Keyword Density

I have a question for you guys doing a lot of EZ submissions...

From what the regs at the AC forums are saying 3-4% keyword density is what you really want to shoot for for the best upfront payments ...although Ive seen other authors here say that anything over 1.5% density will get your articles rejected at Ezines even though they have very similar submission and acceptance guidelines. AC is even a little stricter imo.

I usually go for around 3-4% across the board and use 2-3 keyword phrases in the article. Ive have had pretty good success with it at AC. If I use this same % at EZ will they not accept my articles or are the writers that advocate a lower % just not very good at integrating keywords naturally into their writing? It seems like a lot of writers use keywords improperly, effecting the readabiity of the overall writing.

what do you guys think? Is 3-4% oversaturating it?

if the keyword density is too high, Google will flag the article as spam!!!

2% - 2,5% is a good percentage

Of course they will ...but HOW it gets flagged is the real question. They cant just do a simple % scan and ban the content that has keywords used too many times....i mean anything can be a keyword. For example...I doubt they are going to ban an article about "keyword density" just because the term "keyword density" shows up too many times. You can write a perfectly readable article with "keyword density" used in it way more than 3-4% of the content. Heck a search on this keyword comes up with articles stuffed to the brim with that phrase.

Ive been using 3-4% on AC with better than average upfront payments...and in their forum the top writers are suggesting 3-4% too. Im just wondering if Ezines has different guidelines in regards to keyword density...as in will I get my articles rejected with 3-4% even if they are written well? (keywords are integrated properly and smoothly)

I think the reason most people cant do 3-4% in an AC article and still get paid is because they cant write it in properly without looking like spam. If you use the keywords properly AC loves a higher density.

Ive found that varying punctuation in the keyword works very well in keeping the article easily readable as well as laden with dense keywords.
I.E.: Keyword "salary writers"
"To demand a higher salary, writers..."
"...a major boost to their salary. Writers..."

It depends on the keyword being used. For AC's articles, there are certain keywords that will not sound natural when you try to bring it to a 3-4% keyword density. I've done a bunch of testing with it and I find that 2-2.5% is optimal. Opinions vary on it, but I get higher upfront payments at 2-2.5% than I do at 3-4%. Plus, keeping it at 2.5% makes it faster when you're processing 40 or more articles a day.

With Ezine's it's totally different. Because of the limitations they put on how often your keywords can be used (no keywords within 100 characters of each other) you can't get your keyword density over 1.9%. So although there are similarities with Ezine and AC, their guidelines are totally different.

Obviously, the way you approach the writing for each is different. AC is all about providing information only. With ezines's it's providing information, but you have a hidden motive in your writing style (you're subtly trying to get them to click through to your link in the resource box.)

I see....that makes sense Red.
What do you think about KW density as far as G00gle goes? Ive been doing around 3% for clients and have really good responses. I assume that again its based on how much the stuffing of the keywords effects the readability of the piece? As in you can get away with more as long as it doesnt look spammy or intentionally put in there just to increase the density? Does that make sense?

I think the varied punctuation approach with keywords is something a lot of SEO writers miss out on and is probably the only reason ive had success with higher KW density. imo staggering the punctuation (and not limiting the article to 1 keyword) makes all the difference in readability and profitability.