
Race car driver Bob Burman didn't
really race underwater.
Content is the core of on-site search engine optimization.
The above guidelines seem rather obvious, but it's often hard to find that sweet spot between a phrase like auto racing—which is so broad it will generate 32,300,000 search results—and a phrase such as "subaqueous auto racing" which generated 0 results at the time I wrote this. (Note: because I've used this phrase repeatedly, this page will probably soon become the 1 result for the term...unless some of you go out and create competing content.)
Here on the Web Development Blog, as you know, I write about topics related to Web development. In an ideal world I'd rank well for the phrase Web development but it's too common. It can also mean different things to different people. I'm a long-time blogger, but I only make a few posts per month so I can't compete with Wikipedia and other major players on such a frequently used term. But if I get more specific, I can do well. Today this blog came in 4th out of 231,000,000 results for web development blog. My old blog (which links to this one) comes in 7th, so for now at least I'm getting two good results for that phrase.

While robots crawl the Web, they do so to help people.
I didn't get these search results by analyzing my site and stuffing the phrase "Web development blog" every place I could find. I just used the term in the most obvious places: in the section title, the primary menu, and anywhere it naturally fit in the text. If you write for humans (rather than robots) you'll naturally include many of the relevant words and phrases in your text, but you may still need to do a bit of fine-tuning to match your vocabulary to your readers.
When we're writing for the Web, we're usually writing about subjects with which we are very familiar. We may use specialized vocabulary that makes sense to us, but isn't used by our readers. This could include technical terms pertinent to the field, regional terms specific to where we live or even phrases specific to our organization.
In order to make sure that our copy is both easily understood and easily found via search, we need to take a step back and read/edit the content with our readers in mind.
Colleges, universities and other non-profit organizations all depend on fund-raising to serve their missions. Some organizations call their fundraising departments "Advancement." Others use "Development" or "Philanthropy." Alas those outside the non-profit world, including many potential donors, don't see those terms in the same way as insiders. Someone involved in manufacturing may think of "Development" in terms of product development. A recent graduate may consider "Philanthropy" to be the realm of the rich—and not realize it also includes his/her $25 donation to the annual fund.
Schools that use simpler phrases such as "make a gift for XYZ" or "give to XYZ" make it easier for donors to find their giving pages. For example, if I Google give to Dartmouth, the first result takes me to their Why Give page which also includes a direct link to their online giving page.
If I know that I want to find something on a particular site, I'll just type the address in the url, then use the navigation or on-site search to find what I seek. I'm not everyone. I know many people who will use the Google search bar even when they know a site's address. Dartmouth alumni and friends may very well Google "Give to Dartmouth" rather than going to http://www.dartmouth.edu to look for the Giving link. Thus it's helpful that Dartmouth ranks #1 on that phrase. Organizations that have large sites—common in academia, Dartmouth has more than 300,000 publicly indexed pages—rely heavily on on-site search because they offer so much information.

Horses have long tails, so can you.
While a phrase like give to Dartmouth is both specific and direct, we can also get good results from phrases that are more unique. Awhile back, in SEO - keywords do the darndest things I asked if you were getting traffic from unusual words or phrases you didn't expect. My friend Wayne mentioned, via Twitter, that he gets traffic on phrases we might not want to repeat. David commented that he is getting good results for "Long haired guinea pigs."
I just looked at my analytics again and am now getting results on click here, have you tried jargon and rt hacool. These actually appear in my top 10 which surprised me, but these are still logical. I've written posts advising against using click here and against business jargon, and hacool is my Twitter ID. (rt stands for reTweet which means to forward someone's message on Twitter.)
While these and more general phrases such as "Web development blog" or "blog website tutorial" appear among the top 10 phrases bringing traffic to my site, niche-specific phrases make a significant impact. The phrase quantify and visualize twitter search results produced 5 visits from people who spent an average of 16:50 minutes on the site and visited an average of 7.6 pages.
Admittedly, 5 visits isn't many. But when you also get 2 for how to start redesigning your web site, 3 for cool html blog, etc. they start to add up. People visit this site via almost 2,000 keyword combinations (many of which may be variations on a theme). The top phrases may bring hundreds of visits each, but when added together it's the little niche terms that bring in the majority of traffic. The collective success of these individually smaller elements is what is meant by the long tail.
While niche phrases produce traffic, they still need to be relevant to our content. When Google indexes this page, it may get the #1 spot for "subaqueous auto racing." But placing high in search results is only half the battle. Such results only matter if people are searching on that term AND if I provide useful information on the topic. You and I both know that this article is about word choice and SEO. So if anyone searches that phrase hoping to learn about underwater car racing, they will be sorely disappointed and leave the site. Some marketers like to brag about making the first page of search results, but if the phrase doesn't bring visitors it isn't helping.
When editing copy for SEO it's easy to get wound up worrying about what phrases you should rank for, but if you write for your readers and apply common sense, you'll start to see meaningful results.
Need more Web tips? Fan the heidicool.com Facebook page. I'm posting 1 tip/link there per day to offer ongoing advice on Web design, marketing and social media—without overwhelming your Facebook stream.
As of 3:50 p.m. e.d.t today, September 10, 2009, this page did come in at #1 for subaqueous auto racing. Here's the screencapture of the Google results page. I have a Greasemonkey script installed on Firefox that also includes Twitter results. As a result of looking this up I'm now also finding reTweets and links I didn't yet know about.
Trackback by schools4me (schools4me) — September 10, 2009 @1:16 pm
Comment by David — September 10, 2009 @6:21 pm
Comment by Heidi Cool — September 10, 2009 @10:00 pm
Comment by Kyle James — September 10, 2009 @10:10 pm
Comment by dave — September 11, 2009 @3:29 am
Comment by Mark Keating — September 11, 2009 @8:59 am
Kyle,
great point about blog posts and RSS. I always tell people that having a blog on one's site is good for SEO - and can serve as the backbone of a social media plan. Although I hadn't set out to do it, this post really illustrates that point. When searching "subaqueous auto racing" (with the quotes to get the exact phrase match) Google now shows 52 results, while there were zero before I started. If this article had been added to a static page it would not have been indexed as quickly. Nor would so many have seen it to link to it from their blogs, reTweet it, etc. Yet this happened in less than 24 hours.
It also proves that it is easy to rank for obscure terms. Unscrupulous SEO practitioners can create examples like this to prove that they can get a #1 ranking. But marketers shouldn't be impressed by that. No one can guarantee a #1 rank on a truly relevant phrase.
Instead they should ask if a site saw improved traffic (over time), and if that traffic led to conversions—or whatever goals the site involved may have had. In this case I know I'm not getting traffic from the subaqueous phrase, but instead from bloghighed.org, Facebook, Twitter, Friendfeed and my subscribers. In the long run, I may also get traffic on phrases relating to SEO and wordchoice but in the short term the traffic is coming from social media.
Dave,
Yes, that is rather handy. Instead of comparing Technorati and Google Blog search I can see all the links/copies in the phrase search. T'is very informative.
Mark
Thanks! You are absolutely right about tracking results. Writing the copy and implementing SEO is just the first step, measuring results and adjusting strategies is an ongoing process.
Comment by Heidi Cool — September 11, 2009 @9:13 am
Comment by Kyle James — September 11, 2009 @9:57 am
Comment by Heidi Cool — September 11, 2009 @10:10 am
Comment by Usman — May 4, 2010 @1:54 pm