Google ranking for the term "locum tenens"
-
Hello-
My company is having a very difficult time performing well for the term "locum tenens". This term literally defines our industry and target market (temporary physician staffing, essentially) and is by far the most searched term in our industry (30k / month, give or take). For us, “locum tenens” is like “ice cream” is to Ben & Jerry’s. Of course, there are other keywords we're concerned with, but this is by far the most important single term.
We've moved up to page 3 a few times since launching our redesigned site in April, but seem to continuously settle on page 5 (we've been on page 5 for many weeks now).
While I didn’t expect us to be on page 1 at this point, I having a hard time understanding why we’re not on at least 2 or 3, in light of the sites ahead of us. We have a ton of decent, optimized content and we’ve tried not to be too spammy (every page does have locum tenens on it many times, but it describes our service – it’s hard not to use it many times).
We are working on developing backlinks and are avoiding any spammy backlink schemes (I get calls every day from companies saying they can give me 400 backlinks a month, which I have a hard time believing is a good long term strategy). It just sort of seems like our site is cursed for some reason that I can't understand.
We are working with a competent SEO firm, and still have not made much progress for this term. So, I’m hoping maybe the community here might have some helpful advice.
Our site is www.bartonassociates.com.
Any insight you guys may have would be GREATLY appreciated.
Thanks in advance and have a great day.
Jason
-
Thanks for all of the advice everyone - very helpful, really appreciate it. We're looking into this stuff now.
Jason
-
I totally agree with you on that, sorry my terminology was incorrect. Long few days
-
Well that would be keyword stuffing.
When writing about some subjects normaly, you get a very hign ratio (not 80%).
Keyword stuffing is another thing, if you had a title tag "viagra viagra viagra" that would be keyword stuffing. its un-natrual.
if you have un-natrual text, you would be more then likely violating other more complex rules. but if thee a high density comes from natruall writting you will be fine.
This is probably the best study on it, a bit heavy
http://www.miislita.com/fractals/keyword-density-optimization.html -
Hi Alan, thanks for the feedback and much respected
What would you say to a client who has a keyword density of 80%?
Look forward to your thoughts.
-
I have too disagree with one point, keyword density. Its a myth
http://www.seomoz.org/beginners-guide-to-seo/basics-of-search-engine-friendly-design-and-development -
Your site has a lot of technical issues,
You have 553 un-necessary redirects, each one leaks page rank. I had a look at a sample of them and they are all a case of your links pointing to aUrl and being 301 redirect to aUrl/ , not the trailing slash, you need to link directly to aUrl/
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-unnecessary-redirects
You have 208 broken links, they seem like the mostly image links, SE see these as a violation
You have many descriptions missing 138
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-description-is-missing
You have canonical issues leading to a split in page rank
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-multiple-canonical-formats
You have some irrelevant link text, again leaking link juice though relevancy
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-link-text-is-not-relevant
You have large amounts of script in your pages
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-a-large-amount-of-script-code
there are more issues also.If a fisherman has holes in his net, he has to do a lot more fishing than a man that does not.
If you have violations in your site, you need a lot more links that some one who does notSEO is not all marketing, your site needs to be crawl frendly.
sorry for being so blunt, but there you are.
-
Hi there Jason
Look at building those back links. This is an important aspect and you can find loads of articles and posts in the SEOMOZ Blog to verify this and where you should start.
I had a look at your website and these are my thoughts:
- No Website Name in Website Title(Home Page). Your keywords are your title. I would look at adding the company name to the title of website(Meta Title). having keywords in my opinion is a bit spammy and not ranking potentially for branded terms like your business name is a major downfall.
- I would also suggest adding those keywords in a well written meta description. i see that this is missing and a downfall for you.
- Check your keyword density for those terms. Dont go over 6% on one given page.
- You seem to optimizing all the pages for those terms. So how would the search engines know which page is the right page? Dont duplicate or make pages / titles seem the same.
Hope that this helps.
-
According to the mozBar you only have backlinks from 29 different domains. Perhaps adding more domains to your backlink profile would help? It looks like everyone on page one either has many more links than you, or more domains linking to them. Once you match them I would imagine you would see improvement in your rank.
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
-
Low on Google ranking despite error-free!?
Hi all, I'm following up on a recent post i've made about our indexing and especially ranking problems in Google: http://moz.com/community/q/seo-impact-classifieds-website Thanks to all good comments we managed to get rid of most of our crawl errors and as a result our high priority /duplicated content decreased from +22k to 270. In short, we created canonical urls, run an xml sitemap, used url parameters in GWT, created h1 and meta description for each ad posted by users etc. I then used google fetch a few times (3 weeks ago and last week) both for desktop and mobile version for re-approval. Nothing really improves in google rankings (all our core keywords are ranked +50)since months now: yet yahoo and bing organic traffic went up and is 3x higher than google's. In the meanwhile we're running paid campagins on facebook and adwords since months already to keep traffic consistent, yet this is eating up our budget, even though our ctr and conversion rates are good. I realize we might have to create more content on-site and through social media, but right now our social media traffic is already around 50% and we are using more of twitter and google+ as well since recently. Our organic traffic is only 14%; with google only a third of that. In the end, I believe this breakdown should look more something like organic 50%-70%, (paid)social,referral and direct traffic. 50%-30%... I can't believe we are hit by a penalty although this looks like it is the case. Especially while yahoo and bing traffic goes up and google does not. Should I wait for a signal once our site is "approved" again through GWT fetch? Or am i missing something that i need to check as well to improve these rankings? Thanks for your help! Ivor ps: ask me for additional stats or info in a pm if needed!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ivordg0 -
Should pages with rel="canonical" be put in a sitemap?
I am working on an ecommerce site and I am going to add different views to the category pages. The views will all have different urls so I would like to add the rel="canonical" tag to them. Should I still add these pages to the sitemap?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
"Leeching" backlinks...yes or no?
A lot of websites, by virtue of practicality, will link to wikipedia articles to explain certain concepts. Would it be worthwhile to reach out to those websites and ask them to change the link to a different resource if that resource is a much better alternative than the wikipedia article? And how would you approach this? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mack-ayache0 -
Risk Using "Nofollow" tag
I have a lot of categories (like e-commerce sites) and many have page 1 - 50 for each category (view all not possible). Lots of the content on these pages are present across the web on other websites (duplicate stuff). I have added quality unique content to page 1 and added "noindex, follow" to page 2-50 and rel=next prev tags to the pages. Questions: By including the "follow" part, Google will read content and links on pages 2-50 and they may think "we have seen this stuff across the web….low quality content and though we see a noindex tag, we will consider even page 1 thin content, because we are able to read pages 2-50 and see the thin content." So even though I have "noindex, follow" the 'follow' part causes the issue (in that Google feels it is a lot of low quality content) - is this possible and if I had added "nofollow" instead that may solve the issue and page 1 would increase chance of looking more unique? Why don't I add "noindex, nofollow" to page 2 - 50? In this way I ensure Google does not read the content on page 2 - 50 and my site may come across as more unique than if it had the "follow" tag. I do understand that in such case (with nofollow tag on page 2-50) there is no link juice flowing from pages 2 - 50 to the main pages (assuming there are breadcrumbs or other links to the indexed pages), but I consider this minimal value from an SEO perspective. I have heard using "follow" is generally lower risk than "nofollow" - does this mean a website with a lot of "noindex, nofollow" tags may hurt the indexed pages because it comes across as a site Google can't trust since 95% of pages have such "noindex, nofollow" tag? I would like to understand what "risk" factors there may be. thank you very much
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Website No Longer Ranking In Google:
My website was on first page google couple of months ago, now nothing. Shows up in Bing page one. Some queries/pages still showing OK, but some not at all. Example "residential elevators illinois" found nowhere. http://www.accesselevator.net is the website. Have found 900 poor quality links and used disavow tool. Any further suggestions? Their Page Rank also went from a 3 to a 2. Implemented nofollow on all outgoing links. Need advice.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | trailblazerzz90 -
After reading of Google's so called "over-optimization" penalty, is there a penalty for changing title tags too frequently?
In other words, does title tag change frequency hurt SEO ? After changing my title tags, I have noticed a steep decline in impressions, but an increase in CTR and rankings. I'd like to once again change the title tags to try and regain impressions. Is there any penalty for changing title tags too often? From SEO forums online, there seems to be a bit of confusion on this subject...
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Felix_LLC0 -
What is next from Google Panda and Google Penguin?
Does anyone know what we can expect next from Google Panda/Penguin? We did prepare for this latest update and so far so good.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jjgonza0 -
Proper use and coding of rel = "canonical" tag
I'm working on a site that has pages for many wedding vendors. There are essentially 3 variations of the page for each vendor with only slightly different content, so they're showing up as "duplicate content" in my SEOmoz Campaign. Here's an example of the 3 variations: http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161 http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=messageWrite http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=writeReview Because of this, we placed a rel="canoncial" tag in the second 2 pages to try to fix the problem. However, the coding does not seem to validate in the w3 html validator. I can't say I understand html well enough to understand the error the validator is pointing out. We also added a the following to the second 2 types of pages <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> Am I employing this tag correctly in this case? Here is a snippet of the code below. <html> <head> <title>Reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MAtitle> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="[/includes/style.css](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/includes/style.css)"> <link href="[http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161)" rel="canonical" /> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeffreytrull1
<meta name="keywords" content="Astonishing Event, Inc, Somerset Massachusetts, Massachusetts Wedding Wedding Planners Directory, Massachusetts weddings, wedding Massachusetts ">
<meta name="description" content="Get information and read reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MA. Astonishing Event, Inc appears in the directory of Somerset MA wedding Wedding Planners on WeddingReportsMA.com."> <script src="[http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js](view-source:http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js)" type="text/javascript">script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-173959-2"; urchinTracker(); script> head>0