Thanks for the reply. I’ll keep you posted if I can remember to!

This week I’m travelling but expect to start designing 9 new pages next week, SEO’d for these KWs I talked about.

Do you have any input on this. I’m debating which format to use for the URLs.

I’m going to put them under my main domain:

http://www.atlantarealestateinfo.com/***here**

My question is what would be the most effective:

the-new-keyword-url.htm
thenewkeywordurl.htm
The_new_keyword_url.htm

It’s another one of these fuzzy deals on how Google “likes” it.

Thoughts?

Yes, you are correct and that is what I’m contending with in my market right now.

I’m doing a very long slow campaign to try and rank for the primary key words. This may take forever or may never be achieved.

In the mean time, I’m putting up subpages with the goal of ranking for all the tier two KWs. This will generate huge traffic in itself and judging by the metrics I’m seeing, it’s doable.

RM

I mean, c’mon. Game over in those categories.

But, very interesting data!

Rob

Thanks to Gab for writing very interesting article, was happy to help out with some numbers!

Talking of which – our crawler indeed crawls more pages now than it was in 2006, a lot more – however on LIKE FOR LIKE basis, ie comparing data for the same period is valid even for old dates.

Our charts now produce normalised (against crawl level) versions as well – https://www.majesticseo.com/comparedomainbacklinkhistory.php?d0=seoroi.com&d1=&d2=&d3=&d4=&type=2&ctype=0

The numbers that we supplied to Gab were normalised using this approach.

Generally speaking we don’t favour one site over the other – the only exception is blogspot.com (and couple more blog locations) that we crawl more deeply than most domains.

Alex

Good points. That said, Majestic have normalized the data relative to their crawl rate, so your point isn’t a concern. Looking at sites I’ve worked on, it’s fairly accurate in the general trend.

As to crawl policy, that’s possible, but I’m not intimately familiar. Try emailing them – Alex and co. are a great group who’d be happy to answer questions, I’m sure.

If you go to MajesticSEO’s site you will see this below all graphs:

“Chart note: default monthly view shows data points for any given month. Since our crawl rates increased considerably since 2006 it is adviseable to either use normalized view and/or compare domains with each other in order to get more comparable data. “

How is that possible?

My thought is that perhaps this is because of the MajesticSEO crawler … that in it’s infancy, only crawled a very small portion of the web and therefore listed very few links for each site. It could be that MajesticSEO has gotten increasingly better at finding links over the past 3 yrs (increased resources, funds, etc), crawling a siginificantly higher amount of links than it did in 2006.

This would suggest that a lot of the sites graphed above HAVEN’T increased by XX million links in the past yr, but that the MajesticSEO crawler just FOUND those links (new or old) in the past year. In reality, these sites listed in the data could look more flat than a consistent linear-like growth in links since 2006.

I’d be interested to find out from MajesticSEO, how much their database has grown since 2006 and if it is proportionate to the growths in links reported in your graphs above.

Perhaps we need to wait for the MajesticSEO tool to fully mature before we can accurately compare historical link information.

One possible other influence though I wonder if you considered… Majestic SEO’s coverage of the web. All the sites show growth in link numbers, but is this due to Majestic SEO increasing their coverage of the web or the individual sites?

Even comparing like for like, if their crawl policy favoured particular sites could this result in some skewing in these graphs where one site appears to grow above another?

Great stuff!

Tom