Single Page Sites & Ranking?
Niles
normal amount of internal pages and subdirectories)? I'm doing a single
page site for someone and need to get it to rank up high in Google. Is
that an impossible task or is it possible, does anybody know? I've never
done a single page site before so this is a new one for me. If it's
possible does it require something extra to get it to rank high?
John Bokma
It's possible if the info on that page is so special that a lot of people
link to it.
--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/
mark r
Andrew Heenan
>> Can a single page web site rank as high as a normal web site (one with a
>> normal amount of internal pages and subdirectories)? I'm doing a single
>> page site for someone and need to get it to rank up high in Google. Is
>> that an impossible task or is it possible, does anybody know? I've never
>> done a single page site before so this is a new one for me. If it's
>> possible does it require something extra to get it to rank high?
>
> It's possible if the info on that page is so special that a lot of people
> link to it.
It would need to be 'unique' information; and even then, it would need to be
associated with just one or two search terms.
Single pages can do well; but will always be open to being trumped by anyone
prepared to expand the content a little and target a wider range of search
terms.
Look around the niche; if your client is not saying something *really,
really, really special*, that one page hasn't a hope.
Plus there's the big question "What does 'doing well' mean, if one page can
say it all?"
No reason not to try - but be sure your fee is for the creation, not the
success.
Also - being a little picky here - don't let clients talk about "*needing*
to rank high in Google"; we all "need" that, so it has little meaning, and
increases the likelihood of a disappointed client: "I needed that, I
haven't got it, your best obviously isn't good eneough, so I won't pay you".
Compare with "I wanted that, I know you did your best ... keep trying"
Good Luck!
--
Andrew
http://www.seo2seo.com/
http://www.sick-site-syndrome.com/
First things first - but not necessarily in that order.
The video that makes YouTube worthwhile:
Charlie The Unicorn - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5im0Ssyyus
John Bokma
I certainly would link out, but only to 5 or max 10 pages that are as
highly related with the topic of my page as possible.
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote...
>>> Can a single page web site rank as high as a normal web site (one
>>> with a normal amount of internal pages and subdirectories)? I'm
>>> doing a single page site for someone and need to get it to rank up
>>> high in Google. Is that an impossible task or is it possible, does
>>> anybody know? I've never done a single page site before so this is a
>>> new one for me. If it's possible does it require something extra to
>>> get it to rank high?
>>
>> It's possible if the info on that page is so special that a lot of
>> people link to it.
>
> It would need to be 'unique' information;
Nah, the best of its kind is sufficient.
> and even then, it would need
> to be associated with just one or two search terms.
Huh, why? I have very good pages, but somehow people find it with many
search terms. Not because I aimed for them, but there are so many
combinations possible if you write a few paragraphs. In my experience the
more combinations are possible, the better.
> Single pages can do well; but will always be open to being trumped by
> anyone prepared to expand the content a little and target a wider
> range of search terms.
Isn't that a contradiction (and an agreement with what I just wrote).
Andrew Heenan
> yeah and dont link out!
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
Outgoing links to quality, related sites are absolutely vital if you want
your site to have any authority.
Don't listen to urban myths about 'bleeding PR'; as a theoretical construct
(based on the ramblings of patent-reading pedants), it has some value. In
real world SEO, it's at best an irrelevance, at worst a drop in a very large
ocean of SEO concerns.
Andrew Heenan
> Isn't that a contradiction (and an agreement with what I just wrote).
Uniquity is as near essential as makes no difference; the 'best' stuff,
almost by definition, will usually pass that test.
And a single page site is not *quite* the same as a single page on a larger
site.
A single-page site CAN do well, but always invariably WON'T do well.
But I don't think our views are that dissimilar.
Big Bill
wrote:
>mark r <mark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> yeah and dont link out!
>
>Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
>
>Outgoing links to quality, related sites are absolutely vital if you want
>your site to have any authority.
Depends on how you define authority, I think. If you come up with a
slant that absolutely blows everything prior on the subject away, then
you'dbe the authority because they'd all link to you. You'd need an
off-line campaign to let them know you exist, probably though.
BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/
John Bokma
> "John Bokma" <jo...@castleamber.com> wrote
>> Isn't that a contradiction (and an agreement with what I just wrote).
>
> Uniquity is as near essential as makes no difference; the 'best'
> stuff, almost by definition, will usually pass that test.
What I meant: a single page doesn't have to be unique (as in: the only
place where the information on it can be found), being the best page is
sufficient. (Best is a vague term at best, what I mean is that the page
must be considered the best by people linking to it).
> And a single page site is not *quite* the same as a single page on a
> larger site.
But still what I wrote holds, IMO: it's not a problem if it's associated
with many keywords, as long as those keywords have a very strong relation
with each other without being too general.
> A single-page site CAN do well, but always invariably WON'T do well.
My best guess: most of the time it's not the most wanted page.
What I don't understand is, why does someone want a single page (other
than proving his/her SEO/marketing skills).
Tom
>
> What I don't understand is, why does someone want a single page (other
> than proving his/her SEO/marketing skills).
>
> --
> John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/
>
web ad as I like to think of them as then having to churn out tons of
internal pages for no reason other than ranking in Google. Be honest how
many sites do you think would would have more then 25 internal pages if
it had no effect on ranking? This internal pages manipulate Google
create your own link popularity algo Google is running is the most
disgusting and spammy thing that any search engine has ever done. Google
takes the award for the spammiest search engine in history for
encouraging this! That's why wikia search will probably beat them.
The Gobbling Goblin
People who slag off google are normally the ones that either,
a: been banned by them.
b: rank poorly.
As for this 25 internal pages crap you mention, well, one of my sites
has 7000 + pages - because it has 7000+ pages of content.
The other site has over 1500 pages - for the SAME reason.
NOTHING to do with creating my own link poularity.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Andrew Heenan
> What I don't understand is, why does someone want a single page
> (other than proving his/her SEO/marketing skills).
Me neither!
Andrew