[John Scott]

Originally Posted by chrispian

Thanks for the invite to debate this. It should be interesting

I'm glad you joined, Chrispian.

Originally Posted by chrispian

First off, I agree that content must be qualified. The article of yours I was responding wasn't as clear on your idea of content. We could easily get off on a slippery semantic argument over what content is, but I think you and I are both referring more to the effect of whether content is more important than links. Does that sound like a fair judgement?

I try to define the "content" I'm addressing, insofar as I've been debating this "content is king" idea for over three years.

Originally Posted by chrispian

And let me say this right off the bat, I whole heartedly believe that links are extremely important when promoting your site. Depending on which day you ask me, I'd go as far as to say the single most important thing when promoting your site.

I'm glad we agree there. I've been checking into your sites, and it definately looked to me like you understand the importance of linkage.

Originally Posted by chrispian

So, which comes first? Chicken or egg? Something to link to, or the link? My position is that a quality site will inspire linking to begin with. In my experience, certain types of sites foster linking better than others, like a forum or a news article. Something topical and of interest to people. People will link to things they like without being asked.

Chrispian, I know precisely what you are saying, and it is semi-true. Good content may generate some links. Legitimately unique content generates links, ike the content found on CNN, the Register, BBC, wired.com, etc.

The problem is, most people neither have time to create the type of content that people would link to; nor do they have the capability to generate sincerely unique, legitimately useful content; nor would it be a wise financial investment to invest thousands of dollars in generating news or editorial articles of the calibre that would earn linkage.

Originally Posted by chrispian

My arguement isn't that links aren't important and If I gave that impression, I was wrong. I just think its easier to get links when you have something worthy of linking to, and, in my experience more people will link to an article than a product page.

But if I'm selling hosting, why would I want people linking to an article? I want links to www.v7inc.com - I want traffic that converts. I want to build a brand based on the quality of my hosting, not the hosting news and or opinions that do not serve to sell my hosting or build the V7 brand in the direction into which we want it built.

When I go into the Gap, I'm not confronted with news or opinion on the clothing industry. When I go into Nordstrom, I'm not offered a pamphlet explaining the history of footwear. When I buy a Pepsi from the vending machine, I never get a booklet detailing the state of the carbonated beverage industry. Why? Those would just detract from the point and dilute the brand.

Whenever webmasters try to concoct "unique content" they end up regurgitating some old crap that has been published elsewhere a thousand times or more.

I sell hosting. If you go to www.v7inc.com you'll see the hosting we sell. Every piece of text on that site is there for marketing reasons; none of it is there for SEO. Humans are my customers, not search engines. If I were to place redundant news and opnion on my website, it would simply detract from the purpose.

Originally Posted by chrispian

Now, you can complicate that by adding in paying for links, which I do advise from time to time. But, I can get an article written for $10-$50 depending on the topic and an incoming link from a related source could cost me between $15/mo to $50/mo. I've even seen text links going for over $1000/mo. It is more cost effective for me to write an article, or have one written and publish it in multiple places. I get pages which are relvant to my sites linking back to my sites and my cost is much better. Still, it's the link I'm after so you can see that I know links are important.

Yes, we both agree that links are important. So it is a matter of how you generate those links that we are debating, and this is somewhat of a new debate. At least, compared to the "content and content alone - not links - are king" debate.

I can't get articles written for $10 to $50. At least, not the type of articles I want on my websites. It is more cost effective for me to go directly after the links. But either way, we are both after links.

Originally Posted by chrispian

Everyone knows how hard it is to get links to an ecommerce venture. It's probably the hardest thing to get links back to.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Asking for links for ecommerce sites is like pulling teeth.

Originally Posted by chrispian

But you add some product reviews and some shopping tips and you've got an advantage over your competitor. You'll get links because of the content.

Those would have to be some damn good product reviews and shopping tips. I know of some websites - content websites nonetheless - with great, unique content. But even with that great, unique content, they still aren't generating enough links to compete with the websites that go out and buy thousands of links.

Originally Posted by chrispian

So, I say the links are vital in getting a top listing. But the content is the key factor in getting links.

How does my position sound?

It sounds pretty good. I think our difference of opinion is just a fraction of a degree.

Cheers.