PDA

View Full Version : What is a good text / html ratio?


johnMoss
03-04-2011, 02:17 PM
Obviously there is a definitive standard, I haven't found it. So the general question stands, what is considered an SEO healthy ratio, and more subjectively as follows;

a) All obvious givens aside, are non-html scripts being cataloged as html in this analysis as well? Perhaps another happy reason to go jquery over JS?

b) Kinda zeroing in on Google here, but is there possibly also a definitive point into the body tag that the bots will terminate indexing in the presence of accumulating low ratio? Really referring only to home page with this one, and bad mark-up as a trigger of its own is understood...

c) The presence of a good ratio seems to be quite important, even with the use of a site map. I'm querilous as to the value given this aspect, in that from a retail standpoint, too much information = buzz-kill. That said, slapping some informational prose toward the bottom wouldn't hurt, but, and even if, all manner of care has been taken to assuage technical rules, will the bots make it that far down the page of a 'non .org site' ?

DWcourse
03-04-2011, 06:06 PM
I don't have any definitive data but my strong feeling is that this is a very minor factor. Although Google does consider page loading time.

johnMoss
03-06-2011, 05:08 AM
I can't find any either, but there does seem to be a value ascribed to 'more informative' pages, which in the absence of manual scoring are assumedly derived by this ratio.

DWcourse
03-06-2011, 02:09 PM
Search engines can base "more important" on any number of factors:

inbound links
clicks on the page from search results
time spent on page
keyword density
keywords in important text (headings, titile tag, etc.)
etc.

johnMoss
03-06-2011, 04:55 PM
Definitely a slew of factors that come into play... I'm just zeroed in on this one at the moment because certain parties out there as one may come to find are implying it as an SEO component of low to medium merit. Yet there doesn't seem to be even a weighted opinion as to what 'officially' constitutes a good ratio, or if there is I haven't found it yet.

DWcourse
03-06-2011, 07:54 PM
Just sayin' that text to html may be a very small direct factor or just something that influences other factors (like load time).

That said, I think external javascripts and style sheets are important (and cut down the code to content ratio. And using well constructed and concise html is important. I just don't think there is any kind of "desirable" code to content ratio. And it there was such a factor it would seem to favor long, text-heavy pages, minimally-formatted pages and I don't think that is the case.

johnMoss
03-06-2011, 08:41 PM
That said, I think external javascripts

Extremely salient counsel... Hadn't thought about that!:-D

DWcourse
03-06-2011, 08:53 PM
Is that as in "Salient Green" :mrgreen:

(please forgive the bad pun and obscure movie reference)

johnMoss
03-06-2011, 09:19 PM
Ya know... I'm workin' it here... thinkin, thinkin... .and the best I can come up with is Soylent Sheen... pathetic i know, but charlie could play himself in the role...

edbr
03-07-2011, 02:05 AM
i have often wondered on this .
IF google uses percentages to rank keyword as sailient ( i like that word too) the more content then the more times a keyword can be repeated and still acheive a percentage supposedly acceptable to google.
there is also some discussion about text to code, but that seems to be ok provided styles and javascript is off page
i agree probably low in inportance unless it helps keyword repitition with out penalty but for the first part i

johnMoss
03-07-2011, 02:55 AM
the more content then the more times a keyword can be repeated
Another valid point, yet a tightrope to walk on. Overuse = flag = boring copy. One might assume two references tops per keyword per x number of characters per tag. What would be the value of x?
I know I'm going overkill with this but as the overall quality of website code evolves, is it not fair to assume heretofore lesser concerns will rise in value, and probably sooner as opposed to later?

edbr
03-07-2011, 03:43 AM
Overuse = flag = boring copyyes i get that although more content could also allow the keywords to be used in a natural way in cotent.
i am certainly not sold on this being true but it is interesting i think. overuse would depend on if evaluated as a number or percentage.

johnMoss
03-07-2011, 04:53 AM
overuse would depend on if evaluated as a number or percentage.

That's an interesting thought. My assumption though is it's already via both. Now we have an x & y. I need a beer....

domedia
03-09-2011, 01:12 PM
I don't have any definitive data but my strong feeling is that this is a very minor factor. Although Google does consider page loading time.
I think it's very marginal too. The key to great search engine rankings is and has (almost) always been writing great stuff that is relevant, that people want to link to, and talk about in tweets facebook etc. Content is still King 8)

DWcourse
03-09-2011, 02:36 PM
I think it's very marginal too. The key to great search engine rankings is and has (almost) always been writing great stuff that is relevant, that people want to link to, and talk about in tweets facebook etc. Content is still King 8)

I believe content is king and quality content is the best practice but it's not secret that Google has a problem with "content farms" that produce tons of low quality content and manage to get it ranking. One big element of the puzzle is links. Great content is one way to generate links but there are plenty of other ways (some legit, some not) that also work.

domedia
03-09-2011, 04:55 PM
I believe content is king and quality content is the best practice but it's not secret that Google has a problem with "content farms" that produce tons of low quality content and manage to get it ranking..
The question is how many of google search results have this problem.
It seems like the huge majority get to #1 (or on the first page) because they belong there. They are the relevant search result, and I honestly think you just have to make your content relevant. If you think you can beat Google at their own Algo, go ahead. Some people manage to make it I'm sure, just be 100% sure this is the approach you want to make instead of long term.

DWcourse
03-09-2011, 05:14 PM
I'm talking about sites like Demand Media, eHow, Mahalo and others which have done very well in Google. Some of them were hit by the recent algorithm update. Other's weren't terribly affected.

My point is not that you should try to game Google but that inbound links are probably as important as the content they point to and you won't do well unless you concentrate on creating good content AND promoting it.

domedia
03-21-2011, 03:06 PM
My point is not that you should try to game Google but that inbound links are probably as important as the content they point to and you won't do well unless you concentrate on creating good content AND promoting it. Right on, and often they are the two sides of the same thing. Good content automatically get more links, than a similar page with poor content. This is the core of PageRank and why it has worked for Google.

d a v e
03-17-2016, 05:19 PM
@wdcbangalore - check the post dates - this one is 5 years old...