| What do article keyword density and skim milk | | | | employee, so take this as a guide ONLY. |
| POSSIBLY have in common? Well, a lot, actually... | | | | In fact, of the four content generating software |
| The never ending debate as to the proper keyword | | | | programs that have been recommended to me |
| density in articles is being fought down in the | | | | (which I NEVER USE) the optimal dosage of keyword |
| algorithmic trenches every day. No doubt it's a bloody | | | | density within each of them is a sliding scale of |
| one (since it seems to change every few weeks or | | | | between .5% and 2.5%. |
| so.) But that's not to say that we 'regular folk' can't | | | | Two point five percent...yikes. You know how thick |
| stay ahead of their density requirements. | | | | whole milk tastes after you've been drinking skim |
| (Don't forget, WE who write articles of great | | | | milk? That's what 2.5% keyword density tastes like |
| content importance DRIVE the search engines.) | | | | to me. Anything above 2% feels very 'spammy' as if |
| Just as a reminder, keyword density is simply the | | | | the thrust of my keywords (and in essence, the |
| amount of times your keyword(s) appear throughout | | | | thrust of my point) is too dense...and both my |
| your articles. If you have a 600 word article and your | | | | readers and the lovely search engines recognize it as |
| keyword "fly fishing in Aruba" appears 3 times | | | | being too front and center. So, as they say, less IS |
| throughout your article, your keyword density is said | | | | more. |
| to be .5%. | | | | But again, this is and probably always will be a moving |
| In my own attempt to FIND the best keyword | | | | target...with fluctuations happening regularly. |
| densities for my articles, I continue to see that | | | | Now after all this, did you ever think that keyword |
| somewhere between 1% and 1.5% seems to be | | | | density and skim milk would HAVE THIS MUCH IN |
| optimal. Exactly like skim milk! Don't forget, I am | | | | COMMON? |
| neither an MIT grad nor a frustrated ex Google | | | | Drink up! |