Post by amirmukaddas on Mar 12, 2024 7:34:46 GMT 1
The relevance of the content to one or more keywords indicates the ability of the content itself to respond to relevant search intentions with the same keywords. Content relevance concerns all endogenous factors , i.e. those intrinsically linked to the web page that hosts the content and the website that hosts the page. The factors that make content relevant to a keyword are exactly those that from time to time ensure that users find good answers to their questions . Pay close attention to this step, because thinking about a good answer in terms of the quality of the text cuts away the most important part of the content, the formal one, linked to the appearance of the entire content, of which the text is the substantial part , but still only a part. The form and substance of the content I already talked about it some time ago. Relevance is achieved by keeping together the formal and substantial aspects of the content . Text is very important, but how is the appearance of the text managed ? If you think you can get away with publishing lengthy " explanations " without rhyme or reason, you may have a bitter surprise and I believe the time has come for everyone to abandon the concept of text relevance taken alone, to embrace a broader, more holistic and radical vision, based on web usability , user experience and content curation .
SEO becomes more difficult precisely because at this time it requires technical knowledge in these fields, knowledge that mostly IT-based SEOs, however strong, will tend to underestimate. The misunderstanding lies in the fact that if the results do not arrive in the face of excellent work on the structural side , some SEOs will justify themselves by claiming Denmark Telegram Number Data that the company does not take good care of the content offering compared to the competition. But is it the text we are talking about or the entirety of the contents? And if this is susceptible to optimization that improves the website's performance in search engines, isn't it always SEO we're talking about? SEO must be transdisciplinary The statement " SEO is dead " which every now and then comes back into fashion is all the more true the more frequently the best professionals in our sector state that " SEOs must only look at SEO ".
It's clear that you can't know everything, just as it's clear that the arrogance of those who don't look for others, of those who don't consider it useful to compare themselves with those who speak another language and come from different experiences, is the only great threat I see for this discipline. Closed systems implode, I'm not saying that. Search engine optimization is no longer so much an IT discipline as a social science that makes use of IT knowledge. Optimize a website for search engine bots and you will have done a good job; optimize for people and you will have done a great job. The challenge for an SEO consultant in 2017 is to familiarize yourself with the shades of grey, compare yourself with others to know yourself, understand that experience is important, but 2 plus 2 equals 4 only if you count in base 10, so rationality must keep a window open for intuition , otherwise you will lose yourself behind inconsistent blazons made of worn-out digital memories, while the SEO falls to the ground exhausted, like burnt oil.
SEO becomes more difficult precisely because at this time it requires technical knowledge in these fields, knowledge that mostly IT-based SEOs, however strong, will tend to underestimate. The misunderstanding lies in the fact that if the results do not arrive in the face of excellent work on the structural side , some SEOs will justify themselves by claiming Denmark Telegram Number Data that the company does not take good care of the content offering compared to the competition. But is it the text we are talking about or the entirety of the contents? And if this is susceptible to optimization that improves the website's performance in search engines, isn't it always SEO we're talking about? SEO must be transdisciplinary The statement " SEO is dead " which every now and then comes back into fashion is all the more true the more frequently the best professionals in our sector state that " SEOs must only look at SEO ".
It's clear that you can't know everything, just as it's clear that the arrogance of those who don't look for others, of those who don't consider it useful to compare themselves with those who speak another language and come from different experiences, is the only great threat I see for this discipline. Closed systems implode, I'm not saying that. Search engine optimization is no longer so much an IT discipline as a social science that makes use of IT knowledge. Optimize a website for search engine bots and you will have done a good job; optimize for people and you will have done a great job. The challenge for an SEO consultant in 2017 is to familiarize yourself with the shades of grey, compare yourself with others to know yourself, understand that experience is important, but 2 plus 2 equals 4 only if you count in base 10, so rationality must keep a window open for intuition , otherwise you will lose yourself behind inconsistent blazons made of worn-out digital memories, while the SEO falls to the ground exhausted, like burnt oil.