Does the page title keyword count in anchor text when link is web address?
-
If someone links to my plumbing site with this link as the anchor text:
http://www.plumbers.com/austin-plumbers.html
does the key phrase "austin plumbers" get counted in the anchor text by google or is this a sample of anchor text that google ignores?
Thanks mozzers!
Ron
-
Yes, Its count. I remember once Matt had explained about (-) and (_) in to the URL formation. It means there is something for URL formation. It's also true by logic of search engines.
-
I think everybody has made valid points. I would suggest what you need to take away from the discussion is this:
- Google is placing more and more focus on natural links - therefor there are some SEOs suggesting that anchor text 'Click here' or 'www.domain.com' holds more authority than 'PLUMBING PLUMBERS PLUMB'. Extreme example... but you see my point
- It's true that keywords in domains are getting less and less emphasis, partly to combat keyword stuffing in URLs but predominantly because there's no reason why www.chris.com should be any less of a plumbing authority than www.plumbing.com.
Alas, I'm rambling... the keywords in that particular anchor text wont do a great deal assuming modern theories are correct, but using the URL as the anchor text appears natural and will have positive influence.
Like all SEO, these are just opinions though! good luck
-
The article is quoted as a resource for the op to catch up on the subject, and since Seomoz's Ranking Factors edition is biennial, 2011's edition is the closest we've got.
And sure external link's anchors and URL keywords importance has declined over time, but they still are heavy ranking factors (not even Cutts would deny that ;).
-
You always gotta pay attention to posts like that. Personally, if an SEO-related post isn't dated, I don't pay attention to it. In the case of this undated post on seochat, you can see that it's referencing Rand's post of 2011 which put's it way, way out of date, or at least, it's referencing very old material. However, if you look at the big graphic on the referenced Rand Fishkin post of 2011, it is making a prediction of the future of search and in it, you'll see that, he was predicting that as a ranking factor, the value of kewords in the URL would drop significantly.
I think most SEO's who are up to date with their info would agree that the value anchor text in links like you describe is diminishing in value and looking into the future, you're better of not making widespread use of it.
-
Sure it counts, that's one of the reasons that give value to keyword rich domain names, people tend to link using the URL as anchor text, and in this case they would be using your targeted keyword (besides having it in every URL).
Check here for more info: http://www.seochat.com/c/a/google-optimization-help/keywords-in-domain-and-links-as-google-ranking-factors/
-
Those words in the URL can add some relevance to the link but I suspect it's not much. You're not likely to get a whole lot of links like that, though.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
If I optimize for a long tailed keyword, will I also catch the short keywords within it?
Say my long tailed keyword has three words in it that I also consider keywords. Will I catch the searches for those short keywords, or just the long tailed keyword phrase?
Algorithm Updates | | Scratch_MM0 -
Keyword stuffing in
Having a discussion with my boss over whether the following page is over-saturated (stuffed) with keywords in the element: http://www.godreamvacations.com/BarceloHotels -- We implemented the description and keyword tag text back in 2010 when the boss gave me the text. Anyone have any good responses to the bosses' response (below)? "These are the ones (pages) that are actually working wonderfully well on Bing. At the time, I researched the optimal number of characters and tried to really follow all that was suggested by SEO experts. As far as the keywords, I would say you could remove the ones without the “s”, for example, take out “Barcelo Hotel” and leave “Barcelo Hotels” I think this is all relevant to what is found on the page. I don’t know what they would expect us to do differently than this. Do you? What is your MOZ currently saying is the optimal number of characters for a Title?" Any responses would be appreciated. Am I wrong in saying it's "stuffed" and looks spammy? What would you tell your boss?
Algorithm Updates | | godreamvacations0 -
Using a stop word when optimizing pages
I have a page (for a spa) I am trying to fully optimize and, using AdWords have run every conceivable configuration (using Exact Match) to ascertain the optimal phrase to use. Unfortunately, the term which has come up as the 'best' phrase is "spas in XXX" [xxx represents a location]. When reviewing the data, phrases such as "spas XXX" or "spa XXX" doesn't give me an appropriate search volume to warrant optimizing. So, with that said, do I optimize the page without the word "in", and 'hope' we get the search volume for searches using the word "in", or optimize using the stop word? Any thoughts? Thank you!
Algorithm Updates | | MarketingAgencyFlorida0 -
Queries vs Keywords
Can anyone clarify why my list of queries from google webmaster tools varies so much from the keywords that have resulted in clicks? I have a site that, according to Google analytics, has had clicks from 125 key phrases where as in webmaster tools (via analytics) allegedly only 17 queries have resulted in clicks. Is it becuase GA can't handle less than 5 clicks from the webmaster data or is it something else I am missing? The site I am researching for has very little traffic from other search engines.
Algorithm Updates | | SoundinTheory0 -
Same page but appearing in Google with different titles
I have a page ranking on position 1 for a key phrase. The key phrase is the title of the page as well. I'll use a mock key phrase to aid my question - "Teeth and Gums" So the page is ranking number 1 for "Teeth and Gums" and "Teeth and Gums" is the meta title. However, I went ahead and did a new search adding an additional keyword to the original search. When I did a new search adding an additional keyword to the original search, Google has done something weird.. Let's say the search is "Dentistry - Teeth and Gums", Google has ranked my page again as number 1 but changed the title. The title in the search result is now "Dentistry - Teeth and Gums" How and why? It's kinda like Google PPC's keyword insertion but the title hasn't got anything weird like {KeyWord: Dentistry}. It's just "Teeth and Gums" Has this happened to you guys? Any ideas?
Algorithm Updates | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
How to calculate Keyword Difficulty
In which way is calculated the percentage of Keyword Difficulty? What are the parameters you consider? Thank you very much Francesco
Algorithm Updates | | seomoznicchia0 -
Javascript hidden divs, links to anchor content
Hello, I am working on a web project that breaks up its sections by utilizing hidden divs shown via javascript activated through anchor links. http://www.janandtom.com/ First question: Is this SEO suicide? I have confirmed that the content is being indexed by searching for specific text but have been led to believe that hidden div content will be afforded a lower 'importance'. One suggestion has having the text as display:block and then hiding it on page load. Will this make a difference? Second: Is there any way to have Google index the anchored content by the specific anchor text? An example for the second question: If you search google right now for: buyers like to look at floorplans Tom & Jan You will get a link to: http://www.janandtom.com but I would rather it be: [http://www.janandtom.com/#Interactive Floorplans](http://www.janandtom.com/#Interactive Floorplans) Sorry if this is redundant or addressed before. I tried searching the questions but wasn't getting and definitive direction to go and this project is a little unique for me. Also, I'm just getting my feet we into this 'high-end' seo (new member of SEOMoz) so please bear with me. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | MASSProductions0 -
Stop google indexing CDN pages
Just when I thought I'd seen it all, google hits me with another nasty surprise! I have a CDN to deliver images, js and css to visitors around the world. I have no links to static HTML pages on the site, as far as I can tell, but someone else may have - perhaps a scraper site? Google has decided the static pages they were able to access through the CDN have more value than my real pages, and they seem to be slowly replacing my pages in the index with the static pages. Anyone got an idea on how to stop that? Obviously, I have no access to the static area, because it is in the CDN, so there is no way I know of that I can have a robots file there. It could be that I have to trash the CDN and change it to only allow the image directory, and maybe set up a separate CDN subdomain for content that only contains the JS and CSS? Have you seen this problem and beat it? (Of course the next thing is Roger might look at google results and start crawling them too, LOL) P.S. The reason I am not asking this question in the google forums is that others have asked this question many times and nobody at google has bothered to answer, over the past 5 months, and nobody who did try, gave an answer that was remotely useful. So I'm not really hopeful of anyone here having a solution either, but I expect this is my best bet because you guys are always willing to try.
Algorithm Updates | | loopyal0