Keyword text block on homepage - keep or do away with?
-
One of my sites is getting a major refresh on the home page, which is good and bad.
The legacy homepage was very long, and had a lot of text (thousands+ of words) in the body, with about 450+ links (internal/external) on the page. A ton of graphics, etc etc. Yuck.
The revamped homepage is much improved. Very short, visual, fast, and SEO optimized. It's more of launching pad into the rest of the site. But, the text in the body is much less, perhaps a 100 words or so.
The worry is that with so little text, matching the target kw count will appear as stuffing. The 'solution' was to include a visible text box at the bottom of the page, with about 300 words, basically what would typically appear in an 'about' section of a site. But instead, its located on the bottom of the homepage to beef up the pages content, and to avoid looking too 'stuffed'.
Visually, its unattractive IMHO and while the text is good and informative, its under the fold and will likely not change that much going forward. This all seems very 10 years ago to me, but I'd like a second opinion.
Is this box of text a good strategy?
-
Sounds like you are agreeing with me, Ryan.
As I mentioned, if you go overboard with "optimizing" you end up having a site that is not linkable or attractive enough for other people to link to you naturally, so although you will get traffic for using the keyword rich content, title, etc, you are getting it at the cost of future links. That's lacking a long term strategy.
I would never link to a website that looked too keywordy or spammy even if it wasn't one and I am confident there are many others like me.That being said - if you have smaller "satellite" sites, and those sites are meant to cater to a specific niche and their main objective is to get traffic to your main website rather than create new leads/sales on their own, then its a different story - I would go for optimizing first in this case. I would make sure most keywords that I care for are covered. User experience is still important (or they'll bounce) but not as much as it is for your main MOTHER site.
-
I disagree Syed.
Google wants the best user experience. They have billions of dollars riding on providing the best user experience. The challenge is that sometimes webmasters believe their judgement on the best user experience is better then Google's.
I would suggest that whenever there is a conflict between what you feel would be the best user experience and what Google rewards, do serious research on the subject. Could Google be wrong? Absolutely. It is more likely that the webmaster or SEO might be mistaken.
EGOL's suggestion is perfect. He continuously modified his site over time to ensure the best user experience. In the end he wound up with a home page design that wasn't what he expected, but that user's love. The result is a great user experience AND great results from Google.
-
Ask yourself this - is Google traffic of utmost importance or does user experience what matters most?
Its a vicious cycle.. if you "over optimize" your website, you may initially rank higher but will become less "linkable" to other resources. Also, it may get stunted or even bowled over by competition who converts much better than you.
I always go for user experience first unless my site couldn't live without organic traffic
-
**The legacy homepage was very long, and had a lot of text (thousands+ of words) in the body, with about 450+ links (internal/external) on the page. A ton of graphics, etc etc. **
This sounds like the homepage of my site... I started out with a small homepage like you describe and then added a little more to it and visitor engagement went up.... added a little more and visitor engagement went up... added more and visitor engagement went up....
Now my homepage looks like the latimes.com. The actions of my visitors are hard to argue with.
-
Tough one. While I do see the value of having some added text, it also seems very 'engine targeted' rather than 'user targeted'. Is there any value in this for the users? If there isn't, could you try to improve the text so that it is? If the sole purpose of this text is to please the engines, I might consider getting rid of it, otherwise it is a nice sub-fold semi-useful piece of text for both users and engines and I would keep it.
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
-
Keyword Cannibalization vs. Optimizing Site
I am in the process of optimizing our website and I am having a hard time reconciling two best practices I have found on Moz. 1. You should avoid having multiple pages focus on the same keyword because you will lose some control of which result will show. 2. You should identify your core keywords and weave these keywords multiple times (naturally) throughout your site. I have spent months identifying our top 7 keywords and am working through the site now. The first piece of advice keeps giving me pause. Can anyone weigh in with other considerations or advice on how I can reconcile these two strategies. Thank you
On-Page Optimization | | NikCall2 -
Combining adjacent image and text links
Hey, The pages on one of our sites has a lot of links on it, which I have read a couple of times can be bad for SEO, although many say don't worry too much about it. However, I was thinking to reduce links and also reduce code size combining adjacent image and text links. For example they current look like this:
On-Page Optimization | | mdeluk
"
Products page" I am thinking maybe I should change to the following:
"Products page" However, is this bad code and therefore could be bad for SEO? I have tried Googling this but couldn't seem to find anything on it.0 -
How does Google Detect which keywords my website should show up for in the SE?
When I checked my Google Webmaster Tools I found that my website is showing up for keywords that I didn't optimize for ... for example I optimize my website for "funny pictures with captions", and the website is showing up for "funny images with captions". I know that this is good, but the keyword is dancing all around, sometimes I search for "funny pictures with captions" and I show up in the 7th page, and some time I don't show up. and the same goes for the other keyword. of course I am optimizing for more than two keywords but the results is not consistent. my question is how does Google decide which keywords you website should show up for? Is it the on-page keywords?, or is it the off-page anchor text keywords? Thank you in advance ...
On-Page Optimization | | FarrisFahad
FarrisFahad0 -
Blocking Google seeing outbound links?
Apart from rewriting the outbound url to look like a folder 'abc.co.uk/out/link1' and blocking the folder 'out' in the robots.txt file, along with also nofollowing the links as well, is there anything else you can do?
On-Page Optimization | | activitysuper0 -
Should I bother with branded keywords in my onsite SEO improvements?
Someone recently told me that using branded keywords extensively in your copy and titles may be unnecessary so long as you have a substantial catalog of back links containing keyword rich anchor text. Can I take this to mean I can privilege non-branded terms over branded in my onsite SEO efforts?
On-Page Optimization | | bbelgard0 -
Anchor Texts on Internal Links on my Site Question
[Hey folks, Anchor text question for internal links on my site. We all know that proper anchor text is important for rankings, both in links pointing to your site and links on your site. Google webmaster tools is showing my top internal anchor text links to be letters. This is because of navigation on the site which is in a global footer on hundreds of thousands of pages. Do you think that this dilutes or minimizes the relevance of the real anchor texts that we are targeting which trail behind these, or if this went away it would have no effect on the rest of the anchor texts on the site. How would you handle this, we can just get rid of this navigation because it's passing PR and helping the pages get spidered. Thanks in advance. Anchor text 1. g 2. q 3. d 4. v 5. k 6. t 7. o 8. u 9. a 10. p 11. m 12. r 13. e 14. x 15. y 16. l 17. i 18. z 19. c 20. j 21. s 22. b 23. f 24. h 25. w 26. n](mailto:[email protected])
On-Page Optimization | | irvingw0 -
Same anchor text
I am using the same anchor text on my homepage to go to two different pages. Is this bad? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | tylerfraser0 -
Site-wide keyword density
A colleague of mine was saying that he has been able to get top ranking for a high traffic term by using variations of that head term on multiple pages that are associated with the main page. For example,he would optimize a landing page for the high traffic word "Construction." He would then build pages under this landing page that are optimized for variations of this word: "Construction facts," "Industrial Construction Companies," "Construction Resource Allocator" etc. His theory is that the subpages add credibility with spiders that the root page is the best for that root page. This doesn't seem like it would work, but I'm curious as to what other people think.
On-Page Optimization | | EricVallee340