February 6, 2008

Keyword Density, What the Heck?

I've been playing around with keywords. Why is that so difficult? Trying to be a Web friendly writer can be a daunting task. You write something then run it through a tool like textalyser and find yourself needing to add more to get yourself up to that 3-5% density.

It's funny how some say just write and the keywords will come naturally. Sure, if you're a keyword guru. I discussed the phenomena somewhat in my Keyword, Keyword... post. (I also visited some keyword tools in my Learning Seo post.)

How do you know when enough is enough? That 3-5% keyword density sounds easy to achieve; and it really is when you concentrate on using something specific. Take what I've written here so far. The word keyword is at 8.2%. Keywords is at 3.3%. Man, that tool is kind of cool.

Okay, the textalyser also tells me readability and the stats (like frequency, word length, syllables, and gives me a word count) among other things.

So is my density to high for the first two paragraphs? Why is keyword and keywords differentiated, other than the obvious plural? For that matter, why would the plural make a difference? I thought Google eliminated connective and frequently used words as a part of their search engines paring out. Wouldn't the plural of the same word work its way into that?

I guess that's not for me to figure out. Running the text at this point puts my density at 5.6 and 3.2%. They say that's good. Now, to see how well this post ranks I guess I have to post and wait to search something like Keyword Density (per my title).

I'll test the density theory in a future post. Stay tuned for part two...

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

3 comments:

  1. Good, informative keyword post.

    I've done a little keyword work on my own site, but I haven't noticed any difference in traffic. I took several words I was interested in and ran them through Google and Yahoo on a standard search. I even misspelled them and ran a new search. I kept score. Obviously, there was a huge difference in the returned hits. But, so what? It didn't do anything for my ranking. I'm still so far down in the hole you'd never see me. Now a website might be different. I don't know if SEO works better with websites vs blogs. One thing for sure, though, I'm not going to buy keywords.

    One thing that does seem to work for blogs, however, is links: incoming are better, but outgoing are okay. I know it sounds textbook, but the blogs with the highest link count are definitely in your face. If it works, it works.

    Anyway, very good post. I'm adding your blog to my Very Important Sites.

    Have a nice day, and keep posting those tips.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting post, Muse. And I'm going to try textalyser, from curiosity. There's always a lot of controversy on what works to bring traffic to a site. The Internet is organic enough that I believe it's pretty hard to tell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey!

    Swubird, well I'm not so concerned for my blog as far as keywords are concerned. It's the AC stuff.

    The links are so important.

    Conda, the site is really interesting. I love seeing the stats even if I have no clue how to use them...

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for stopping by!

Comments are appreciated. Be sure to leave your site information so I can visit you too!

Search the Web

Followers