Wow.

I think a lot of people here miss the boat completely on this topic. All sites should be optimized. Text, graphic images, design, site architecture, usability, etc.

IMHO, to think that getting tons of links to your site is the be-all-that-ends-all of search engine marketing is very narrow minded.

I'm all for link development. I'm also all for keyword-rich content. I'm also all for user-friendly web sites. I just don't think these 3 things are mutually exclusive. There are reasons for keyword-rich content other than search engine positioning.

I know I have a different perspective than a lot of search engine marketers because I am a designer. I see sites from concept through usability testing to template design to focus groups to launch to promotion to measurement/analytics to redesign. (Did I miss one? Maybe content management?)

This whole thing about content vs. links seems silly to me. It's easy to get links to sites with good content. FFA spam links as well as high quality links.

Just my 2 cents.

HI Shari

The topic (well as it started out anyway) concerns ways of getting rankings for competitive keywords, and asks the question can you get top rankings for competitive keywords by optimizing on-page content only.

Viewed from that narrow perspective the answer (IMO) has to be:

No you cannot optimize you page content to the point of getting top rankings for competitive keywords, but you can get top rankings ONLY by using anchor text irrespective of page content or lack of it.

Now if we want to take the conversation away from the original question and now discuss the bigger question of how best to construct a site so as to satisfy both the search engines and the users then I totally agree with your feelings that no aspect should be neglected.

The fact remains however you can get a page ranked high for competitive keywords by using only anchor text and little or no on page content relevant to the term ranked for.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

As a person who actually does do reciprocal link management work all day, every day, as a professional, and has done it for a long time, I am fascinated by some of what I have read in this thread.

Everyone must realize that linking existed before any search engine. Linking is at the very foundation of the HTML/Browser technology. Even the term Hyper-Text markup Language refers DIRECTLY to linking.

So, here is the bottom line...

If you are linking in order to beat Google, then your efforts are likely misguided. You are either wasting time and money on largely irrelvant links, or you trying to "beat" Google with some contrived strategy of PageRank, Alexa rank, home page vs. links page placement, demands for reciprocity, etc, etc. The games are endless.

If you are linking as if Google did not exist, and are looking for the benefits from the links themselves, then you are probably on track, as you will not waste time and money chasing irrelevant links, nor will you turn away appropriate links for the lack of meeting your "gaming" criteria.

That's it. That's all there is to this.

The search engine benefit for pursuing links is actually a secondary consideration, and is nothing but very thick icing on the cake that may or may not not be stable over the long haul.

Right now, Google has most definitely rewarded sites that build responsible, legitimate link directories that function as useful directories for real visitors. That might change. It might not.

Some people will choose not to pursue directory-to-directory links. This is their choice, and they have their own reasons for or against it. If they can get where they need to be without it, in terms of Google, more power to them. There are a lot of ways to earn links. Writing articles, submitting to open directories, running an in-house affiliate program, posting in guestbooks and forums, etc. Directory-to-directory reciprocal linking is just one of them.

But I can say that, in a competitve keyword environment, the fastest, most cost effective way to establish relevant link popularity is with a well structured and determined directory-to-directory reciprocal link campaign. That's where the most accessible raw numbers lie.

Some people don't like that fact, and they are screaming loudly that directory-to-directory reciprocal linking is "spam" or not relevant, or a waste of time, or "low rent SEO" (the term that one very major SEO guru used to describe what I do in a private email to me)..

None of the hand-wringing and name calling on the part of the disgruntled really matters. Experienced web marketers will continue to do it, with or without Google rewarding it, because the traffic from directory-to-directory reciprocal linking has merit and value on it's own.

Unfortunately, linking has become intertwined with SEO work, which means that people now try to "reverse engineer" it for SEO purposes.

It's not that complicated, really. What is hard about it, and what I think bothers most people, is that doing it with some real dogged determination takes an very good data management process, and a lot of attention to detail.

Dabbling produces only limited results. And it's not at all "free". Every site that I know of that has a significant link program has assigned considerable resources of time and/or money to it.

Linking is really just another form of web marketing, with roots that extend to the very formation of the World Wide Web. As with all forms of marketing, those who do it properly will benefit, and those who don't, won't.

I'd be curious to know how many SEOs have had clients lose their rankings with Google due to linking optimization strategies.

I agree that there needs to be content and links to create a successful website. I just don't believe in this current idea of links for the sake of ranking. I believe Google is developing filters just for that kind of strategy and that SEOs pushing that technique will endanger their client's websites.

I also feel that there is a common misunderstanding that links=traffic=rankings. Links do not equal traffic unless the links are from heavily trafficked websites. That is the key component! Traffic! Dell ranks high not because of any SEO techniques. They rank high because they spend millions on outside advertising that creates traffic for their website!..and the search engines track this and rank them accordingly.

The above writer stated that he uses directories for linking. That's a perfect example of finding a well trafficked website and establishing a linking strategy with them. I am still adamant that 1 link from a top tier website is all that you require for first page ranking in all of the search engines. You also get all sorts of other neat things like daily indexing and credibility with potential buyers.

Create the *content* that the top tier website would be interested in, and then watch the magic when they link back to you.

Forget about the "links for links sake" garbage. It's dangerous, time consuming, and develops very little real traffic or sales in the long run.

Your idea of how search engines rank sites is not in accord with what I have learned in several years of investigation. I hope you are not implying that Dells ranking is due to the fact that Dells is a high traffic site or a big spender advertising wise since IMO that is a totally unwarrented concept.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Yup,Mel, that's exactly what I'm implying.

There are a number of factors that determine who gets to the top of the pile. Some are weighted more heavily than others. Traffic not links is at the top of the list. You can try to confuse the search engines by using multiple links, but ultimately Google's filters will become more accurate at discovering this spurious technique and shut you down.

I say again...(last time folks)
If you want to get to the first page of Google, spend a million bucks on advertising to get the traffic or *get one link back from a top tier website* that is already spending the million bucks for you (and has significant traffic).

This will involve creating some kind of optimized *CONTENT* that the top tier website is interested in. If you can do this you will sit on the first page of Google and every other major search engine for your one piece of optimized content.

Information is what drives the free listings of the search engines. Get good at the production of information and you can never be filtered out.

And do you have anything to support this rather unique theory of yours?

If not I am going to say simply that based on my experience there is absolutely no evidence to support the supposition that either traffic or advertising is a portion of the Google algo.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Hi Mel:

here you go...
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=13238

Why else would a dot gov or dot org sit at the top of the rankings? There certainly isn't any link optimization going on. It's simply traffic.

If you were running a search engine wouldn't you be interested in placing the most heavily trafficked websites at the top?? Wouldn't you put the number of links as a lesser rating. I can show you tons of websites with hundreds of links that sit nowhere near the top of the pile. Why do you think all the SEOs are pulling their hair out right now?

All I can tell you is my idea works. Get a link from one of these giants and up you go to the top of the list.

It seems you have not been following the discussions about the new patents which Google has been receiving or about the likely implementation of expert sytems in their algo. The use of an expert system algo results in .gov and .edu sites rising to the top as they are often considered as experts.

No if I were running a search engine I would not put the most trafficed sites at the top of the rankings.

Why would anyone want their results dominated by porn and gambling sites?

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

ROFLOL
Keep on drinking the Google Koolaid...and please tell your future clients to register their URLs with dot gov and dot edu extensions. I'm sure you can assure them that Google has an "expert" filter that will help them soar. lol

Easy enough to laugh when you don't have an answer I guess, again do you have any evidence to back up your opinions?

My clients don't need to register with strange extensions to get rankings, they do fine with .com or .net or .co.uk or...

If you are having trouble getting your site ranked you can post questions here and perhaps we can help you.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

IMO, this whole issue comes down to your definition of what SEO is.

To me, SEO is the total package employed. That includes seo copywriting, link building, tag management and the like. If you're focusing on rank alone, then yes, right now on Google it looks like having a relevant linking strategy is what it's taking to get a site ranked.

But the thing is, most of us don't just focus on rank/positioning. We want the site to rank well AND make sales. So the combination of factors mentioned above HAS to be included.

That's why we call it search engine optimization and not search engine positioning.

Debra.

Hi Debra and welcome to WebProWorld! :-)

Because of the complexity of issues that evolved in this thread we have started a guide to SEO which attempts to address many of the issues involved or at least place them "in context" with each subsequent issue/perspective.

It starts WebProWorld's Guide to being a Proactive SEO and will over the next few weeks be added to and open to debate.

Additionally, the dialogue although primarily my own draws weight from complementing resources so not to be completely biased. :-)

__________________
We are what we repeatedly do… excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit. — Aristotle

Thanks for the welcome Rodney.