Best Practices
The web viewed from the eyes of a search engine

So I have been playing with two tools lately in a quest to understand search engine optimization (that's SEO to insiders). First I have been looking at keywords using GoRank.com then I have been looking at search terms at Overture.

What you see may be surprising.

When you use the GoRank.com tool you see a page as a search engine would, by looking at the density of certain keywords. So for instance if I put www.intervarsity.org in I find that "InterVarsity" and "christian fellowship" are the most important keywords on the page (big surprise so far, right?). But neither "college" nor "University" appear on the page.

Now if I go to Overture and enter "christian fellowship" I get this list (edited for length):
count    search term
2307    fellowship of christian athlete
1360    christian fellowship
 935     vineyard christian fellowship
 798    christian church fellowship
 593     christian fellowship horizon
 582     cheerleader christian fellowship
 545     christian fellowship harvest
 545     christian fellowship intervarsity
 531    toronto airport christian fellowship

Where the number is the count of times that search term was entered in Jan 2004. One interesting thing to note is that "cheerleader christian fellowship" comes up more often than InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (a new ministry idea? I'll staff that one :-)

What is by far the most surprising is how rarely any of these terms are searched!

I know that you guys don't spend much time on SEO, but I thought that the tools and results might be of some interest.

Posted by Brad on March 4, 2004 08:38 PM
Comments

This is amazing! We gotta do something about the missing "university" factor. The Overture results are more ambiguous, I think. There are two possible reasons for the low number: either people aren't looking for us — or they already know where we are (or guess correctly before needing a search). Much to think about here.

(You seem to suggest, btw, that SEO is not of much interest to the IVCF Web Team. That isn't the case [and I could cite numerous specific design decisions made in the last 6 months], so I'm wondering where you got that idea; have I ever said anything to suggest otherwise?)

Posted by: Jon at March 4, 2004 08:59 PM

No, I just hadn't heard you talk about it much at all, so I assumed it wasn't a big thing (or was someone else's concern). I apologize for any misunderstanding.

The tools are fascinating. What to do about them is less clear.

Posted by: Brad Farris at March 4, 2004 09:55 PM