Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Content is King

I, Brian · 06-03-2004, 01:39 PM

The problem with content first arguments is that unless you're offering something quite unique - as DigitalPoint did a while back - then getting links to your site the ordinary natural way is just so very slow.

And - the worst thing is - without links, you have no rankings - without rankings, who can find you to link to your site? It’s Catch 22.

The value of content is a fair one - notably in that it's good for snaring a range of lesser search terms. That's precisely why my business site has articles on it. However, links in themselves are absolutely king – they far surpass content.

If someone sets up a commercial site, on a general product, then at what rate should they realistically expect to gain links naturally through spontaneously linking? Maybe a couple of Geocities links in 6 months? Maybe a single DMOZ submission accepted within he same period? How many link directories can a site owner get listed in during that time?

Compare that to SEO link-building – every day I build a few thousand links for a number of client pages. It gives them the rankings for keywords that they pay me to get. Therefore they do good business to target customers and make a good profit - the link-building SEO is an investment that pays back much more than they put in.

Now if you want a successful online business, which route would you need to take? Natural slow linking, or SEO link-building?

Some people think SEO is about title tags and meta-tags and title use and text – but in reality commercial SEO is all about dreaming up every creative way to hit search engines with thousands of links within various concerns, such as wide IP range, theme, and overwhelming quantity.

That's where the real SEO is at - with the links. Everything else just pales beside them because at the end of the day it's targeted ranking that matters - that sells..

06-03-2004, 01:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
I, Brian Inactive Join Date: 10-26-03 Posts: 2,466 iTrader: 0 / 0% Latest Blog: None	The problem with content first arguments is that unless you're offering something quite unique - as DigitalPoint did a while back - then getting links to your site the ordinary natural way is just so very slow. And - the worst thing is - without links, you have no rankings - without rankings, who can find you to link to your site? It’s Catch 22. The value of content is a fair one - notably in that it's good for snaring a range of lesser search terms. That's precisely why my business site has articles on it. However, links in themselves are absolutely king – they far surpass content. If someone sets up a commercial site, on a general product, then at what rate should they realistically expect to gain links naturally through spontaneously linking? Maybe a couple of Geocities links in 6 months? Maybe a single DMOZ submission accepted within he same period? How many link directories can a site owner get listed in during that time? Compare that to SEO link-building – every day I build a few thousand links for a number of client pages. It gives them the rankings for keywords that they pay me to get. Therefore they do good business to target customers and make a good profit - the link-building SEO is an investment that pays back much more than they put in. Now if you want a successful online business, which route would you need to take? Natural slow linking, or SEO link-building? Some people think SEO is about title tags and meta-tags and title use and text – but in reality commercial SEO is all about dreaming up every creative way to hit search engines with thousands of links within various concerns, such as wide IP range, theme, and overwhelming quantity. That's where the real SEO is at - with the links. Everything else just pales beside them because at the end of the day it's targeted ranking that matters - that sells..