Using synonyms in SEO: bundles, holes, imperfections
Almost every seo optimizer (in common people seochnik, website promotion, internal optimization, compilation of a semantic kernel to order, buy pvc windows ... - as we are used to imagine, I apologize for trying to humor), I encountered correlation problems in recognizing requests. And also with various tweaks, shortcomings in the search ranking.
This short publication will be devoted to this particular problem. Where I will try to give a number of rather interesting examples in the appendage.
We will start, perhaps, from afar - with the fact that search engines have a large database of statistics. The power and influence of which you have probably already experienced. And the biggest problem was, is and will probably be the “problem of understanding a person” (which is a sin to conceal, because even we do not really understand each other). And some trivial request, for example: “mittens” is misleading the search engine, because it is not clear whether the person is interested in the method of making mittens, whether he wants to buy them, or he just needs a picture, or wants to know the origin of this words, al he generally meant the oral cavity (slang). And the only true method for solving the problem is to collect statistics and conduct analysis based on the information collected (or connect a very quick typewriter to read the thoughts to the equipment).
As the simplest mechanism for understanding revolutions, slang expressions, vernaculars (and so on), search engines begin to associate the words synonyms, as well as transliteration and foreign words, plus case and numerical variations (for example, “dolls”, “dolls”, “dolls”, "Kukla", "kukly" ).
Attention to highlighting key phrases: However, different search engines have different connectives, and Yandex at the request of “doll” does not have, for example, connectives with the phrase “dolls”. And sometimes there is, for example, as in the query “Car” : Moreover, they are also connected in different ways, some in full synonymous correspondence, some not (which can, in fact, be traced by issuing), because sometimes it can also be different according to synonyms .
There is another situation that is painfully illogical and is a small flaw in the Yandex search engine.
In particular, we will consider the recognition of a certain request - the "German language" and its relationship with the English language. After all, the difference between these phrases is obvious, right? However, Yandex looks at this situation from a slightly different angle:
We enter the query “German language” . And we observe the issue: Well, with whom it doesn’t happen, maybe the delivery is a bit stormy (although the request is high-frequency, what kind of storm), it may be accidentally messed up somehow (although some accidents, 1-2 times, then the system). But further more. - Before we had time to move to the second page of the issue, as in the 20th place, this client meets us:
Well, you might think ... Anyway, on the main page there is the phrase "German" , which is already there. But at 44 positions we are met by another beautiful site on which there is no such phrase at all.
And all attempts to find such a coincidence inside only this site (imtp.ru) were unsuccessful (only rare isolated phrases and general “highlighting” of the request “English” ).
As a result, we can make a small conclusion that the Yandex search engine in our case as a “German language” considers the word “language” to be the dominant factor (as in searches like: “white penguin” by noun - “penguin” " ), And the definition"German" is only an insignificant secondary factor. Moreover, the search engine even adds language variations for such keys (the same “Deutsch” for example)
It will now be quite logical to organize all this information into something practical that can be used in practice. Namely, the analysis of these topics will help us in building the semantic core , as well as in promoting the resource.
The webmaster or promoter is often faced with the task of choosing key phrases. However, choosing a synonym for a key phrase can be fatal. Since it often happens like this (for example, Google):
Bratz is a kind of “puppet” brand:
“Bratz => Bratz” , but not equal to “Bratz” ;
"Bratz => Bratz" , but not equal to "Bratz" .
or how “on-line” communicates with “online” and “on line” , but does not associate with “online” and “on-line . ” ;
At the same time, “online” is associated with “online” and “on line” , as well as“On-line” , but not associated with “on-line” .
As a result, it’s always better to choose a middle ground like “online” , or as a way out go along the “low-frequency path”, there’s someone like that.
And do not forget about complexity. After all, everyone wants to kill two birds with one stone (Yandex, Google), in this case, it is more desirable to look for the average value among both substations.
Similarly, there are many ways to uniquely anchor. This is a unique, near-word edging, and the introduction of stop words in anchors, and the imposition of time / case, and the dilution of the key in the bass, and the separation of keys in the links. But as an alternative method to uniqueizing the reference, but transferring the same utility over the key, you can just use synonymous phrases, preferably those in which the issuance is approximately similar in nature, and the phrases themselves are interdependent in both keys (often with brands: adidas, Mercedes, Opel, etc.), often noticed that when the link mass increases, at least for one of the two synonymous keys, the other rises by a somewhat similar coefficient.
The post displays only my confused opinion on the above nuances in SEO or "fortune-telling on coffee grounds" (as you like). I will be happy to participate in the discussion, as well as in the search for truth, if it is possible.
And lastly: "All SEO comes down only to the search bots determining the" level of care "about the user." Therefore, webmasters / administrators / moderators, take care of visitors! The whole world rests only on care!
Thank you for attention.
This short publication will be devoted to this particular problem. Where I will try to give a number of rather interesting examples in the appendage.
Synonyms and Ligaments
We will start, perhaps, from afar - with the fact that search engines have a large database of statistics. The power and influence of which you have probably already experienced. And the biggest problem was, is and will probably be the “problem of understanding a person” (which is a sin to conceal, because even we do not really understand each other). And some trivial request, for example: “mittens” is misleading the search engine, because it is not clear whether the person is interested in the method of making mittens, whether he wants to buy them, or he just needs a picture, or wants to know the origin of this words, al he generally meant the oral cavity (slang). And the only true method for solving the problem is to collect statistics and conduct analysis based on the information collected (or connect a very quick typewriter to read the thoughts to the equipment).
As the simplest mechanism for understanding revolutions, slang expressions, vernaculars (and so on), search engines begin to associate the words synonyms, as well as transliteration and foreign words, plus case and numerical variations (for example, “dolls”, “dolls”, “dolls”, "Kukla", "kukly" ).
Attention to highlighting key phrases: However, different search engines have different connectives, and Yandex at the request of “doll” does not have, for example, connectives with the phrase “dolls”. And sometimes there is, for example, as in the query “Car” : Moreover, they are also connected in different ways, some in full synonymous correspondence, some not (which can, in fact, be traced by issuing), because sometimes it can also be different according to synonyms .
Yandex and German
There is another situation that is painfully illogical and is a small flaw in the Yandex search engine.
In particular, we will consider the recognition of a certain request - the "German language" and its relationship with the English language. After all, the difference between these phrases is obvious, right? However, Yandex looks at this situation from a slightly different angle:
We enter the query “German language” . And we observe the issue: Well, with whom it doesn’t happen, maybe the delivery is a bit stormy (although the request is high-frequency, what kind of storm), it may be accidentally messed up somehow (although some accidents, 1-2 times, then the system). But further more. - Before we had time to move to the second page of the issue, as in the 20th place, this client meets us:
Well, you might think ... Anyway, on the main page there is the phrase "German" , which is already there. But at 44 positions we are met by another beautiful site on which there is no such phrase at all.
And all attempts to find such a coincidence inside only this site (imtp.ru) were unsuccessful (only rare isolated phrases and general “highlighting” of the request “English” ).
As a result, we can make a small conclusion that the Yandex search engine in our case as a “German language” considers the word “language” to be the dominant factor (as in searches like: “white penguin” by noun - “penguin” " ), And the definition"German" is only an insignificant secondary factor. Moreover, the search engine even adds language variations for such keys (the same “Deutsch” for example)
Subtleties in the selection of phrases for the semantic core
It will now be quite logical to organize all this information into something practical that can be used in practice. Namely, the analysis of these topics will help us in building the semantic core , as well as in promoting the resource.
Semantic core
The webmaster or promoter is often faced with the task of choosing key phrases. However, choosing a synonym for a key phrase can be fatal. Since it often happens like this (for example, Google):
Bratz is a kind of “puppet” brand:
“Bratz => Bratz” , but not equal to “Bratz” ;
"Bratz => Bratz" , but not equal to "Bratz" .
or how “on-line” communicates with “online” and “on line” , but does not associate with “online” and “on-line . ” ;
At the same time, “online” is associated with “online” and “on line” , as well as“On-line” , but not associated with “on-line” .
As a result, it’s always better to choose a middle ground like “online” , or as a way out go along the “low-frequency path”, there’s someone like that.
And do not forget about complexity. After all, everyone wants to kill two birds with one stone (Yandex, Google), in this case, it is more desirable to look for the average value among both substations.
Promotion
Similarly, there are many ways to uniquely anchor. This is a unique, near-word edging, and the introduction of stop words in anchors, and the imposition of time / case, and the dilution of the key in the bass, and the separation of keys in the links. But as an alternative method to uniqueizing the reference, but transferring the same utility over the key, you can just use synonymous phrases, preferably those in which the issuance is approximately similar in nature, and the phrases themselves are interdependent in both keys (often with brands: adidas, Mercedes, Opel, etc.), often noticed that when the link mass increases, at least for one of the two synonymous keys, the other rises by a somewhat similar coefficient.
About publication
The post displays only my confused opinion on the above nuances in SEO or "fortune-telling on coffee grounds" (as you like). I will be happy to participate in the discussion, as well as in the search for truth, if it is possible.
And lastly: "All SEO comes down only to the search bots determining the" level of care "about the user." Therefore, webmasters / administrators / moderators, take care of visitors! The whole world rests only on care!
Thank you for attention.