How Do I improve me SEO

[scottybuzz]

At the moment im getting 1 hit from seo at the moment - not too impressive

this is ways i have been trying to improve it

Img alt text of models. - relevant
Picture file names are those of the models. - relevant
Page titles are those of the models. - relevant
Keywords - Ive done some but no real idea of what to put except names of the models.

Any other ones?

Check out my site http://www.foxyreviews.co.uk

[Jamdin]

You could play up the fact that your site has reviews of hot babes on your warning page with a paragraph or two. Just because you have a warning page doesn't mean that you can't use that to your advantage.

[docholly]

you could attend the SEO chat that happens every wednesday night at 11pm EST here at GG&J and is run by Bill.

[Halfdeck]

+ Your pages need more text.

E.g. "http://www.foxyreviews.co.uk/homepage.html" only has around 53 words. Try 200+

+ You need more unsolicited links.

+ madisonsummers.jpg will only pull in Google Image hits for "madisonsummers". Separate words in urls with dashes.

--

You only need 2 things for sweet Google traffic (I heard it on the grapevine):

1. Revolutionary website
2. Great marketing.

[scottybuzz]

What about page names, for example you said madisonsummers.jpg would need a hyphon.

but would brookeskye.html need to be brooke-skye.html?

[T Pat]

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

What about page names, for example you said madisonsummers.jpg would need a hyphon.

but would brookeskye.html need to be brooke-skye.html?

Google has 78,700 pages listed for the keyword "brookeskye"
and 1,530,000 for "brooke skye"
The answer to your ? is yes
when in doubt check it out

[scottybuzz]

ok i change change the webpage file names to brooke-skye.html etc

i wouldnt have thought this would have mattered

[Halfdeck]

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

i wouldnt have thought this would have mattered

I was talking about your new images scotty. It's not worth renaming your old urls. In fact that would probably create a problem. You're right - url naming etc doesn't really matter, so no sweat.

[scottybuzz]

oh - so wait, i dont have to rename url names?

how about the titles?

[DangerDave]

As we have said here and in the SE forum MANY MANY MANY times.... be very careful who you take SE advice from and dont take what people say as 'gospel' or as 'fact', because most of the time they are just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

+ madisonsummers.jpg will only pull in Google Image hits for "madisonsummers". Separate words in urls with dashes.

.. and where exactly is the evidence/proof for this statement??

It is my opinion that that statement is 100% wrong.



scottybuzz,

IMO you should ignore most of the advice in this thread and concentrate on finishing and improving your site.

A quality site that has good "content" will have much more benefit than putting a dash in a url or renaming images.! Focusing on minutia or over-optimising ths site now would be a waste of time and resources.

As stated this is an opinion... not a fact, or gospel, and it is your inalienable right to completely ignore me..

DD

[Simon]

Originally Posted by DangerDave

... it is your inalienable right to completely ignore me.

He forgot to add "...at your peril"

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Simon

He forgot to add "...at your peril"

I believe that when it comes to DD, "at your peril" is a given.

[scottybuzz]

hahaha where am i supposed to stand now?! lol

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

hahaha where am i supposed to stand now?! lol

Build the site you want. Build it intelligently. Put good content on it, good text in it and poor all your heart into it.

Chasing one SEO theory or the next won't bring you any more success.

Oh and always listen to DD 'cause he scares the absolute crap out of me! |goodnight

[msanchez]

Originally Posted by Preacher

Oh and always listen to DD 'cause he scares the absolute crap out of me!

Preacher your not the only one scared shitless of Dave.

[T Pat]

ScotyBuzz adding lots of quality content is undoubtedly what you should concentrate on.

I highly respect Danger Dave’s opinion and fear his wrath even more, but I have to say personally I believe in using hyphens to help get your site listed (especially a new web site).

Here’s Matt Cutt’s take on hyphens
http://mattcutts.com/blog/guest-post...eview-session/

In my very limited SEO experience/knowledge, I know if I do a google search for tijuanawhores I get crap for results
http://www.google.com/search?num=100...es&btnG=Search
it even says at the top of the page Did you mean: tijuana whores

when I do a google search for tijuana whores the planets in the universe seem to go back into their proper alignment and I get better results
http://www.google.com/search?num=100...es&btnG=Search

damn I feel like I'm going to be run over by a truck or struck by lighting any second now

[Halfdeck]

Originally Posted by DangerDave

.. and where exactly is the evidence/proof for this statement??

It is my opinion that that statement is 100% wrong.

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...5&postcount=28

You're free to disagree, but I prefer you bring some facts on the table instead of just disagreeing with me Dave.

A quality site that has good "content" will have much more benefit than putting a dash in a url or renaming images.! Focusing on minutia or over-optimising ths site now would be a waste of time and resources.

You only need 2 things for sweet Google traffic (I heard it on the grapevine):

1. Revolutionary website
2. Great marketing.

I don't see how we're in disagreement there.

P.S. "I ain't scared of no ghosts..."

[Simon]

Pat - wow, there are only 100 or so search results for when someone forgets to hit the space key... man, I'd be all over that search phrase variant if I could use it.

[Halfdeck]

.. and where exactly is the evidence/proof for this statement??

Here are two searches on Google Images targetting image files named "perfectmilfs-[xxx].jpg." If Google did actually parse urls, it shouldn't have any problem finding the images when I run a search for "perfect" and "milfs."

Here's a search for "perfectmilfs."

According to DangerDave, those images should also come up when I search for "perfect" and "milfs."

As TJ Pat also pointed out, Google made it clear their crawlers do not parse keywords in urls.

As we have said here and in the SE forum MANY MANY MANY times.... be very careful who you take SE advice from and dont take what people say as 'gospel' or as 'fact', because most of the time they are just plain wrong.

One example is Matt Cutts recently stating Google slightly favors <strong> over <bold> then having another Google engineer show him the actual code where its clear both elements carry the same exact weight. Another is Jill Whalen claiming PR doesn't matter, then doing an about face after Big Daddy.

Draw your own conclusions. Don't believe someone just because he/she is supposeduly an authority on Google or because you feel like you're about to be run over by a truck.

[DangerDave]

Halfdeck lets get something straight..... I said 'IN MY OPINION', at NO time did I say anything was fact.

I don't believe I have ever said anything that I have posted in regards to Google is fact.

My only disagreement is with people that post so called "facts" about Google when they could not possibly know the facts they are expounding, as they do not work for Google, and/or of no evidence to support that 'fact'


My point is that specific naming of individual images is unlikely to make any major difference to search results for the web or for images.

.. and there are many people that would offer the opinion that naming all your images for specific keyword on a page, could/would be 'over optimising' or 'spammy' in Googles eyes.


I have never EVER said I was an authority on Google, I don't call myself GoogleGuru or anything bullshit wanky name, and I dont ever tell people to do specific individual things to the pages or sites.(Unless I am directly asked by them to do so)

I post my "opinion" and almost without fail post the caveat that it 'is' and opinion and should be taken as such.

I have also never posted any 'facts' about Google except for the standards that I have been posting for many years.

Fact - Quality content(text)
Fact - Incoming links
Fact - Relevant links

.. and these are still true.


You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to disagree.

DD

[plateman]

hey DD if your not to biz chasing spammers you should come to se chat tonight

I think with learning seo first you should contrate on goog basic site construction with good content and when you start to get se hits - read and attend se chats and try stuff...

asking on a board its hard to soak anything up and what one tells you may not work for you as differnt things work for differnt kinds of sites, time and back links is hard to replace with any kind of fancy seo that someone might tell you...

[plateman]

talking about image tags is the last thing that site needs, first it needs incoming revelant links from other sites and revelent surport sites built off of the root, trade links, and age, most sites under 3 years old G wont give you the time of day and yada yada yada

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by plateman

hey DD if your not to biz chasing spammers you should come to se chat tonight

I only trust SE info from Danger Dave, Linkster and the voodoo lady in the French Quarter.

[Bill]

Well, I was actually not going to have an SE chat tonight, I was planning on taking a vacation for a while and come back in a month with a slightly modified form of the chat.

But if you can get Dave to agree to come and talk I'd be happy to delay my vacation for a week.

[DangerDave]

Sorry, Plateman, Bill,

Can't make it tonight(this afternoon) - three shiny new PCs arrived here yesterday afternoon... so I am going to be tres the next few days ..

DD