In an fiery post over at SEOroundtable, John Scott stated his opinions regarding what he calls the two styles of search engine optimization: Content SEO and Link Mongers.

He's of the opinion that Content SEO is dead, and that anyone interested in raising their search engine rankings should focus only on link generation.

He italicized this section of his post, making plain his position:

"You cannot keyword density your client into a #1 spot for highly competitive keywords. You cannot page title your client into a #1 spot for highly competitive keywords. The only way you're going to get there is by way of PageRank and anchor text of inbound links."

Now, I'm no SEO expert, but I'm having trouble believing that it's worthwhile to stop optimizing your web pages for the bots. I think John's point is a good one - that link building is vital in your quest for top ranking on competitive keywords, but to cut out on-page optimization seems a bit drastic.

Here's a useful bit of advice from a later post of his: "I think the best strategy is to focus on topical links as much as possible. If you are targeting "web hosting", then do a search for "web hosting" and do whatever is needed to get links from as many sites as possible in that SERP set."

Here's his complete post, and I'd love to hear what you think.

__________________
Garrett French
Editor, WebProNews.com
http://www.WebProNews.com

I agree with John Scott 100% links are king not text.

It has been that way for a long time.

__________________
Custom Website Design | Search Engine Optimization | Web Design Templates

Content SEO is a great way to trawl low traffic terms - but John's beef seems to be that some people stop there, call it SEO, and then mislead clients into believing that they can be ranked for anything even remotely competitive.

Yes your right I, Brian

He is not saying to Stop optimizing pages, but that you should not stop there if your trying for more competitive keywords your going to have to get links also.

__________________
Custom Website Design | Search Engine Optimization | Web Design Templates

Good links at that - the days of plain PR linkage seems to be fast fading. It seems only a matter of time before Florida has infected all Google results.

__________________
SEO lab
internet marketing
business forums

Well IMO John is right that the tough rankings will need some anchor text linking to get the rankings, but John tends to seperate the various parts of what I like to call holistic SEO into the SEO side and the marketing side whereas I think the two should never be seperated.

Web pages are built for viewers and for the forseeable future you will have to have on-page content for those viewers and to convert them into customers. That being the case why not optimize the page content and get the extra ranking that's going to give you? Might just be enough to put you on top of another power linker.

John and others have proved the worth and power of anchor text links in getting rankings, but you need more than rankings to have a successful website.

__________________
Mel Nelson
Expert SEO | Cheap used cars

Unfortunately, from many of the searches that people are commenting on and how rapidly very valid sites that are exactly what a person would be seeking are falling off the radar and the number of invalid or irrelevant sites that show up, I'd have to agree that this seems to be the up and coming factor -- and will kill Google. I know that I've switched at least 20 people over to Vivisimo during the past month and will continue to push it.

The public isn't terribly well-educated on searching practices; however, even the most novice know when they aren't reaching what they want to. They will tend to discount ANYone who comes up in a group of irrelevant sites as being equally irrelevant. They may not know about link mongering, but they do know about scams and shams. It's a pity.

So many web businesses have worked hard to create very valid sites, very valid product lines, and have played all the SEO games -- and now, through no fault of their own, they are nearly down and out and only crap is floating in the cesspool of the commercial internet.

I understand the basic premise - that a major player will by its nature accrue a fair amount of wannabes who will ride its coattails and proclaim through links, "See, we play with the BigGuys." It's a valid POV. Who is orbiting who? The Sun in the middle must be the "most relevant."

However, it's not the only perspective. And, if link mongering goes to its own natural bloated exteme edge of the continuum, it'll dilute the value of this POV to inconsequential. Cus, there is no way that "Aluminum siding" should be linked to "fluffy bunnies."

Looks like just another event in the life and times of "how people behave." It's not always a pretty picture and it frequently hurts those who are really trying to conduct themselves with ethics. Money has made a mockery out of ethics many times before, this is just more of the same.

I think the thing that is the most disturbing about this is that Google WAS "the little guy." Now, I'm rooting for MS to make its play.

__________________
LdyGuique

We are certainly hearing a lot from people who are seeing odd and not very relevant results using certain search phrases, mostly those who have websites that target those words. On the other hand, there are also reports of people seeing Google search results which are MORE relevant and less spammy, especially as time went on following the Florida update. Unsatisfied customers are always noisier than satisfied customers, and understandably so...

The updates aren't finished - and as long as they continue, as long as Google continues to test and refine their algorithms and filters, we will see results for certain searches which are less than ideal - I don't think this will continue for very much longer and I think the end result will be improved and more relevant results for the most part.

I'm happy to see stronger competition for Google emerging, if indeed that happens - I think that always keeps things more honest. But, to paraphrase the famous quote, in my opinion "the reports of Google's death are premature".

__________________
Psychology Mental Health & Self-Help Forum
Online Counseling & Therapy | Mental Health Directory

Link Building is a lot more important than the content after google's rule changed in November so now I think a lot of SEO companys are going down because of that

Hi I am Max and I would like to know more about the subject, tips are welcome.

Thanks

__________________
Max,
http://www.upcroft.com

I agree totally that Link building is becoming more important than content optimizing. With everything being equal, properly optimized pages will rank higher than your competitiors and I believe that. However, things are not equal. Some pages with less relevant content will still rank higher because of their higher rank, and I hate to see that happen. As a search engine optimizer, I am spending more of my time and resources link building campaigns than anything else.

Our "link building" is limted to getting a client listed on as many search engines and directories as possible.

The question, "Is Organic SEO Dead?", sounds like something Overture might come up with. Those of us that focus on content and SEO know that it's absurd.

Sure, links have their place, for now. But with all the frenzy and hype going on over linking, I do not expect the advantages to last, UNLESS the links are in a valid structure, and this means NOT link farms, or links from exact or completely un-related sites.

Look for the results from Google's context/content matching technology to be applied to link-ranking technology sometime in the near future. When that happens, those sites without good SEO and content may be hurting, even with linkage.

__________________
http://www.EbayAuctionAds.com
http://www.Mesothelioma-Search-Engine.com

I never cared much for writing my text to suit the search engines with ackward phrasing and overuse of keywords, and I'm not talking spamming either. There was always a percent keyword optimization scale (depending on which expert you followed of course), so if you needed a higher percentage you found a way to add that keyword one more time. I'm getting a bit testy with people suggesting everyone that lost rank must have been spamming the engines. I know that was not true in my case, at least not according to the "old school" rules.

I took such pains to avoid spamming that it used to kill me to check my rank and never find my pages yet what I did find was chock full of spam techniques. I still never faltered from my plan of good content will rule the day, and I don't intend to now either.

I want to write my text for the human beings reading it, not search engine indexing bots. Perhaps taking more of the emphasis away from the optimization of content for the engines will ultimately lead to better content?

It may be awhile before we see how this shakes out and it's always a good idea to read the views of the experts in the SEO field. They'll know first which way the winds blow.

P.S. I found it amusing how many supposed SEO experts would simply use a company's own name as a keyword and then happily show them how they had a No. 1 listing. That's still pretty easy to achieve but who's going to search on your name unless they already know you? No one, that's who. I figured that was how the SEO firms could guarantee top 10 placement for all.

Kathryn

__________________
Free E-book & Instructions in Using EFT & NLP for Weight Loss
OneMoreBite-Weightloss.com

I do not think for a minute that SEO is dead if you ever had the chance to optimize websites for anyone would would see real quick that no matter how many links a page would have they would never stand a chance.

Also it depends on what search engine you are optimizing your site for because as most everyone knows already they are not all the same.

I have a newsletter and most of my subscribers know I will do experiments to my main site just to see the affects it has in the search engines.

I can tell you it does matter how the site is put together dont get me wrong inbound links are very important as well.

I rate links at 33% how your site or sites are built 33% and the most often overlooked the keywords on all your sites how do they relate 33%

SEO is more than just keyword density it is a lot of different things combined much more than I could go into here.

If anyone thinks that SEO is just getting lots of links leading to your website and that in itself will get you to the top of the search engines think again.

There are examples PROOF of this all over the internet I have seen sites with over 50.000 links leading to them and they have a page rank of just 2.

I picked some of these sites apart to try to find them in the top 10 of any major search engines and could not find them anywhere.

Yes links are important but unless the sites are related and built right but when it comes to the search engines your sites need to be optimized.

And going further page rank for that matter really don't matter as much as it used to in the past which I think Google did the right thing to make this change because in the past you could monopolize the search engines because of this.

Is SEO dead? HELL NO if you believe that I have some ocean front property for sale in Kansas.

James Mackinlay
JRM Website Marketing And Internet Promotion

__________________
James Mackinlay
JRM Website Marketing And Internet Promotion
1-843-851-3339

When I started on 1/19 our site was 87 on Google for the selected search terms for our product. I modified Title, Description and added a content paragraph. In 7 days we went to #1 for the search terms. No links, no gimmicks, no linked extra pages. That's it. Content is all you really need. The issue is do you have anyone that can write good content? If you can't you use tricks, if you can, organic works. What Google showed in September with the change in algorithm is that tricks will be canceled out as Search Engines "learn" how to bypass them. But content will always work, because that's how humans work. Agood book sells, a bad book does not. What is the difference? Content. All the gimmicks an author tries to use in a book to mimic a best seller won't do a thing if the book has bad content. Same for a web site.

The issue is that SEO can be taught and learned in less than a day. This is a big threat to people who make their living selling products that "do" SEO or ranking for you by submiting to multiple SE. At the moment, if you at\re in DMOZ and Google, you will wind up almost everywhere in a few weeks. I have watched this happen by tracing a new site created for a friend. It's in all of the "pay for inclusion" sites like Inktomi and Overture, MSN etc and not a penny was paid.

John never said it was hard to do and he never said to Stop optimizing pages, but that you should not stop there if your trying for more competitive keywords you will need links.

Anyone can get ranked for
"Johns custom pool stick in colombia"

But if all that matters is on site changes then get ranked #1 for computers

This should be an easy one because the #1 ranked site did not even use it on there page.

So according to you a couple on site changes and your be #1 by the end week

__________________
Custom Website Design | Search Engine Optimization | Web Design Templates

I am a relative newbie when it comes to search engine optimization, but I have started to catch on to what works…at least I thought so.

This whole link mess has got me in a quandry. I assume that is you are going to get sites to link to you, you have to link to them in exchange. How does one get links to their site without having a links page that ends up looking amateurish? If related links are the best, does that mean I have to get involved with a link exchange with our competitors?

I'm so confused. Head…ready…to …explode.

__________________
Macintosh and Political Blog
Bushism Screen Saver

Another new means of achieving a Number 1 ranking...
I'm biting my lower lip here! LOL

Below is an example of one day for Inktomi. Granted, there are not hundreds of requests, but I do cater to a niche market AND this is the slowest time of year (unfortunately!) for my product. Happens every year, though it does get better every year during this time (winter). Soon my numbers will easily quadruple and more in a month or so.

Also, according to my site admin page, I have approx. 4-5 times more referrals from Google than from MSN and Yahoo, in that order.
My Inktomi results for one day are:

cat urine and pet odor eliminator (5)
"cat spray"odor home (8)
"dog urine" carpeting (11)
dog odor elimination (2)
eliminating skunk odors (1)
pet odor (6)
pet odors (2)
CAT ODORS (3)
eliminate cigarette smoke odor (11)
pet odor control (3)
pet odors (2)
diesel odor (4)

Again keep in mind this is my slowest time of year.
The words are what the user types in, and the number in paranthesis is the RANK of that SE result.
In other words, someone types in the search words "eliminating skunk odors" and my website came up first.
I did not all the sudden add a couple dozen links... I did actually...nothing. The last link I added was about 3-4 months ago, and only because it was a good site, AND did not have hundreds of links on its site, what I call a 'link farm'.

I have graciously declined a few link requests because of the (in my opinion) excessive number of links on the site.
ALso, do not think that because I have a niche market, I have a 'lock' on certain words due to the lack of competition. Not at all! I have a lot of competition for odor elimination believe it or not. For example typing in "odors" in Google gets 628,000 results back.

ANY way, my point? (finally!) Content and keywords ARE very much still king, at least at this time and my experience. Yes, I may eat my words later, and I will be the first to admit it, but until I drop off the radar, why mess with a pretty good thang!?

__________________
Marlin Fischer
Fischer Enterprises, Inc.
Krystal Air - Guaranteed Odor Elimination
1-888-2-KRYSTAL
www.krystal-air.com
webmaster@krystal-air.com

Holding all other aspects equal, content optimization should work to put you ahead of your competitors. But it's definitely not the way to get to the number 1 ranking for any significant term.

In-bound links are number 1.

How can this be proved? Simply look at the top sites for a quasi-popular search term. Check out the META tags and heading structure. Chances are that the content on these sites is not even close to optimized.

But, in my opinion, every little bit helps, so I'm still in favour of content optimization.

__________________
Robin Eldred
Web Design & Internet Marketing by Apis Design
Websites that work

I was attempting to point out that:
Content alone can get you listed
Content and Links can get you listed
Links alone cannot assure you being listed

Any company wants to do a good job of providing the service they offer.

Google is a company providing a service, finding the sites that actually provide the content for which you are searching.

They do this by constantly refining their algorithm to dump sites that gimmick their pages in favor of sites that provide actual content.

I have done SEO for 4 sites in the recent year, it's not my regular job, all four remained in high ranking after the Google change in algorithm. All that was done to the sites was adjust content in Title, Meta Description and 1st paragraph. The only submission was to Google and to the ODP at www.dmoz.org

Take two sites put the text in the page of one and the other just get links do not submit the one to anything and do not submit either to Google.

links alone can you you ranked for a key word but text alone can not.

if you have no links going to your site but have a lot of text Google will never find your site.

If you take the search for the key word computers you will see that the search shows no where on that page where the key word computers is used in the #1 site returned for that key word.

__________________
Custom Website Design | Search Engine Optimization | Web Design Templates

With all due respect for your rise from #87 to #1 jcowan, however it has been my experience that Google typically gives new sites a boost and you may not remain at #1 for long. Let me know 2 months down the line.

And I was somewhat insulted by your statement saying "The issue is that SEO can be taught and learned in less than a day. This is a big threat to people who make their living selling products that "do" SEO or ranking for you by submiting to multiple SE."

Many of the members of this forum work their butts off, spend many hours educating themselves, and participate in forums like this one to better do their chosen work!

Just a word to the wise: This is a great group of honest hard working people. Please do not belittle what they do.

__________________
Laura Booth
Clearwater Web Solutions
www.clearwaterwebsolutions.com
Website Development Services

I'm no SEO expert. I've been reading SEO posts daily along with other SEO articles. Here's what I had to accomplish and the results, such as they are.

I was contracted to put together a site for a client, Adriance Auctions. They'are not an online auction. They are a traditional auction company as we all used to know prior to the Internet.

http://www.adrianceauctions.com. was put up in mid December. Since I knew there are a growning mumber of auction sites out here, Google shows 569,000 when you search for "gun auction". I decided to optimize the page for "Tulsa Gun Collectors Auction".

I submitted to Google, DMOZ and about a dozen other engines. I was able to get one gun association to post a link in their news section. Every other gun association I contacted either did not reply or replied and would not link .

I put links to some other non ranked sites on the Adriance Site Links page.

Using "tulsa gun auction" "tulsa gun collector's auction" didn't find us for a couple of weeks. Shortly after that, "tulsa gun collector's auction" was #1 on google when you used that search phraze. "Tulsa gun auction" was not in the top 100.

I monitored the situation, added pages [that google still doesn't list by the way]. I watched as "tulsa gun auction" jumped from nowhere to 25 on google and yahoo, while "tulsa gun collector's auction" dropped to number 2 below the only site that would link to us.

January has come and gone. We still have no page rank but "Tulsa gun aution" and "Tulsa gun collector's auction" both bring us to the top of the list of about 14,700 on Google, still with no page rank.

To me, this proves that keywords and content most certainly CAN play a very important role in getting you found. I realize that the search phraze is unique and that helps a lot. This further shows that when swimming with a large school of the same fish, you need to find some little thing that keeps you in that school but makes you stand out at the same time.

Do we want a high PR on Google, you bet we do and I think links are the only thing that's going to get that for us.

When the focus is on another type of auction, this effort will start all over again. It simply has to because the focus will be a constantly moving target and the potential buyers will change with it. For that, keywords and content are the tools of choice and it matters not one bit what the PR is, as long as the potential buyers can find us by keywords.

Doesn't apply to everyone's needs or situation, I realize that..but it's yet another twist on the issues.

Larry

If you type in hotel in Google all of a sudden Hilton is at the top with a 0/0 page rank. Marriot and Radisson follow close behind with 8/10 page ranking, but poor keyword content in terms of what we've all be taught.

__________________
B.J.Baker
Adventure Travel Adventure Sports

janeth: Question...
"If you take the search for the key word computers you will see that the search shows no where on that page where the key word computers is used in the #1 site returned for that key word."

I did a search for computers, #1 was Apple Computers.
It now has the Pepsi promo as seen on the 'Janet and Justin Show'....OOOPS! I meant the SUPER BOWL! (Sorry! LOL) I see 'Apple Computer' at the bottom (copyright data), but there is one keyword in the source;
<meta name="Keywords" content="Apple Computer">

Just wondering if you meant Keywords, or content, or both... just wondering :)

Thanks!

__________________
Marlin Fischer
Fischer Enterprises, Inc.
Krystal Air - Guaranteed Odor Elimination
1-888-2-KRYSTAL
www.krystal-air.com
webmaster@krystal-air.com

As I said, Content alone will
Content AND LINKS will
but links without content will just get you into the index on an SE. Correct content for the Keywords will get you to the higher rankings. As I said, I've done this four times. No links, no mess, no fuss and I keep coming up #1-4 on the first pages of Google, Yahoo, MSN, AltaVista, ODP, Momma, whatever. It's just not that hard. I think sometimes that this is a manufactured issue to create a demand.

After all, why buy a magazine if it doesn't have the info you want, even if every ad on TV says its great?

The sites I spoke of had links to them, except for the one I built new, and they were all around page 8-12 of the results pages. I changed the content, bang, number 1 page in 7 days. Most of the time in the top five and for most item number 1.

I not going to press this issue any more as it's getting to be democrat/republican, evolution/creationism in content, but I do know what numbers I am seeing and am satisfied with the content concept.

Hi Lando,

I was talking content but even if you count all on page factors I think you said you found it one time. Does that mean everyone else did not use the key word at all on there site.

Why are they ranked #1 if you can only find the word one time?

Does this mean I can put computers on my site two times and I will rank #1?

The reason they rank #1 is because of incoming links.

This was what John was saying you can get the easy words with text but when it comes to the big ones it takes links.

__________________
Custom Website Design | Search Engine Optimization | Web Design Templates

Good linking (inbound and outbound), plus good content, throw in a couple "topic specific" domains... that is all you need.

FACT: One cannot rely on links without any content, also, one cannot rely on content without any links.

So, to be short, links and content are equally important, I do not see any advantage of having more of one. If you can round out your organic SEO tactics, you'll always be ahead of the game.

We've used organic SEO from day one, we will continue to do this. We rely on PPC and paid inclusion for secondary fire power.

With all that said. We have maybe 20 top keyword phrases we target....every single one is number 1 or two in Google and FAST.

__________________
Living the life in the Idaho Falls and playing Disc Golf
Idaho Falls SEO

Hi jcowan,

Show me where you did that for something like "web design" or "computers"

If you have not then do it real fast it should not be a probelm according to what your saying this will prove me wrong and those are some really great key words to have.

[/code]

__________________
Custom Website Design | Search Engine Optimization | Web Design Templates

The year is 2004, and that statement hasn't been true for a couple years now.

http://www.google.com/search?q=computer

Dell, at #2, has ZERO CONTENT for the keyword "computer". ZERO. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Any of those content SEOs want to try and keyword density their way to a top position for that keyword? If they can, I'll give them $50,000.

Where are you people coming from? Why post on a search engine forum if you have nothing to add but insults for the people that take seo seriously? Obviously none of us are advocating using only one tactic.

I wish that I could welcome you with open arms! And maybe you will have great things to add to the design portion of the forum, or the Break Room or some where.

I guess I am just asking that we be a little kinder - we don't always agree with each other but we can at least be respectful of each other!

__________________
Laura Booth
Clearwater Web Solutions
www.clearwaterwebsolutions.com
Website Development Services

Rubbish!

Granted -- however neither of which is "content development".

Sure I'll buy that -- but the link itself is not the only thing that is important. Amazingly some think ranking success is found in "one thing" -- it is however about (in Google anyway) about 100 things... and none by itself can beat the weight of the other 99.

If what was said here "is true" a one pager site will beat 100 or 1,000 pages of content - because content is "less important"... (how many pages of content does Dell have anyway - just a homepage? or 1000's -- notwithstanding those 1,000 pages are "linked" - thus making content equal - not less, not more.

A related thread Which is more important - Content or Links

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

Hi Fathom,

You know that I never said that page elements SEO was dead. I'd be much obliged if you refrain from taking my statements out of context.

I'm saying the Content SEO is dead. The SEO who does not get links. Which, by my estimate, is 90% of so-called SEOs.

Most simply look at keyword density, page titles, etc, and even Jill Whalen has admitted that she can't go after any single keyword search terms, or competitive two-keyword search terms.

That SEO is dead. Even if they are still practicing, they are not on the first page for highly competitive keywords. If you believe otherwise, prove it with a SERP.

Um, yeah, rankings can be found in anchor text alone. Ever hear of that "miserable failure" thing? Anchor text. Anchor text and more anchor text. There - three things. :)

Not attempting to insult your intelligence but I find a few things wrong with your argument and without going into a long song and dance thing kept it short.

hmmm... "content" is quite broad - keyword density is a bit different, and "title" is an element so without saying so you said "page elements" (admittedly only one actually specified) is dead.

Unfortunately "content" means all of page elements, attributes, including text copy, graphics, as well as all internal links. This is "webpage content".

Additionally, I believe you are actually cutting your own throat -- 90% of SEO's are only "link developers"?

I give my kids a buck to find links - and they don't know a thing about SEO, search engines, or even web design.

I realize there is a huge amateur community; learn a tip or trick and can fool themselves into thinking they are an SEO - but I tend not to believe that these are the ones you are referring to.

I do know what you are "implying" (and I might even agree - to your limited definition of content SEO) however your choice of words lacks accuracy.

But this isn't saying the same thing - in addition to keyword density, page titles, etc., Jill Whalen also conducts link development - not: Jill Whalen only conducts link development when things are competitive -- that's a very big bloody difference.

This is argumentative - as I am saying you can rank with "links" - more important though - you can rank easier or better with links and everything else.

hmmm... don't want to bore anyone

Density #7 (eoascientific.com)

What you say "isn't wrong" it's just only part of the answer... Is content dead?-- well if you define content your way, I guess you would be correct.

To illustrate - I chose the above results for a reason... and after discussing with the client believe we all can benefit from a tangible exercise.

The actual "orginal" page title was the same as the Shockwave applet - Weight Mass Volume Density Gravity.

However "weight" was overwhelming associated with "weight watchers", Mass was short for the state and volume produced "nothing" (each time the page was ranked well) and over the period of a year density actually started producing "qualified visitors" (now at about 1,000 daily/weekdays - for just this page) mostly schools/students.

Would you like to see what happens to rankings by simply changing the first word to the forth?

If what you say is true "and links" are all powerful (including text anchors) the ranked position should change little - right?

Might need a bit of time to "see" something - but I can pretty much say for sure:

1. Page One ranks are gone and

2. likely highest position will be on third page (depth 10).

3. On reverting back - the ranks will improve based only on the "title change".

Why?

hmmm...

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

Hi Fathom you lost me. Which is not hard for me but here is what I did not understand here

First you said

Might need a bit of time to "see" something - but I can pretty much say for sure:

Which looks like you have not done it yet but then you say:

1. Page One ranks are gone and

2. likely highest position will be on third page (depth 10).

3. On reverting back - the ranks will improve based only on the "title change".

Which looks like you have already done this.

Are you saying you have done this or that your going to do this I'm just a little lost.

Sorry

__________________
Custom Website Design | Search Engine Optimization | Web Design Templates

Will get premission to do this, I need to confirm with the client - first, but because I am teaching their webmaster SEO would think that he would benefit from this as well.

Nothing has changed as yet and will report when it does.

The point of this exercise is to show:

1. Ranking is an exercise that you can't just say "do only this and you'll be #1 (or at least in the top positions).... competitiveness irrelevant.

2. The title of a page is as important as links to the page.

3. The order of words are important

Admittedly "keyword density" has limited use today - but there are many beneficial considerations that do work, and work around keyword density - e.g. positioning on the page.

Yes a page can rank without the word even appearing on the page (visible or semi-hidden code - e.g. alt="" or title="") - it can draw weight from "a ton of link anchors - sure thing; but also many other good practices - just the same - I would very much like to see someone remove all their keywords off the page to prove that "links only" is a way to rank better (or are there other factors to consider here). What we neglect to consider is "how many" 1 link versus 1 title, or 1 word on the page.... if you have an extra 10,000 links running around - I'm sure you can do alot more than "a few".

I guarantee that you will need "more links than before" if you remove the word from title, and/or off the page... thus the argument put forward - is logically pointless.

Regardless - I will let you know when this occurs.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

I'm not going to stick around and get into a debate on this, but I suspect that there is a misunderstanding. To the best of my knowledge, John Scott didn't say or suggest that there is no need to optimize content any more. He said that content seo is dead - and it is. That's content-oriented seo, or seo that majors on content.

There are people who still believe that "content is king". They say all the time in various forums. It used to be king, but it hasn't been king for quite a long time - those people haven't caught on yet. Links and link text is king with Google, and strong top rankings can be achieved by that alone. But it is always better to optimize on-page elements as well. I don't think that John suggested otherwise.

Content (on-page elements) alone cannot get top rankings when there is any kind of competition for the searchterms, but there are people who think that it can, presumably because they've got some top rankings. But close inspection of their rankings will show that the searchterms are not competitive.

Jill Whalen got a mention because she's perhaps the most well-known (in seo circles) of the 'content' people. But she admits (when really pushed) that she doesn't even try to target competitive searchterms because she knows that her methods are incapable of succeeding. I am sure that she tries to include links in her methods, but that's not quite the same a link-based strategy - and it's not nearly as effective as a link-based strategy. That's why she doesn't try to compete.

So "content seo is dead", but that expression should be read as "content-oriented seo is dead, except for uncompetitive searchterms".

__________________
PhilC
SEO articles, information and seo forums

I guess my point here, under this specific argument is that solid text copy aids in developing solid links... if your website had rubbish content how many link would you get?

You really can't be that effective in link development - if you have nothing people wish to link to.

__________________
New daily advice on Advance SEO, Copyright & DMCA @ Twitter

<TITLE>Dell - Client & Enterprise Solutions, Software, Peripherals, Services</TITLE>
<META NAME="KEYWORDS" CONTENT="Custom, Configuration, PCs, Laptops, Portables, Computer, Notebook, Hardware, Build, Value, Technology, Servers, Dell, Online, Order">
<META NAME="DESCRIPTION" CONTENT="Dell offers custom configuration of personal computers, portables and servers. Build your own PC--get the best value with latest technology--order online.">

Google Category: Computers > Hardware > Systems > Dell

__________________
Psychology Mental Health & Self-Help Forum
Online Counseling & Therapy | Mental Health Directory

Are you seriously suggesting that Google's ranking of the page has something to do with the meta tags? I mean, even 0.00005% of it. Do you seriously think that the meta tags have ANYTHING to do with ranking on Google?

And, DMOZ category is where a link is found. Links are off-page elements. Keep going in that direction and you'll find the promised land.

:)

__________________
Internet Marketing

Hi Fathom,

I agree with you 100% You need

1. good text
2. good website design
3. good logo
4. good nav.
5. contact information on every page
and a lot of other things to have a nice web site. I love good information. I read all day and visit web sites just for information.

I think what John was saying and what I'm saying is that yes you need all those things and if your looking for non competitive keywords that is all you need. But when you start going for words like "web site design" there is nothing you can do to your site that will get you ranked in the top 10 for those key words with out also getting links.

__________________
Custom Website Design | Search Engine Optimization | Web Design Templates

Yes, I am... I have argued elsewhere that they make a small but non-zero contribution. You are not the first to disagree with me, but that's fine with me...

But I was primarily responding to your statement that "Dell, at #2, has ZERO CONTENT for the keyword "computer". ZERO. Zip. Zilch. Nada."

See these threads for comments on Apple.com at #1 and meta tags and google in general...

comments on Apple.com site at #1

meta tags debate

Well, maybe that's not such a bad destination - that Dell.com page may not be heavily laden with the word computer but it does have a lot of related words and it is listed in the Computers category at Google - where Google gets that information is irrelevant. The same is true for Apple.com.

I have never even tried to argue that links aren't important - only that they do not account for 100% of how a site ranks in Google's search results. I have seen pages rank well in Google for search terms which exist only in the title, description, and/or keywords tags, and with precious few links of any kind or value. With a bit of effort, it is not difficult to beat those sites and relevant links to your site is one of the best ways to do that. Relevant on page content is another.

__________________
Psychology Mental Health & Self-Help Forum
Online Counseling & Therapy | Mental Health Directory

I think that when writing for websites, you should write for your customers, keeping in mind SEO. This is what we do in www.asiahotels.com. Of course you don't want your customers to be bogged by so many keywords that are all the same. Content must be something readable and worth reading.

And with linking, yes, I believe you still should not do away with it.

Both are still very much important. You can't just rely on search engines to index your sites just because you've optimized it. You have to get good links.

Hi folks!
I ran across this article from SiteProNews in my mail this morning on just the subject we're discussing here.
"Content - The Ultimate Link Building Strategy"
by Shelley Lowery ©Copyright 2004



Here's the link:
http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2004/feb/4prt.html

__________________
Glynn Gallagher aka "RED"
lock picks, locksmith tools

I have to agree with the content people (jcowan). I am probably a few steps further along then most of the content camps with my experiments.

Today I can literally take *any* highly competitive keyword and give any customer a presence on all the major search engines on their first or second pages with content alone. And..the process is totally acceptable to the SEs.

Anyone that thinks content isn't the key to search engines: Take a look at every top listing and you will see government sites and/or directories with poor SEO techniques listing first and second.

Google has always frowned on the SEO world. Now they are just carrying that out.

The sites I use my techniques on haven't budged from the first pages of *all* the major search engines, and they are not going to because the content approach is a totally acceptable practice.

Think *content* people and work your tricks that way. You'll be amazed at how powerful it can be.

I have been watching the latest updates on Google with some interest and disappoint. Once content seemed to be king as it should be. Now, with the Floida and Austin updates content is less important then a directory or content linking. It is obvious to all that Google can filter out strong content commercial sites easily. I had dozens of sites that were squashed by Google that offered the user excellent content. My sites and sites like mine were replaced by those to get their authority by linking to us. So for me instead of trying to by-pass the annoying filter, I have decided upon a different approach. The top sites are directories, directories need rich content links, well simply get links from as many of these top sites as possible. Google might have added an extra step for the user who seeks my site, but they will get to me eventually.
I still keep my optimization for Inktomi so when Google's popularity dwindles because of the latest weakening of its own serps I'll be sitting pretty.

From the first Google-bombing, content hasn't been king. And it never should be king.

To quote:

From PageRank Wins

If content was ever king, the SERPs would be trash. It would be a race to include the keywords in the heaviest density.

By relying on off-page factors such as inbound anchor text and PR, Google preserves the quality of its SERPs.

We all know this to be untrue. To prove it untrue, all one has to do is go to www.google.com, type in a highly competitive keyword, and hit "Search"..

Feel free to provide a link to a SERP where one of your pages is listed top ten for a highly competitive keyword w/o inbound links.

No. Dell is not at #2 due to meta tags. If you think they are there due to meta tags, I can duplicate the page on one of my sites and see if it ranks top 1,000 for the keyword "computer". But I wouldn't want to waste my time, insofar as I believe we all know it wouldn't even show up for that keyword. Just as my SEO copywriting page doesn't show up for "ibad copywriting":

http://www.google.com/search?q=ibad+copywriting

It is in the meta tags. Now, Inktomi does rank pages for words included in the meta tags:

http://www.hotbot.com/default.asp?qu...ad+copywriting

See the difference?

Now, we all know about the Bush "miserable failure" thing.

http://www.google.com/search?q=miserable+failure

Go check the source code. Do you see the words "miserable failure" anywhere?

__________________
Internet Marketing

GREETING ALL,

Quote:
DON LEE

Some pages with less relevant content will still rank higher because of their higher rank, and I hate to see that happen.


Quote:
OneMoreBite

P.S. I found it amusing how many supposed SEO experts would simply use a company's own name as a keyword and then happily show them how they had a No. 1 listing. That's still pretty easy to achieve but who's going to search on your name unless they already know you? No one, that's who. I figured that was how the SEO firms could guarantee top 10 placement for all.





I only think in terms of "what can I control."

Site promotion is something I control.

Search engines are never a factor when it come to off-line promotions of my site.

OFF-LINE allows me to market to specific segments.
Classifieds, Print advertising makes it possible for potential customers to search on your company name or a specific company slogan.

You name it.

OFF-LINE combined with SEO and LINKS will keep your site in front of customers that need what you have to offer.

When it comes to SEO and LINKS both are very controllable!

You decide!

The search engines are not something that I can control.

However, I can continue to promote my site through them.

When a potential customer does a search. I want them to find my pages.

And I believe they will find relevant content. Mine or other-wise.

DON'T HATE!

What do you control?
SEO or Links you choose.

>>Quote from me:
Today I can literally take *any* highly competitive keyword and give any customer a presence on all the major search engines on their first or second pages with content alone. And..the process is totally acceptable to the SEs.

Quote from JohnScott:
We all know this to be untrue. To prove it untrue, all one has to do is go to www.google.com, type in a highly competitive keyword, and hit "Search".. <<

Exactly! now take a look at what comes up. Information! content! What google *wants*!

If I take a competitive term like say "website design", write an article about it, attribute the article to my client, submit it to cnn.com, and it's accepted...guess what happens????

The next day whoever puts "website design" in any search engine is directed straight to that article and my client. A top tier website with over 3 million viewers a day is now pointing at my client's website through a link. Can anyone compete with that kind of traffic? No, and my client is very happy.

Like I said, I can literally take *any* highly competitive keyword and give any customer a presence on all the major search engines on their first or second pages with content alone. And..the process is totally acceptable to the SEs.

You just have to stop thinking like an SEO and start thinking like a content creator. No SEO skills required whatsoever.

I wonder if you can send the 50k through Paypal? ;-)

Where did you see me say that "Dell is at #2 due to meta tags"?

I pointed out, in response to your comment, that in fact the page does contain the word computer(s). That's all. In response to your followup question, I said that in my opinion, meta tags make a small but non-zero contribution to Google ranking.

Look again: I also said very clearly that I am not debating the value/power of links to a site in determining Google ranking - only that I do not believe that the contribution of meta tags and title tags is zero.

__________________
Psychology Mental Health & Self-Help Forum
Online Counseling & Therapy | Mental Health Directory