SEO rubbish myths

[xecutable]

I have to actually agree with the above post and admit that this is one of Google's biggest algorithm flaws.

[TheGooner]

And it is a MYTH that content is king...

And I still think that content is KING ... But that's a long way from saying that Content is the ONLY thing. (you extrapolated to that point)

A KING does not live alone. A KING needs a kingdom, subjects, merchants and a standing army.

So part that KINGDOM is a knowledge of sound html for SEO (labelling links and pictures), and sound site structure, and yes - even SOME external links too (how else will google find it?)

For all the hype about Google and their search engine algos, it is just a glorified maths equation, and if someone loads one side of the equation with a MILLION links pointing to some sort of irrelevant tripe then that tripe will rank for a short while.

Does that make links KING? I don't think so - each link is more like a single soldier or merchant pointing to the content.

To cover your final point - I don't link build - never have - and yet I get 4000 SE visits a day (on average) for all sorts of weird and wonderful searches.

[xecutable]

And I still think that content is KING ... But that's a long way from saying that Content is the ONLY thing. (you extrapolated to that point)

A KING does not live alone. A KING needs a kingdom, subjects, merchants and a standing army.

So part that KINGDOM is a knowledge of sound html for SEO (labelling links and pictures), and sound site structure, and yes - even SOME external links too (how else will google find it?)

For all the hype about Google and their search engine algos, it is just a glorified maths equation, and if someone loads one side of the equation with a MILLION links pointing to some sort of irrelevant tripe then that tripe will rank for a short while.

Does that make links KING? I don't think so - each link is more like a single soldier or merchant pointing to the content.

To cover your final point - I don't link build - never have - and yet I get 4000 SE visits a day (on average) for all sorts of weird and wonderful searches.

But does that make content King either? You can always find out. Transfer everything you've got into a brand new domain that you will buy today

[lots0]

And I still think that content is KING ... But that's a long way from saying that Content is the ONLY thing. (you extrapolated to that point)

A KING does not live alone. A KING needs a kingdom, subjects, merchants and a standing army.

So part that KINGDOM is a knowledge of sound html for SEO (labelling links and pictures), and sound site structure, and yes - even SOME external links too (how else will google find it?)

For all the hype about Google and their search engine algos, it is just a glorified maths equation, and if someone loads one side of the equation with a MILLION links pointing to some sort of irrelevant tripe then that tripe will rank for a short while.

Does that make links KING? I don't think so - each link is more like a single soldier or merchant pointing to the content.

To cover your final point - I don't link build - never have - and yet I get 4000 SE visits a day (on average) for all sorts of weird and wonderful searches.

"KING" is a metaphor, for the MOST IMPORTANT Factor for ranking in the search engines.
A metaphor... not a literal comparison.

Gooner You even admitted yourself that LINKS are REQUIRED for ranking.

even SOME external links too (how else will google find it?)

If google or the other SE bots can't find your quality site, by following LINKS... your not going to rank in the search engines.. No matter how good or high quality your content is... and that, my friend, is the bottom line in this discussion.

No links means no search engine ranking and no search visitors to your site... ever.
All that quality content just sitting there with no one to see it.

Links are REQUIRED for ranking in the SERP, content is not.
Therefore, logic dictates that Links are more important than Content for ranking in the SERP.

[TheGooner]

When you have to take an argument to extremes in order to illustrate a perceived point (ie a site with no links) - you're failing.

By acknowledging that all websites need a modicum of links pointing to it to (ie being part of the web) - it does not mean that I think that the links the MOST important item - far from it. The links are merely a method of notification to Google and other search engines.

Having said that - getting links on high trafficked sites - for the purpose of getting eyeballs to your site without the use of a SE at all is a very valid tactics - and fully 60% of our visits come either as direct (type-in or bookmarked) or as links from non SE websites. So links are useful.

But :
Scoring 1000 links to a page is a short term boost the the SEO ranking and rating for a page and/or site.
Having 100 pages of related and relevant content is more effective long term.

As a site builds a base of good content on related topics it becomes an "authority site" within the search engines view and it becomes easier and easier for relevant content on that site to quickly rank for similar and/or related topics.

Content is therefore KING.

----------------------

Let's take another tack (if you don't mind the discussion).
I'm enjoying this ...


I think that Google started from a concept that good content would get linked - therefore a link was a vote for good content - and the more links the better. But that concept was very pure and altruistic and even by the mid-1990's it was clear that people were purchasing links and artificially link-building networks in order to game the SEO algos.

As time has gone on - Google has worked more and more on DEVALUING the benefits of this link networks, brought out rules around no-follow and generally understands that a link is often NOT a vote for quality at all. Google's PR bar and the concept of link juice is dead.

To summarise this trend you could reasonably argue Google has demonstrated it's belief that a link is the LEAST accurate indicator of a pages worth of quality in 2012 - and this algo trend has forced SEO link builders into purchasing bigger and bigger link profiles in an attempt to game the SE's into giving it some value.

Content volume on site, content longevity, and specific content freshness are all factors that seem to me to be increasingly important in search engine estimations and algos. Note this factor is also why xecutable's idea of transfering conent wholesale to another site would not be a good test of the content value - because it would lack longevity - and probably also score a duplicate content rating as it existed previously.

Links currently score a short term boost - content provides a long-term benefit - especially for long-tail search terms ... and I expect that trend to continue as SE's continue to depreciate large link totals in importance.

The content is the MOST IMPORTANT factor for a websites long-term SEO rankings in my opinion - it is therefore the KING.

-----------------------

This is probably a discussion done best face-to-face with beers, but who knows if we will actually ever meet - so I've enjoyed reading your viewpoints gents!

[lots0]

Gooner, your changing the discussion on me. Your talking about "long term SEO", the thread was originally about "SEO and Ranking", that's what I was talking about. These are two different things, imo... I think what you are calling "long term SEO", I call a business plan.

To me SEO is short term, it's all about getting a URL seen as fast as possible by as many people as possible.
Then the URL/site has a chance to work it's business plan to attract and/or engage more visitors and a chance to accumulate links.

I don't disagree with the fact content is the only long term way to make money(keep on top of the SERP). I really don't disagree with much of what you have said, when you change the phrase "long term SEO" to "Business Plan".

You run a well established site, all you have to do is put up a page with some internal links with good anchors and you got rankings.
But for the folks just starting out with a new site it ain't so simple. That is where SEO comes in, imo.

[xecutable]

Content volume on site, content longevity, and specific content freshness are all factors that seem to me to be increasingly important in search engine estimations and algos. Note this factor is also why xecutable's idea of transfering conent wholesale to another site would not be a good test of the content value - because it would lack longevity - and probably also score a duplicate content rating as it existed previously.

Beers and face to face sounds quite fun perhaps in the future, don't see any obstacle why it can never happen. What I had in mind wasn't an actual transfer, but if you could magically transfer your who content into a new site as in starting from scratch without the existence of the old one, and sure a few links would show up to point to it but not enough.

While you are saying you never focused on linking and I believe you, an actual linking did occur perhaps a lot more than you can imagine.

[GCG]

@Gooner your site has good links pointing to your domain, if you only would have content I don't think your site would ever reach 1000's of visitors each day.

On the other hand I don't think links are that much needed if you want to rank for low competitive keywords than content is indeed KING.

So it is the way how you want to target it : a few high volume keywords or lots of low volume ones or a mix.

I would go for content and not focus on links too much, to buy links on a constant basis one probably does not have enough budget.

[Jennytaketheworld]

Link is the king !

But as it seems its true , without links the site will be lost in googelazation

[justbookies]

If the best quality site in the world has no links to it... then no one would see it....ever.

So, on the basis there can only be one king, content is crucial but links are king.

Also, as Gooner states, having a well-established site seems to be of massive benefit. While I have seen affiliates build very high ranking sites quite quickly by shrewd seo and considered link building strategies, I do have one particular old site that I have slightly neglected and that does not have too many links going to it that certainly does me proud in terms of returns. It has a great domain name, but I have always suspected it outdoes both its content and its lack of links on the basis that it has been around for 12 or 13 years.

[cmdenny]

Myth No12 - Nofollow links are worthless
Myth No13- Reciprocal links have zero value
Myth No14 - .Edu links are always great.

[catchingsmoke]

argh the content/links argument again..... because of course both are mutually exclusive.....

good content + good links + good site + good visitor interaction + good social profile + good million and one other things = good rankings

I don't think it's fair to attribute any single factor as the King of SEO the reason being because there isn't a king. Although if we were to argue surely wiki appearing on the front page for more than 90% of SERPS ( http://www.intelligentpositioning.co...9-of-searches/ ) would prove that content is king after all wiki doesn't buy links it gets them because it has GOOD CONTENT.

[freebetsfreetips]

I think it's a very blurred argument. If you separate it out then links are clearly king. Content alone will not win but good quality content will never be alone. It will get the links, social media nods etc. But it would be better to stay on topic (maybe!)

[felku]

I like this types of arguments. In my short experience I found that links is more important however good content is also important because if you have bad content you visitors will leave quickly and therefor you will not have good conversions and your bounce rate will be affected.

[f1bettings]

pr10.com has all of the info you need to get a pagerank of 10

my favorite tip

NUMBER 4
Dots, Dots, and More Dots. Put them at the bottom of your document like this:
.............
Then link each one to your pages - make sure you link one to Google and for good measure another to Yahoo. Don't link to other sites (other than your own) that aren't search engines. Don't even link to sites that used to be search engines - like AltaVista.

[bboyspyder]

Gotta say that after latest Panda yeah you know it CONTENT is DA KING. Google deevaluated so much backlinks that is mind boggling. This is the right moment to focus on unique content and some backlinks from similar sites/same niche.

[DaftDog]

SEO is not a monarchy, it is more like a socialist democracy.

[DanHorvat]

Why do sites show up in the top ten of the SERP for key words that do NOT appear in the page content?
Simple answer... Because content is NOT King.

You can be #1 on Google, but I'm human and I will still visit (or revisit) the website with actual content. I'll avoid the #1 result just like I do with sponsored results. Which brings me to the biggest myth of SEO:

#15 - I need to specialize in tricking Google into putting my website on the top spot instead of creating a website with good content

[xecutable]

You can be #1 on Google, but I'm human and I will still visit (or revisit) the website with actual content. I'll avoid the #1 result just like I do with sponsored results. Which brings me to the biggest myth of SEO:

#15 - I need to specialize in tricking Google into putting my website on the top spot instead of creating a website with good content

While this is true, the rest of the 18,000 visits will not be aware of this. Not to mention that if 87% of your traffic is NEW (means visitors are always new and never return) I wouldn't worry about the content as long as it's OK, doesn't even have to be GREAT.

[DanHorvat]

What's the point of getting a website visited if the user only visits to find out he doesn't like it?

SEO became a multi-million dollar business with tons of so-called experts and millions of amateur webmasters pushing for the #1 spot. It's a joke. The right way to go is just to do the basics (titles, meta, h1, sitemap, links...) and focus on the human customer instead. Giving him what he came for.

So...customer is KING.