Not what, but where

[janhvizdak]

Originally Posted by John Scott

http://blog.v7n.com/2007/03/19/top-t...ouple-of-days/



Very true and very relevant to SEO.

I am NOT sure about 7-th position. Actually I found it at 24-th position and I am affraid there are not many visitors opening 3-rd page on Google...

Using US Google (com).

[Manish Pandey]

Originally Posted by SkGold

I think you just missed the point of this thread. The thread is not about “What is the best for SEO”. The thread is about “Not what, but where”. So the question was “what is better - content or domain authority”? And my answer was that for not very competitive keywords it is pretty much the same and maybe content still has a little bit more power.

For this matter "Anchor Text Links" has nothing to do with this thread. Any idea about main topic of this thread?

OFF TOPIC: BTW, yes, "Anchor Text Links" is the most powerful SEO point. But I would add more -> “Contextual Anchor Text Links”. It means that if your “Anchor Text Links” will be surrounding by content related to your topic the link would have even more power. Once again we are coming back to content.

What you said was that with just content you could rank to the top of SERPs...And now you say "anchor text" are single most important thing...

Well my friend, i guess you missed a point or two..What John tried to point out here is that every now and then we come across a new thread of "Content is King" and all...by this experiment he proved that content has nothing to do with top rankings. It's the power of linkage which does!

And we again come to our point..."Content is not the King"...
-------------
PS: About Contextual Links, well every link is supposed to give a weight to your site. Contextual links give slightly more weight to the links as they tell the bots that this is a link about the information surrounded.

Well if you could get a link from NASA.gov without it's being contextual you would out rank 1000s of sites! Do you get the point. It's about the authority!

If you get a contextual link from some fairly less trusted website then it's weight would be way to less than the link from the authority domains. Or even if you get a link from John's website you would do just fine!

[Cornbread]

For the short term, it's about Authority.
For the long term it's about content.
Why: Because without good content you will not sustain your authority over an extended period. So, if you are in this for the long haul, yes, folks, content is STILL king.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by janhvizdak

I am NOT sure about 7-th position. Actually I found it at 24-th position and I am affraid there are not many visitors opening 3-rd page on Google...

Using US Google (com).

Did you confuse this post with a recent one? Or did you think that search engines rankings never change?

[tdgac]

Back and forth, back and forth, but when someone throws me words of wisdom... I run with 'em!

[ Now if I could only persuade John to disclose the
"___ <--- keeping this one to myself"
post he made in another thread...
sure would love to know what "that one" is! ]

[digiweb]

Originally Posted by John Scott

link to a web page using a term that appears nowhere on that webpage

Is there a good method for obtaining sites to do the linking from?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by CarolineBogart

Is there a good method for obtaining sites to do the linking from?

Buying them cheap. Go through the SERPs for your keyword and if you find any sites that may be under-appreciated, make an offer. You might be surprised at how many webmasters will let their sites go for $500 or so.

[Cricket]

My thoughts (and my results) on this still remain the same as they did 6 months ago, including me not being naive enought to expect that to be permanent though.

Originally Posted by Cricket

I am going to put my neck out on the chopping block by agreeing and disagreeing all in the same response. I do not believe that content is king, but I also do not believe that links are king either.

The very best unique quality content is worthless if no one can find that page in the search results. On the flip side of that coin, all the traffic in the world is not going to make a bit of difference if no one makes a purchase (or other similar action) when they find the page.

I firmly believe that it is a combination of the two (incoming links and unique quality content) that has the highest impact on the ultimate success of the site.

Do I have proof?

Heck, I don't know what kind of proof you are looking for, but I go by the bottom line - the results I receive.

For the same search phrase being discussed in this thread, a page on my primary site has been #2 or #3 (or both) pretty consistently. I am not naive enough to expect that to be permanent though. I know it can change even by the time you read this post. That is exactly why I don't believe in keeping all of my eggs in one basket.

No matter what happens during search engine updates, having a COMBINATION of solid high quality incoming links AND unique quality content is not going to hurt your efforts, so why leave either out of the equation?

[digiweb]

John's thought (buy websites to place your links) is great.

Any other thoughts on how to find good web sites to place your links?

[visionedger]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Yes, we all can prove that. Even you can prove it. All you have to do is link to a web page using a term that appears nowhere on that webpage, and when you get it ranked based solely on anchor text links, you'll know that links rule.

Content? Content? I mean, seriously, content? Your "unique content" idea- please expound on this. So I have an Ivy League writer on my staff writing for me, and Google is somehow supposed to telepathically know that the content is great? Does Google posses mystic powers?

No!

For the last time, Google knows quality content only because of the links it gets. Google determines what is good and what isn't based on the number and type of links a page has.

GOOGLE HAS NO ALGORITHM OTHER THAN LINK-BASED TO KNOW WHAT IS QUALITY CONTENT.



http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000089.html


I wrote that back in 2004. This is old, old ancient news folks. Get the the game, people: links still determine rankings.

They are now concentrating on widgets, gadgets etc. If you site has something users utilize, like flickr thats what they look for and not content as it once was.

[marthrock]

Content is Prince Harry. He's just relevent enough for us to pay attention... a little.

[farhan713]

Wat do u guyz say about google's algo towards the end of 2008.....is it still more on links n less on unique updated content? any interesting observations? is domain authority gaining more weightage? OR google relying more on its data from analytics?

[Cricket]

My position still has not changed on this ...

[Myamsterdam]

We can give all credit to the content.. just go ethical way dude and you will see the magic..

[full house]

not just a credit. . .content is the king! give more weigh to the content . . .

[brandmantra]

the importance of good content with the proper placement of keywords will never fall.