User:Quasar/SEO

Not sure why but this month we've had a serious decline in our Google ranking. For greater than 50% of queries, we have declined in rankings; impressions are down 5% overall, and CTR has increased but only by 1%. We have a number of critical core subjects for which we are at risk of falling off the front page entirely. The following is a list of such subjects out of the top 3000 unique queries which we apparently need to pay better attention to in terms of rewriting or addition of new content:


 * Best Doom mods
 * BFG
 * Quasar already rewrote BFG 9000. Should we cover other BFG articles as well - the BFG 2704, and Doom 3 BFG? Fraggle (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that it's the Doom 3 article that's being under-served, in fact. Anything referring to the term would be best touched up IMO. --Quasar (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Brian Raffel
 * Rewrote and added more info. --Quasar (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Brutal Doom
 * Chainsaw
 * Chex Quest 2
 * Classic Doom for Doom 3
 * Cyberdemon (Doom 3)
 * Article was still virtually verbatim from the fork, and had a number of problems with factual accuracy and encyclopedic tone that I took the opportunity to improve. --Quasar (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Deus Vult
 * Reworked intro. Article is still pretty bare. --Quasar (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Doom Classic
 * Doom RPG
 * Doom voxel project
 * Rewrote slightly, maybe not enough of a change overall. Subject puts me in a bad mood :P --Quasar (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Doom II
 * Rewritten. Fraggle (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Per this &mdash; I bet I can fix it up. Give me a week or so.    Ryan W (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Doom 2 box art
 * Doom 3: BFG Edition
 * Doom 3 locker codes
 * Doom 3 walkthrough
 * Doom 64 TC
 * Doomsday
 * DoomRL
 * Doom SNES / Super Nintendo
 * Doom Windows Mobile
 * Doom II soundtrack
 * Gerald Brom
 * GZDoom
 * Hell knight
 * Rewrote. Fraggle (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hell Revealed
 * Hexen music
 * id Tech engine
 * id Tech 3 source code
 * id Tech 4
 * Macintosh Doom
 * Created redirect to Apple Macintosh. Do redirects matter for SEO? At least it works better in the wiki's own search box, because without the redirect the results for a search on "Macintosh Doom" weren't very helpful. --Gez (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Only if Google crawls an actual link to one. I don't include redirects in the generated [//doomwiki.org/w/sitemap.xml sitemap]. Usefulness in the search box is the best criterion for redirect creation though, so I'd say it was a good idea regardless. --Quasar (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maledict
 * Master Levels
 * Mega Man 8-Bit Deathmatch
 * Rewrote. --Quasar (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mordeth
 * mus 2 midi
 * Pinky Demon
 * Plutonia
 * PrBoom
 * Real Icon of Sin
 * Sarge (Doom 3 movie character)
 * Created Asher Mahonin (Sarge) --Quasar (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strife
 * Stronghold
 * Super Sonic Doom
 * Terminal Doom
 * TNT: Evilution
 * Unidoom
 * Enhanced main article. Some of the other related articles could also be rewritten. --Quasar (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Winnowing Hall
 * Zandronum
 * Rewrote and extended as of 20140821 15:24 CDT --Quasar (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ZDoom forums
 * Created stub. --Gez (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to edit this page to lay claim to a subject area you want to work on, by adding your sig and an explanation of what articles you intend to target for modification or creation.


 * I would like to state that we have a plugin that shows the first paragraph of all articles as the "description" meta tag. That paragraph is very important and 1) should be the first thing to be rewritten on all articles and 2) should not be too long.
 * But again the biggest problem we have is that Google detects that all we have is "copied" content (since it was in Wikia first after all) and is penalising us: some results are not even appearing. --Kyano (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How popular are these articles? (how many clicks do we normally get from them?) Some of them seem slightly obscure and if they're not that popular then maybe we shouldn't be wasting time on them - if we're dedicating effort to rewriting articles then it ought to be on ones that are going to be worth having the boost. Fraggle (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It varies. Some do not have a lot of searches, others have many. I am thinking of this from a weakest link perspective... I won't discourage efforts spent on any articles, especially ones that you feel are more important, but the plain fact of the matter is that I already addressed most of those earlier and they have fairly good ranking as a result. Otherwise you'd see them listed here. If we want to show up for more queries, we need diversity of content. --Quasar (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)