And those are the bare-basics!
There's also optional things...
>>>
3/5 >>>
Optional elements would include things like:
* Read time (est. based on word count)
* Social action/share links
* Pull quotes (and share-excerpt links for social)
* Comments/Reviews (and indication of such at top)
* Sub-Images (non-hero, set as lazy etc.)
etc.
>>>
4/5 >>>
* Schema
* OpenGraph (control over social shares)
* Previous/Next links (if item is part of a series)
* Updated block (declare changes)
* Conclusion (should summarise benefit(s)).
And these are off the top of my head!
>>>
5/5 >>>
A "page" should consist of multiple elements.
Some are basically universal (Primary/Secondary nav, Primary Heading, Intro etc.).
Others are Type specific (such as CTAs, Pre/Next, Pricing, shipping etc.)
Don't short your design by failing to give each proper attention!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
.
:: Regular performance audits are good ::
:: Alerts on Priority content is better! ::
You should have a separate segment,
tracking priority pages: 1) Those that do contribute heavily to Goals 2) Those that ideally would contribute to Goals
Logic says G not only have a method (at least one),
but use it too!
And I've asked (at least 4 times) for an indication of what the threshold is,
and whether it's based solely on "content",
or if it includes code etc.,
and been ignored/evaded - every single time :(
I don't think there is a "specific" threshold,
I believe it is variable - based on availability.
G can/does show duplicates and highly similar results in a SERP,
esp. if there is little else for them to show.
The more "options" to show (that aren't dupes),
the fewer G shows.
.
Fantastic SEO:
Knowing that boilerplate nav yields some SEO value,
but is mainly for UX/CRO,
and putting links in the content of main nav pages,
to pass values - and - drive internal traffic and aid business goals (such as views/signups/conversions etc.)
Now, I get that it may seem a little backwards ...
> it's an "SEO tweet"
> talking about "Internal Links"
> but basically saying "try doing something else".
Site-wide/common links seem to pass less value.
(So though that link may be on 100 pages, it's not worth 100 links).
Further, as we understand it,
the value passed through a link may be influenced by the number of links on the page ((overly) simplified: more links, less value per link).
Adding more links across all/most pages,
may reduce the value given to other pages.
The patents are complex, obscure and there's not even a guarantee they are in use!
BUT - a fair part of the SEO we all use today…
…is based on insights gleaned from examination of older patents,
thanks to those that Did read the Google patents.
This is akin to saying:
* you don't need to do keyword research
* you don't need to look at the SERPs
* you don't need to be able to write good *giggle*
* you don't need to be technical
* you don't need to be analytical
* you don't need to be creative
etc. etc. etc.
>>>
>>>
You can do, (and some people do so), SEO without being able/much good at any/most/all of the above.
BUT ... every extra thing you do,
tends to improve your knowledge/skill/ability,
and that increases your chances of success.
(It does NOT mean you will succeed though!)
@aleyda Question a course if :
- it mentions LSI Keywords
- it says Content Length/Word Count matters
- it talks about Stop Words
- it references Keyword Cannibalisation, but not Intent
- it suggests G favours certain TLDs over others
- it says links from .edu/.gov are worth more
Pay attention if the course mentions :
+ Search/Query/User intent/purpose
+ Nouns, Verbs, Prepositions
+ Entities and Semantic relationships
+ Internal links
+ User Experience
+ Business Goals, Revenue and Conversions or Leads
There's a lot to learn - and that ranges from technical (crawling, parsing, rendering, indexing, ranking - through to IA, sitemaps etc.),
all the way to content optimisation and keyword research etc.,
so consider multiple.