WebSite Auditor Report - Down in Rankings!
The last time I ran a WebSite Auditor report against my landing page I came up at over 95% optimized (and was well ahead of any other competing landing pages for the same keywords). But lately I've been busy and the next thing you know it's been over a week since my last report. So when I ran my report this morning and came up with only a 85.4% optimization rate, I knew something was wrong.
Actually, not really. This is the nature of SEO, particularly page optimization. The web is so dynamic and is always changing that these kinds of changes really are to be expected. The key is in the ability to adjust your landing page(s) so that you continue to out rank your competition, which is why these WebSite Auditor reports are so helpful; they tell you exactly what part of your web page is lacking and to what degree, and it's all based against your competitor's results.
Here's what I mean - the first report that I ran this morning for my landing page that I had optimized for "Mura SEO" came up at 85.4%, down from my 95% only a week ago. The report specifically pointed out that my competition had vastly improved upon (and consequently knocked me down in):
- Meta keywords usage (amount and keyword density)
- Body text (the amount used by my competition had actually decreased, leaving my page with too much text)
- Anchor texts (the amount of anchor text on my landing page was not nearly enough; the desired amount had almost doubled since my last report)
- Alt text in my IMG tags (the report suggested that my competition was achieving their success with considerably more words used the alt attribute of the IMG tag)
So, armed with that info, off I went to tweak my landing page. Here are the results from my final tweak and resulting WebSite Auditor report:
A few things stand out here: first and foremost, my optimization rate is not 95% like it was, but instead it's only 88.2%. The reality to page optimization: I work. I have other clients and other work that I need to do. Sometimes after you make a tweak then run another report, the results aren't always straight forward, which was the case here. Take that Body Optimization Rate - some would ask me "you couldn't improve that any better than 34.7%? Actually, after about 30 minutes of messing with it, no I couldn't. I think the report said I should have exactly 755 words, which I accomplished but the keyword density measurement kept knocking me down no matter what I tried. So what did I settle on? Check out my competition's current optimization rates:
As you can see, my 88.2% optimization rate beat all other competing landing pages for the selected keywords, which for now is all I'm worried about. Another thing I noticed this morning, is that I actually crawled my supposed top 10 competitor's sites to look at their web pages. More than half of them are completely unrelated to the Mura Content Management System and Search Engine Optimization (SEO). A few are actually foreign sites where the string "mura" means something else - I'm not really sure. Info like this will prove to be important when you go requesting links. I don't need a link from a foreign web site specializing in cooking simply because it ranks high in the keyword "mura", but with a completely different meaning. Oh, one more thing, since the report suggested that I need to reduce the amount of text on my page I didn't actually delete any copy, I simply commented it out so that it is still there - just in case a future report comes back with "you need more text...."