37 replies to this topic

[witchhead]

Hello everybody,

I just joined the forum but I am however a longterm reader of Jill's excellent newsletter where I learned that it is all about the right copy.

I am somehow doubting that lately as I see a website occupying the number 1 spot for one my major search terms and the number 3 spot for another in Google, which does not really have any content at all. Actually there is one sentence (about 30 words) on that page and the site is hosted on a free server so it does not have its own domain and on top of that only uses pictures for navigation.

Again for a different keywords I find pages on the first SERP which only lists links. No content whatsoever.

I found similar results in Yahoo as well.

Don't get me wrong my websites are ranking well as well but I wonder if I really need to put any effort in content anymore when other websites obviously just rank like that.
I think there is no similarity at all between the top ranking pages. It seems completely random to me.

How can it be that pages without content and pages consisting entirely of links are ranking that well?
Has anybody else noticed that?

[Jill]

Welcome witchhead!

I think you've misunderstood if you thought I said it's ALL about the content.

The content is what will tell your users and the search engines what your page is all about, and it will be what entices them to take action at your site. So, yes, it will always be king.

However, SEO is not ALL about content. There's always been the linking component that is also very important, and of course Title tags are also very important (I don't consider them part of the content).

It's a whole lot easier to get links to, and to get high rankings for a site whose on-the-page content is perfect for people and engines alike, but it's not the only way.

Very often you'll see pages that are able to rank highly simply because they are popular (i.e., have numerous links pointing to them). Unfortunately, without the appropriate content for the user of those page, they may or may not actually get people to stay at their site.

Hope this helps!

Jill

[witchhead]

Thanks for the welcome!

I think you've misunderstood if you thought I said it's ALL about the content.

I know it is not all about the content and that there are many other factors involved. The expression was maybe a bit drastic.

Some sites just seem to rank for no apparent reason. No content, no backlinks and no following of any decent seo techniques known to me.

I was betting on content as Google does not put any value on keywords and as I heard the rumor in other forums apparently links pointing to the web site especially reciprocal links will be devaluated. I guess there is no real evidence for that yet.

[qwerty]

I'm not crazy about the expresssion "content is king." Content is very important. Content makes it easier to get the other elements together, and content makes it more likely that the rankings you get are going to last. And perhaps most importantly, content, unlike links, will help the site to succeed beyond getting good rankings. That is, the site is more likely to convert, which is (or ought to be) the real goal of any site.

Some sites just seem to rank for no apparent reason. No content, no backlinks and no following of any decent seo techniques known to me.

Lots of sites rank well without content, and that's usually because of links. When you say "no backlinks," do you mean that when you run a search on link:domain.com you don't get a lot of results? If so, that's probably because the link: command just doesn't give you reliable information nowadays. A better way to find out how many pages are linking to a site is to query (in Google)

CODE

www.domain.com -site:www.domain.com

or

CODE

"site name" -site:www.domain.com

or in Yahoo

CODE

linkdomain:domain.com

That will give you a better idea of how many links they've got.

On top of that, it's important to remember that with Google, it's not just about the sheer number of links. The perceived quality of a link, as expresssed in (dare I say it) PageRank makes a big difference.

[Jill]

The bigger question would be whether those sites that you say have no content (or links?) are actually relevant to the search query? Are they related, or do they have nothing to do with what was searched?

If they're relevant, then Google is doing it's job. If they're not, then it's just another example of Google losing it's edge a bit.

[witchhead]

yes, the site is related to the search terms so Google is not that far off.

I wonder if the fact that it is hosted on one of the free web servers with urls like
freewebserver.freewebserver/hompages/mysite.html will give the site a boost as google is counting all backlinks to that domain.

But if so searches would be dominated by geocitiy sites and the likes of it. Maybe its just a coincidence.

If I run link:www.domain.com it comes back with 8 links
I tried the other options qwerty suggested but they don't seem to work with the long domain.

Edited by qwerty, 01 October 2004 - 10:38 AM.

[powerofeyes]

If the site is relevant to the query then that is all it matters, Nowadays there are lots and lots of criteria into play with google and we cannot easily conclude why any site ranks,

Regarding getting benefits from staying on free domains, NOO there is not benefit whether the domain is in freeservers or geocities or angelfire, Sub domains are considered individual unique sites by search engines and they have to get their own backlinks to rank high,

Regarding backlink checking google's backlink checking command is broken, it is better to check yahoo which is the only search engine crawler which is as active as google and shows some real backlinks for a site,

[Jill]

If all the other sites on the free domain were linking to this site, then yes, it would give it a boost. But I doubt that's the case, so as far as the engines are concerned, it has nothing to do with the rest of the sites on that domain. (Rightly so.)

[redbird]

Hi witchhead,

How can it be that pages without content and pages consisting entirely of links are ranking that well?

One reason to consider is that search engines are far from perfect at what they do.

So if we go with the famous "Content is King" line, keep in mind that search engines aren't always able to accurately determine who is wearing the crown. They're sometimes looking in the wrong direction, being duped by royality impersonators, etc. But they're working on it.

Jeff Bogumil

P.S. Something I've always found useful, when attempting to "justify" the work in developing content, is how I can use the content to directly earn links from other sites. Articles with byline links, etc. Two birds with one stone, as they say.

[OldWelshGuy]

I am in a rush here so this is going to be a really quick post <G>

This makes me chuckle a bit when someone says, content is NOT king, links are or something else is!.

Lets put it this way, how many phrases are you going to be able to rank for without plenty of content? Of course you can rank for a keyphrase without any content by bombing it, but that is ONE phrase. Anyone who optimises for one phrase is as dumb as dog pooh IMO.

An SEO campaign needs plenty of phrases, hundreds or more all of them driving traffic to the qualified pages and converting well. If you have all your eggs in one phrase, and that phrase rests on the power of links, then a slight change in the algo can wipe your business in the blink of an eye. OK then you can go to PPC, but you have lost out as you have to start from scratch and buy all your traffic.

I am sorry content is king online. Content convinces people to buy, content answers all the questions that stop them from not buying. Content is what online selling is about.

For RANKINGS, links are king, but they are not king in a monarchy like the UK, or the Isle of Mann, they are king in a banana republic where the monarchy/government can be overthrowed at the whim of a powerful man.

It all depends what your end goal is. Money can buy traffic, but can not buy conversions, content does that for you!

[Scottie]

<-- the link king

[swan]

Hi witchhead,



One reason to consider is that search engines are far from perfect at what they do. 

So if we go with the famous "Content is King" line, keep in mind that search engines aren't always able to accurately determine who is wearing the crown.  They're sometimes looking in the wrong direction, being duped by royality impersonators, etc.  But they're working on it. 

Jeff Bogumil

P.S.  Something I've always found useful, when attempting to "justify" the work in developing content, is how I can use the content to directly earn links from other sites.  Articles with byline links, etc.  Two birds with one stone, as they say.

What exactly do you mean "articles with byline links", can you explain please?

Swan...

[swan]

I am in a rush here so this is going to be a really quick post <G>

This makes me chuckle a bit when someone says, content is NOT king, links are or something else is!.

Lets put it this way, how many phrases are you going to be able to rank for without plenty of content? Of course you can rank for a keyphrase without any content by bombing it, but that is ONE phrase. Anyone who optimises for one phrase is as dumb as dog pooh IMO.

An SEO campaign needs plenty of phrases, hundreds or more all of them driving traffic to the qualified pages and converting well. If you have all your eggs in one phrase, and that phrase rests on the power of links, then a slight change in the algo can wipe your business in the blink of an eye. OK then you can go to PPC, but you have lost out as you have to start from scratch and buy all your traffic.

I am sorry content is king online. Content convinces people to buy, content answers all the questions that stop them from not buying. Content is what online selling is about.

For RANKINGS, links are king, but they are not king in a monarchy like the UK, or the Isle of Mann, they are king in a banana republic where the monarchy/government can be overthrowed at the whim of a powerful man.

It all depends what your end goal is. Money can buy traffic, but can not buy conversions, content does that for you!

Ha ha... you and the link king are both right!

Swan...

[redbird]

What exactly do you mean "articles with byline links", can you explain please?

Swan...

Hi Swan,

Sorry if I was a little vague. I was referring to newspaper jargon - the "byline" being the writer or reporter credit.

Here's the general idea.

If you were to write an article about your subject or industry, you're developing content. Could be survey results, a product review, an opinion piece, research, etc. Something you believe a potential customer would be interested in reading.

You could add the article to your website to help build your on-site content, which of course is a key factor in developing traffic and earning customers.

But instead, you could add a footer area to your article with a copyright notice, and then include a short plug and direct link to your website (don't forget appropriate anchor text). In the footer, also give anyone permission to reprint the article online ONLY IF the footer area (which contains the copyright info and your link) is left intact.

Distribute the article via various article distributors, and you'll eventually start developing a solid link build. Other websites are always looking for content. If your article is valuable, they'll add it to their website.

Instant link obtained through content.

There are other ways of doing the same thing (a good press release, etc), but the point is content can not only augment your website, it can also be used to augment your link build.

There are other direct and indirect benefits as well:

1. You'll often have greater initial exposure (your article on the frontpage of a website before being archived, for example) than simply being added to someone's link page.

2. You'll gain exposure in establishing yourself as a specialist or knowledgable presence in your field or industry.

3. Readers tend to trust content more than advertising. (When you read a newspaper, are you better apt to visit a website which earned a writeup, or paid for ad space?)

And in keeping with the topic of discussion, this is yet another reason why Content is King.

Search engines are examining links to try and determine if your website offers valued content. If they could judge valued content otherwise, links wouldn't be such a determining factor with the SERPs.

Surfers use search engines to find sites with valued content. They don't care about the number of links a website has. Neither do your website visitors. They're looking for content related to their search - that's it.

That search engines can't properly determine content is disappointing. That they're working towards this goal is reassuring. If you build your website with that in mind, you stand a better chance of maintaining stable placement in the SERPs, instead of the roulette played with link build dependency.

Regards,

Jeff Bogumil

* Edited for vagueness.

[LinkAdage]

Content used to be king, now it is a tired cliché. Off site optimization is king now. I bet I could get a blank HTML page ranked in the top ten for a key word use strictly off site optimization.