Comments on: Is the Guardian Website Keyword Stuffing? http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/ A website design and internet marketing company Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:57:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Carmen http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/comment-page-1/#comment-2034 Carmen Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:08:17 +0000 http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/?p=326#comment-2034 Looks like they changed it. Someone must've seen that the title was ridiculous. Looks like they changed it. Someone must’ve seen that the title was ridiculous.

]]> By: Keyword Stuffing on The Guarding website | The Tech News Blog http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/comment-page-1/#comment-1965 Keyword Stuffing on The Guarding website | The Tech News Blog Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:40:50 +0000 http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/?p=326#comment-1965 [...] read a post this morning from SEO blogger Gregor Spowart, which I want to share with [...] [...] read a post this morning from SEO blogger Gregor Spowart, which I want to share with [...]

]]> By: Steve morris (webmojo Yorkshire) http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/comment-page-1/#comment-1964 Steve morris (webmojo Yorkshire) Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:40:08 +0000 http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/?p=326#comment-1964 Defiantly keyword stuffed , otherwise the title would suffice Defiantly keyword stuffed , otherwise the title would suffice

]]> By: Ian http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/comment-page-1/#comment-1963 Ian Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:39:11 +0000 http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/?p=326#comment-1963 Ha, I noticed one of Charlie Brookers pieces the other week had a weird URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/19/fooddrinks-foodanddrink Can you guess what the article was about? But I agree with Matthew Cain, it's more likely than not just how their CMS autogenerates URLs. Plus those pointless links drive me mad too. Ha, I noticed one of Charlie Brookers pieces the other week had a weird URL:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/19/fooddrinks-foodanddrink

Can you guess what the article was about?

But I agree with Matthew Cain, it’s more likely than not just how their CMS autogenerates URLs. Plus those pointless links drive me mad too.

]]> By: Gregor http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/comment-page-1/#comment-1962 Gregor Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:24:40 +0000 http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/?p=326#comment-1962 They'd be better generating the URL based on the title in that case. URL based on the keywords just looks a bit spammy. Plus it's huge! If that article is referred to in the printed press then nobody is going to sit any type that in! They’d be better generating the URL based on the title in that case. URL based on the keywords just looks a bit spammy.

Plus it’s huge! If that article is referred to in the printed press then nobody is going to sit any type that in!

]]> By: Matthew Cain http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/is-the-guardian-website-keyword-stuffing/comment-page-1/#comment-1961 Matthew Cain Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:06:49 +0000 http://www.massmediadesign.co.uk/blog/?p=326#comment-1961 It's probably just the content management system which autogenerates titles. Not only that but there are loads of pointless hyperlinks in the content. For example, an article which mentions women will link to guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/women or an article which mentions politics will link to guardian.co.uk/politics. Is annoying users worth a couple of extra SEO points? They were doing ok before on Google. It’s probably just the content management system which autogenerates titles.

Not only that but there are loads of pointless hyperlinks in the content. For example, an article which mentions women will link to guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/women or an article which mentions politics will link to guardian.co.uk/politics.

Is annoying users worth a couple of extra SEO points? They were doing ok before on Google.

]]>