Any New SEO Tools

I have completed the rapid weaver SCO course, but there are still problems with my website, despite doing some link building and incorporating some good URLs into the main website. The ranking for many of the keywords that I am working with still is quite impressive. Ideally, I need a good way of identifying whether all of the H1 one and H2 tags et cetera are in place and to identify what factors are still stopping the website ranking as effectively as it could. I note that there are some plug-ins available, however, the steam quite dated and I haven’t had a response from any of the developers to questions that high have asked.

I am not using any of the stacks that are available on the website is designed using the functions that come with rapid weave 8. I wonder whether anybody has had any similar experiences, and can comment on what is improved the rankings of their sites?

@joeworkman will very soon have a suite of SEO stacks coming out that will enable you to add all the SEO stuff you want to pages/content.

Keep an eye out for the announcement.


There is some serious obsession with header tags and SEO lately in the RW world!

Has anyone ever had a well ranking site that they’ve then lost because they messed up their H1, 2’s and 3’s? I\d put money on it never happening.

Yes, page structure is a factor, but a minor one (IMO), content is what it’s all about when it comes to SEO. And this seems lost on many nowadays.

You can have the best structured page on the web, but if you don’t have accurate search terms in your content, and high quality content that keeps people on the site, you will never get good results.

Get the structure of your site more or less right, but don’t stress over it. Stress over making great content, that is relevant to your target audience and work hard on keeping your bounce rate low. Then you will get good results.


From some SEO news site: “Google has also added the concept of “beneficial purpose” to the Quality Rater Guidelines, where raters are not just asked to rate the quality of the content, but also consider whether the page has a beneficial purpose or use to being on the site. What would a visitor to the site gain?”

It’s related to intent and results. Google tries to match user intent with the best quality results. They use bounce rate and CTR in rankings.

It basically comes down to serving the best and most relevant pages based on the searcher’s intent.


I would not wonder if Google run a KI algorithm over webpages and analyse the content.

Edit: RankBrain

I actually don’t believe any of that sort of nonsense (not aimed at you, but Google).

Google are constantly making announcements about their services and how things are going to change/improve/whatever, 99% nothing happens. I’ve been having to keep an eye on what Google is doing for nearly 20 years, and in that time they’ve made all sots of claims, then after a while no more is said.

IMO Google simply bases initial results on search terms, and if they are used in context or just added to get results. Then, it’s all about bounce rates and retention times. The longer people stay on your site the higher up the rankings you go.

Google, like FB and all the others have a high number of people with not much to do. These people keep coming up with “ground breaking” nonsense to justify their existence.

1 Like

If the secret agent stuff stops paying, you could become a verified SEO Guru.


I’m no guru, but I have been doing it a very long time and my sites and my clients sites almost always ned up with good results.

I put it down to not worrying unduly about things like H tags and focusing on good content. The next important thing for me is navigation. Rightly or wrongly I believe a key factor to SE results is the amount of time people spend on your site, so to me it follows that navigation is crucial.

This article that I wrote a few years ago is still very relevant.

I play on recording a podcast episode about it soon.

1 Like

Nail on head.

But who is that geeky looking 14 year old in the photo?

1 Like

Ha! that was taken 10 years ago. I was 29 in that pic. It was on my 10 year wedding anniversary.


There’s probably a benefit to editing as well.

Long before I started using RW for my sites, let alone heard of SEO, my main site was amongst the top 3 rankings on search results consistently. More recently, it has slipped but remains amongst the top 5-10 and on the first page of Google search. (Whether a site is on the first page, I should think depends upon the degree of competition amongst similar sites. Where a business has a lot of competition to get the site spec right I should think more important.)

For my site, I put the ‘success’, if that’s the right word, down to content and navigation. The site provides information and the navigation is arranged so that a visitor can find what they are looking for easily, and without distraction. I don’t have any logins or pop-ups or ads.

For content, I tend to work out what Google and other search engines are looking for and go from there. As G is in the business of selling advertising, the more useful a website can be to that end the higher G will rank it. I’m not into keywords, albeit I include a few on each page. I feel sure that a search engine can pick out words of its own volition.

I think the content itself has to be stimulating, informative and useful/helpful to the visitor. I’m not into photos, etc: to my way of thinking, a picture saves 1000 words. I’d rather have the words.

Because RW is thematic, RW sites (judging from the few I’ve visited) have a similarity about them. i don’t know whether that’s a good or bad thing!

A recent development is SSL certificates. I understand the need for visitors to be reassured that a site is secure. But to my way of thinking, visitor safety is the overt reason. Covertly, SSLs are a way for the search engines to sort the wheat from the chaff. Overtly, the s/e can maintain its objective of listing all sites. Covertly, by deterring visitors, the s/e can relegate not secure sites, thereby demoting a site’s usefulness. However, not all SSLs are created equal. The free SSLs (Let’s Encrypt, for example) I reckon will also end up low down the rankings. To boost the credibility of my main site I applied for an EV SSL but unfortunately couldn’t pass the test. I settled for the next one along. The idea of a free SSL is a non-starter as far as I am concerned. I reckon visitors, given the choice between visiting a site whose SSL is free with the expiry of 3 months or so and an SSL that’s a longer term will prefer the latter. To my way of thinking, a short term SSL is tantamount to telling visitors a site doesn’t care.

Another factor I discovered long ago is for links to the site to be on other sites of a reputable standard. In the early days, I paid for my site to be listed on a portal. As a writer and contributor to the forum on a well-known site in my field, what I write there gets thousands of views. By linking what I write there to my site, I am sure that helps maintain rankings.

I can understand why you might believe; in a landscape where every site is SSL, EV will be a differentiator. However, it’s untrue, and it won’t. In fact, all major browsers are decreasing prominence of EV SSL. Google has more than announced intent to do so. They have, in their developer channels, omitted reference thereto entirely. The same is true for Mozilla.

In the future, no visual indicator will be provided for SSL sites. Instead, browsers will present warnings for sites that are not SSL. This is because, SSL does not actually secure a website, only the connection to it. Further, EV SSL can be tricked and relies on the diligence of forthrightness or certificate providers. The lack of both resulted in Google distrusting all Symantec certificates. They were forced to sell their business to DigiCert. The future of EV SSL is that it will be cosmetically indistinguishable from Let’s Encrypt SSL in the browser.

Below, you can read more. This topic has been widely covered in the InfoSec community:

If you visit major sites like Google, Amazon, Mozilla, Facebook, and GitHub you’ll see that none of them use EV. Next, look at the list of Let’s Encrypt sponsors:

I hope this helps.

1 Like

Very helpful. thank you.

1 Like

My pleasure. It’s difficult to sort through this stuff. It’s not exciting, like SEO is, and it’s unseen by the user, until it’s too late. Also, EV cert providers, like Comodo, happily commission their own studies and market the results as if dutifully performed by a third-party. They make a ton of money selling EV certs, and that money is going away.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.