Beginning to think "fresh content=king" is a myth.

[LiveCasinoPartners]

I'm getting a little frustrated lately when I see that sites that do not write oringinal fresh content out ranking or keeping up with sites that are "fresh" and productive in terms of original content generation.

I'm beginning to get the idea that if you optimize for time and resources spent you get a better return making smaller less significant sites. It's like a thrash and burn philosophy.

I don't like it, but from what I am seeing it's hard to come to another conclusion.

I am not suggesting that a well written site that continually adds fresh content does not perform as well, but what I am suggesting that perhaps for the same time spent updating an existing site you get a better return on your investment of time and money by throwing up smaller sites and moving on.

This is pure anecdotal, and I can not offer any evidence. Pure speculation on my part, but it's a trend I think I've been seeing.

I would be interested in seeing what other opinions other webmasters have here.

Any thoughts?

[roger]

It may be true in essence but the original content creator will likely be the one to get the visitors coming back. If not customers, at least affiliates coming to rehash the content.

[Doolally]

I tend to agree. I have a couple of sites that I work hard on and produce regular fresh content with the hope that content truely will be king someday. However, I have other sites that took a couple of days to throw together, never looked at again, that rank highly for their choosen keywords.

[villa10]

BIG MYTH
If you are talking about achieving High Rankings by "adding fresh content" that's a myth.
That's the reason because there are out there bloggers adding 100's of RSS modified articles (to avoid the filters) daily with the hope of getting better ranks.

There are websites with 1000's of quality pages with only a cup of visitors daily from Google
Anchor text and back links are still the game.

THE BENEFIT.
There are two benefits from quality content.
a) Convertions and sales
b) Links Bait. Quality websites/directories will be tempted to link to you. That means more backs links and Ranks.

Under my experience we need to add at least one page weekly.
Google tends to discount links, if the sites are 100% neglected.

[Chips]

I just did a mini, only has about 6 pages plus a WP blog. I am curious to see how it performs as well. Took about 5 days to complete.

[casinojack]

Original content = myth
FREQUENT content = good

for google rankings, imo and experience. I prefer the old fashioned yet still good, a few support sites, get them good pr, link to main site to convert. imo man, build many other blogs, and do a mass approoach.

Throw up 2 auto blogs onight and see what happnes in a month. You will see

[AK]

Original content = myth
FREQUENT content = good

for google rankings, imo and experience. I prefer the old fashioned yet still good, a few support sites, get them good pr, link to main site to convert. imo man, build many other blogs, and do a mass approoach.

Throw up 2 auto blogs onight and see what happnes in a month. You will see

That was the rumor anyhow.. I decided to try this, worked for 1 week and now Google has blacklisted that sample URL. This url is no longer getting any links in Google.

AUTO BLOG IS VERY BAD!

[playbonuscasino1]

Yea it's a myth. I have seen article re-writer getting paid to rewrite original articles and the guy who wrote it. His hard work is going waste!

[casinojack]

That was the rumor anyhow.. I decided to try this, worked for 1 week and now Google has blacklisted that sample URL. This url is no longer getting any links in Google.

AUTO BLOG IS VERY BAD!

'

Then you did something wrong. Which url was it ? or PM me and Ill see whats up

[lots0]

'

Then you did something wrong. Which url was it ? or PM me and Ill see whats up

He didn't have to do anything 'wrong' (other than set up an auto blog), the site was flagged and dumped for auto content... I see it all the time now.
google is getting better with semantics...


<added>
Not to mention that if these auto blog sites show up in the SERP or in someones backlinks they get reported (by a human) to google fast these days.

[tryme]

Jack is right - it's the frequency of the added content that makes a difference, not how original or otherwise it is.

I'm not going to post exactly how to do it, but I get my new articles for one of the main sites into Google within an hour or two of writing them and they always rank on the first page.

[tommydanger]

I go by a statement made in the seo panel in Amsterdam last month: "links are king, content is queen!"

[pgaming]

Original content I believe is King providing one understands the word original. The writers own thoughts typed out sounds pretty original. Linking was always secondary and very limited. I believe cross linking should be a honest and natural process.

Trickery is short lived hard work last a bit longer.

JMO

greek39

[Simmo!]

The way I see it is that Google is a long way from perfect, but getting a little better every day. So while links have always - and still are - important, as is unique and frequent content to a degree also, the importance is getting slowly eroded away as the algos get better at detecting what users actually want.

That's the key to the longer term IMO - not "unique" content, not "frequent" content, but "useful" content. So over time, the "stickyness" of a site and loyalty it garners will be the things that are most important. In fact, they already play a major role as I recently found out. But not necessarily the key role. Yet.