Keyword Density - Are You Getting the Right Result?

Written by Andy Theekson

Continued from page 1

The only thing inrepparttar data so far to set No.4 apart fromrepparttar 127928 others is a higher keyword count inrepparttar 127929 body content. But that's not likely to help since it has a much higher body word count.

Keyword density inrepparttar 127930 body content

The table this section refers to is at: Table 2

*The SEO Analyzer did not return results, so word count was calculated fromrepparttar 127931 keyword density SEO did return & knowingrepparttar 127932 body content keyword count.

Inrepparttar 127933 Body word count, none of these pages comply withrepparttar 127934 analyzer recommended figure of 436 to 629.

Now althoughrepparttar 127935 keyword density inrepparttar 127936 body content of No.10 is slightly higher than 19 it's also higher than No.1, but it doesn't get ranked No.1 because of it.

No.4 has a lower body keyword density than all except No.30, yet it still gets ranked No.4 !

Another factor to consider is keyword prominence or how close keywords are torepparttar 127937 beginning of eitherrepparttar 127938 title,repparttar 127939 link text or inrepparttar 127940 main page content. The analyzer reported a minor keyword prominence problem with No 19 inrepparttar 127941 link text and body content and more of a problem with prominence of No.30 inrepparttar 127942 link text.

But to keep these prominence reports in perspective for No 19 & 30 we must not forget that No.4 and 10 have zero keyword prominence inrepparttar 127943 link text because they don't have any link text !

Online Analyzer Keyword Density

One ofrepparttar 127944 most detailed online keyword density analyzer's is that from

The table this section refers to is at: Table 3

The above results showrepparttar 127945 keyword density & prominence forrepparttar 127946 words "keyword" & "density" as separate words and also as a two word phrase "keyword density".

It seems a higher keyword density coupled with a higher prominence goes some way to explainrepparttar 127947 ranking order. The exception to this No.4 whose ranking is not due to keyword density or prominence since on both counts it's only slightly different to No.30.

Two other things are striking aboutrepparttar 127948 results from all analyzer's, firstlyrepparttar 127949 very wide variation in word count and secondlyrepparttar 127950 variation in keyword count.

The word count by analyzer's varies by as much as 81.3% (No.10), 44% for No.19 & 41.9% for No.30.

Inrepparttar 127951 worst extreme (No.10)repparttar 127952 keyword density calculated byrepparttar 127953 analyzer's varies by 154.4%

The keyword counts for No.10 & 30 showrepparttar 127954 most variation. The keyword density software counts 3 occurrences ofrepparttar 127955 word "keyword" and 3 of "density". The online analyzer counts 8 and 5 respectively.

For position 30repparttar 127956 software counts 13 for "keyword" and 9 for "density" whilstrepparttar 127957 online tool counts 8 and 6 respectively. Inrepparttar 127958 worst case this is a keyword count variation of 62.5%.

The software was set to look for keywords inrepparttar 127959 Title,Link text, Links, Header tags (h1-h6), Meta Keywords & Description tags, Body text & Alt tags. In factrepparttar 127960 only place it was not set to look arerepparttar 127961 comment tags, but then neither wasrepparttar 127962 online analyzer.

Bothrepparttar 127963 software andrepparttar 127964 Ranks online analyzer can exclude words shorter than a defined setting. In all keyword density analyzer's whererepparttar 127965 option was available it was set to ignore words of 2 letters or less.

To another online analyzer position No.4 had only 10 keywords and a body word count of 969 both of which differ fromrepparttar 127966 figures already seen.

Can we use any tool to compare one page with another ? None give consistently high word & keyword counts or consistent low ones, a relative analysis of pages is also questionable.

Keyword Density Analyzer Conclusions

Three software tools and two online tools have been shown to all produce widely differing word counts (variation 81.3%), keyword count (variation 62.5%) and as a result wide variations in keyword density (variation 154.4%). This whilst analyzing 5 different pages with Google rankings from No.1 position to No.30.

It seems likely with 5 different tools all producing different results that Google itself also arrives at yet other figures for word count, keyword count, prominence & keyword density.

Based onrepparttar 127967 tests, these tools don't produce absolute results or consistent relative comparisons between pages. The differences in word count and keyword count between these analyzer's could not be explained by a word exclusion filter.

The rankings ofrepparttar 127968 test pages can not be explained just onrepparttar 127969 basis of keyword density, prominence, word count, keywords inrepparttar 127970 meta tags, headers, links or Alt tags.

This should come as no surprise, since we know other factors like on & off site links and link popularity all play a role.

What may come as a surprise is thatrepparttar 127971 analyzer tools we rely upon give such widely differing results. Does this mean we should stop using them, no I don't think so, at least not until something better comes along.

Andy Theekson the Search Engine Optimizer provides free information on SEO for small web businesses and conducts independent research on software tools and services. Andy has been involved in small business start-ups both offline and online since 1988.

.com Not Listed in Regional Yahoo? Donít Despair!

Written by Glenn Murray

Continued from page 1

As you might expect, I wasnít satisfied. Nor was I merry. I explained to her that this was not an acceptable solution because allrepparttar links to my site onrepparttar 127927 internet are pointing torepparttar 127928 .com and my email address usesrepparttar 127929 .com.

She was unmoved. She asserted that this wasrepparttar 127930 best and only way to solverepparttar 127931 problem. OhÖ and it might help if I added my primary keyword to my title and description.

My laughter was not good humoured! I wrote back expressing my displeasure at this ďsolutionĒ. I painstakingly explained how Yahoo had made a mistake, and that if Google was capable of recognising my Australian business despite its .com addresses, I would think itís technically possible. I also cited several other .coms inrepparttar 127932 first couple of pages of Australian results.

No response.

The situation didnít look promisingÖ

If this sounds like a familiar story to you, donít despair. A week or two later, I searched Yahoo Australia for my primary keyword, and surprise, surpriseÖ My site was ranked number 1 again!

The moral torepparttar 127933 story? Donít be intimidated by Yahoo. Trust your instincts and donít give up. If youíre an Australian business with a .com, and youíre not listed in Australian searches, this might be why. In fact, I would think this story is relevant to all regional Yahoos. (Of course, before making any accusations, itís a good idea to make sure your site is properly optimised and that you have plenty of inbound links.)

Anyway, thatís my story. I hope it helps someone.

And they all lived happily ever after. So far at leastÖ


The End.

* Glenn Murray is an advertising copywriter and heads copywriting studio Divine Write. He can be contacted on Sydney +612 4334 6222 or at Visit for further details or more FREE articles.

    <Back to Page 1 © 2005
Terms of Use