Website vs Web Site

When I'm grading student assignments for our Search Engine Optimization courses, I often come across alternative spellings. Some are regionally based, such as "optimization" versus "optimisation". But today I want to comment on "website" versus "web site" which I'm seeing a lot of confusion over.

There are conflicting arguments about this, but in academic circles, the correct version is considered "web site" as two words in support of W3 standards. Sites such as the Chicago Manual of Style Online insist that the two word version is correct formal usage. Then again, a search for "web site" on Wikipedia.org redirects to their definition article for "website". Dictionary.com also suggest "website" is the most commonly used form as it has developed in usage:

Usage Note: The transition from World Wide Web site to Web site to website as a single uncapitalized word mirrors the development of other technological expressions which have tended to take unhyphenated forms as they become more familiar. Thus email is gaining ground over the forms E-mail and e-mail, especially in texts that are more technologically oriented.

But perform a Google search for both versions and you’ll see that web site is much more common than website.

Personally, I believe you should always use the two-word version in your site, particularly in your Title and Description tags, because search engines won’t be able to distinguish the two words if you bunch them together as "website" and you might not capture as many searchers. If you use "website", you might also isolate pedantic readers who feel "web site" is the correct spelling. Consistency is key, no matter which version you decide to use.

So readers: which version do you prefer? Tell us via comments.

Add to: Digg | Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia | Reddit

Subscribe via: Yahoo Feeds | Feedburner | Technorati | Bloglines

Q and A: Is it better to use more text on a single page from an SEO perspective?

Dear Kalena...

Having just bribed you with a coffee, I have a question which might be interesting to other readers. Say a web site has 500 words of text. Would the site have a higher Google PageRank if all the text was on one page (using scroll bars) as opposed to spreading over 5 pages?

For example the home page of the Oz site (http://www.lowercall.com.au/index.html) is currently spread over 4 web pages. The latter pages do not have any PageRank whereas the first page does. Is there any reason why we should not put all the text on one page and use a scroll bar?

Kind regards
Mike

Kalena's Answer:

Dear Mike

Thanks for the coffee top-up, I really need it this week! Let me make some comments on your situation:

1) I seriously hope your entire site contains more than 500 words of text. For pages to do well in the search engines, they usually require around 250-300 words of text each, as a minimum. In my experience, a web site with less than five text-heavy pages does not perform well in search engines.

2) I'm assuming you are looking at the green bar PageRank in the Google Toolbar? Let's just get one thing straight here. That little green bar is NOT a true indication of your site's Google PageRank. That figure is known only to Google. It's not even a close approximation these days, because it is only updated when the Toolbar software is updated and by then your site's true PageRank score has changed dramatically anyway. So it's always out of date. You shouldn't be looking at that green bar at all.

3) Generally, a page with more text on it will perform better than a short page with very little text. This is because a page with more text provides more information to search engines about your site. It also generally contains more keywords and keyword phrases so it can be compared to search queries and found to be a more relevant match to a wider range of search queries. But the PageRank of a page is not dependent on the amount of text on that page, it is dependent on a wide number of on-page and off-page factors, only some of which are within your control.

4) In my opinion, you should concentrate on fleshing out the pages of your site dramatically. The site is not performing well in search engines because there is so little content available to visitors and bots. The site is also not very search engine compatible in terms of navigation and tag optimization. You should implement text links to make it easier for search robots to find and index all your pages and you should have an SEO expert review your Title Tags, META Tags and visible copy.

Add to: Digg | Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia | RawSugar | Reddit

Subscribe via: Yahoo Feeds | Feedburner | Technorati | Bloglines

Q and A: Does the use of bold or italics tags add relevancy weight in search engines?

Dear Kalena...

A quick question - How much added value is there to placing keyword text within bold, strong, italics, or emphasis tags in terms of the weight given to those terms by search engines?

Thanks,
Adam

Kalena's Answer:

Dear Adam

Just like a healthy diet, everything in moderation is the key to a search engine compatible page. Yes, if you use bold/strong or italics to highlight text on your page, the search engines will assume you consider the content of that text to be important.

Same goes for the use of H1, H2 tags etc. If you consider certain keyword strings important enough to emphasize via headings, it is my understanding that the search engines will give the content between the tags slightly higher relevancy weight than content outside the tags. But don't go overboard and emphasize too much content, or you will defeat the whole purpose of making certain keywords stand out. You'll also annoy your readers - there's nothing worse than trying to read a web page that has been over-formatted. Overuse of such tags might also trigger anti-sp@mdexing filters.

Subscribe via: Yahoo Feeds | Feedburner | Technorati | Bloglines

Q and A: Is Web 2.0 an SEO Killer?

Dear Kalena...

I have been doing link building for a local SEO firm for a couple of years now. I want to learn more but the person I sub-contract for seems reluctant to teach more than bits and pieces. Never the whole picture. After reading your article 11 Reasons Why You Should Consider A Job In Search Engine Marketing, I mentioned wanting to learn more since it looks the future is good in this industry. Her response was: "Just because SEO is hot today doesn't mean with more Web 2.0 functionality coming down the road it couldn't change all that in a very short time".

Is this a belief held by the majority of the industry? I would like to know that I am putting my energy into something that will be around for a while.

Thanks
Sue

Kalena's Answer:

Dear Sue

It sounds like you should find a new employer! It's interesting that somebody working in SEO is so sceptical about its future. Regardless of her personal opinion, not embracing the opportunity to educate you about search engine compatible design (and that's what SEO is in a nutshell) seems very short-sighted. Perhaps she's concerned that you will indeed learn more than her and take her job?

I can assure you that the majority of us working in SEO have no immediate concern about its continuing viability. Traditional search engine optimization methods may change over time as we move towards a Web 2.0 approach to design and collaboration, but there will always be a market for consulting to make sites more search engine compatible, user friendly and accessible.

What you need to do is expand your skills to a range of areas aside from link building (think blogging, search-friendly design, web site copywriting, usability etc.) so that you will be ready to meet the market demand that continues to grow. Good luck!

Add to: Digg | Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia | RawSugar | Reddit

Subscribe via: Yahoo Feeds | Feedburner | Technorati | Bloglines

Q and A: Can you please suggest improvements to my web site?

Dear Kalena...

I enjoy your Q. & A. column and note from your profile that you enjoy looking at new websites. I invite you to take a moment and give my website a look at www.thetreeofselfrealization.com especially the section on partnerships.

Please feel free to ask questions and to make suggestions for its improvement. Your comments will be greatly appreciated and helpful as I try to reach my target audience.

Sincerely,

John

Kalena's Answer:

Hi John

Lots of things will improve your site's search engine compatibility. Here are just a few suggestions:

• Your title tag only contains the phrase "The Tree of Self Realization". Unless persons know the name of your site, they are not going to type that phrase into search engines. You need to expan on your title tag to include logical search keywords relating to your content.
  
  
• Your home page HTML is missing a META Description Tag. This tag is often used by search engines to describe your site in their search results pages, so it shouldn't be excluded.
  
  
• Your navigation menu is entirely graphical, meaning search engines can't index it. I suggest changing it or supplementing it with a text-based menu.
  
  
• Your home page copy consists of long paragraphs of text. People don't read on the web, they scan. So you need to break up long pieces of copy with headings and bullet points if you want them seen.
  
  
• There's no site map. A site map is important for usability and also to enable search engines to find and index all the pages on your site.
  

Happy Editing!

Add to: Digg | Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia | RawSugar | Reddit

Subscribe via: Yahoo Feeds | Feedburner | Technorati | Bloglines

Q and A: How do I find out what the pricing models are for online content?

Dear Kalena...

Not really an seo question but I saw your article on content aggregators.

We are about to launch an innovative site in Canada devoted to events across the country. It is positioned as a one-stop, free site for all kinds of event information - over 100 event categories covering the demographic spectrum and across geographies - towns, communities to large urban cities. Think of it as a 'Google' for events in Canada. We have the largest most comprehensive database of event info in Canada.

I want to sell category event data feeds tht would be integrated to other's websites i.e cultural events/ local attractions to tourism sector, hotels, etc, How do I find out what the pricing norms/ models are for online content?

Thanks!
Susan

Kalena's Answer:

Dear Susan

I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Firstly, if the site isn't even launched yet, you will have trouble selling your RSS feeds to other sites based on claims alone. My guess is that your potential partners will want to see your site in action for some months before being interested in syndicating your content.

Secondly, if you are offering all the event information for free on your site, why should other sites want to pay for the feeds? I think your income model is backwards. I actually think you should offer the feeds for free (like most other content providers) and use the syndication to drum up more visitors to your site. You could sell advertising space within the feeds to tourism -related sites or businesses OR you could charge a small membership fee for sites to have their events listed in your feeds, which then get syndicated to other sites. That's they way I'd do it.

But back to your real question, which is how you find out pricing models for online content. This is a difficult thing because it's very subjective. Someone in the U.S. might be willing to pay $100 for an e-book that is distributed online in China for free. It all depends on your market. A couple of sites that are successfully brokering online content in bulk include Mochila and Elance.com. Check out the pricing models they use for some tips to selling your own.


Add to: Digg | Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia | RawSugar | Reddit

Subscribe via: Yahoo Feeds | Feedburner | Technorati | Bloglines