out, this isn't THE strategy everyone should use, every time. Instead, it's a way to vary your strategies. Bomber Rule #1 is to explore every REASONABLE possibility.

LAST EDITED ON Aug-10-11 AT 12:25 PM (PST)
 

I am the World's Dumbest SEOer!

When I first started www.Shysky.com , it was intended to be a private site, so it really wasn't designed well for SEO.

Then I changed my mind and decided to make it public. Since it uses a few big pagers, I thought I'd test using anchors and snippets.

I pointed a few links at it with the goal of getting it indexed. But after 6 months, it still wasn't indexed. I didn't link to it a lot at first, but did do enough to get it indexed. So, because Google seemed not to like it, and I couldn't figure out what was wrong, I didn't work on it for the past 6 months.

Then, a few days ago it dawned on me to check to see if the pages had "noindex,nofolow" tags. Sure enough, I had added these tags when I planned on having the site as a private/membership site.

The good news is, I removed the noindex tags and about half the pages are now indexed and I didn't add any new links.

GRRRRRRRRR! 6 months wasted and I feel like a real bonehead!

I would add a "privacy page" a "terms of use" a "sitemap" and a "contact" page those always seem to help seo-wise
----------------------
http://forum.fifa-football.org
http://hockeyshoes.us
http://buywomenshoes.tk