sdsinc said:
By contents I mean text, relevant text. Articles with the right keyword density and other extras are one example of content. .tel has not contents, just data.
There are records for all sorts of things, including header, keywords and free text; it all gets rendered.
sdsinc said:
As for the HTML structure:
Let's have a look at the source code of sex.tel for example.
The title tag says nothing meaningful about your .tel. Yet it's one of the most important tags for SEO purposes.
Good point, but certainly fixable.
sdsinc said:
META tags are missing as well. If you want to see how it shows up in search results just type this query in google: site:sex.tel
It's clearly unoptimized, untargeted code. It's definitely not SEO-friendly and that's a fact, not an opinion.
See my previous post about META tags, and I forgot to mention that duplicating keywords would result in a penalty.
I Googled site:sex.tel, and the header text is shown in the results description. Adding the various keywords from sex.tel to the query also shows they're present in the index. Keyword rich text is so sparse on .tel domains I don't really understand what you would change in terms of document structure that would make any real difference?
sdsinc said:
Furthermore, branding of your domain is difficult since the .tel logo and the cookie-cutter layout takes over. The .tel branding is overwhelming.
I've raised the issue of introducing a special record type for avatars, and other people have raised all sorts of other design issues. I'm sure that over time many improvements will be made, so I wouldn't get too hung up about it.
sdsinc said:
Again, I perfectly understand that .tel was not designed for the web. So these are moot points in some way, but the fact remains that .tel is the absolute worst TLD you can get for SEO purposes. It's inferior to any other TLD, the only comparable extension being .arpa.
I'd hope that search engines realise there is a great potential to consume data from .tel and answer queries differently - and I'm quite sure they will if .tel gains popularity. But in any case there are special purpose .tel search engines now, and I'll be announcing a new one soon that takes a completely new approach.
sdsinc said:
Just treat .tel for what it is - a data repository.
That's like observing the human brain as just a lump of grey goo, rather than appreciating what it's capable of and the things it can accomplish
In case anybody George Moen's post yesterday,
check it out.