View Full Version : Content Still King?
12-14-2005, 03:05 PM
Is content still king when it comes to developing a site that will rank well in search engines? Does it not now have to at least share, if not quite give up, its thrown with/to link development with keyword anchor text?
I think content is still most important. Search engines do not really wish to deliver sites with lots of links. They want to deliver sites with high quality, relevant content, don't they? Links are just meant to be indicative of this.
But what do you think?
12-15-2005, 03:51 PM
I believe content is still king. After all, doesn't Google say they want to "organize the world's information"?
Interestingly enough, I just interviewed for an SEO job with an ecommerce company, and I had most of the required experience, just not much in terms of link building. The interviewee felt that ecommerce sites like theirs weren't going to develop as many natural links from sites looking for an informational resource, so she was very focused on linking strategies/campaigns.
How do you incorporate quality content into graphics-intensive, ecommerce sites? Also, what are some good linking strategies for ecommerce sites? It seems to me that search engines would rather have commercial sites get traffic from paid advertising than for free, so it does not behoove them to make it easier for such sites to dominate the free listings.
12-15-2005, 04:28 PM
I believe content is still king.
No content = a totally blank page, what would be the point of that?
Content: maybe this should be important useful, helpful, information.
12-15-2005, 04:37 PM
Hah, so far I'm the only one who voted "no"!
My reason? I just don't think it's that simple. Yes, good content is incredibly important on a website but there are so many other factors that affect ranking, traffic, etc.
Unfortunately the use of content on websites is being abused too. Copywriters are jumping with joy at the amount of work they are being fed, even though they are writing primarily for search engines, and not people.
Is content important? Absolutly. Is it king? The question is much too simplified, and choosing "yes" or "no" to me, aren't adequate choices.
12-15-2005, 05:55 PM
content is is all time king when you are thinking about google and other search engine also. good quality contets on your product and services which you are offering .
12-15-2005, 06:01 PM
Like Kerer99 I have voted "No". My rationale is simple. Content SHOULD be king. But it clearly is not.
Unfortunately I don't think conventional Search Engines stand a chance of ranking web-sites by content. Largely because things such as keywords are massively abused they have a very high failure rate.
My searches revolve largely around the biological sciences and if specific scientific terms are not used (as often they can't be) I get results even from Google (the best of a very bad bunch) where the relationship to the subject matter is at best loose and frequently non-existent.
In my field almost none of the websites can afford massive SEO costs and rely exclusively on content - absolutely first-class top of the field content - but the search engines serve up complete rubbish for the majority of their results often omitting these sites altogether even on specific key phrases.
I keep reading all the information re optimising sites and the importance of content. In practice, for those who have the time, effort and/or money it works - but that is to the benefit of them, NOT the poor soul who is trying to find information.
12-15-2005, 06:32 PM
iowarth has said it more simply than literally of hundreds of posts on this and other forums, in many threads. Most are concerned with whether the SEO is white, gray, or whatever; those rich in content are white, and rule, or will when the algos are finally right, and the black hatters are banished (they'll go to the same place as the pushers of soft campaign funds and pork barrellers, ha, but I wouldn't advise investing in real estate there just yet). So the story goes. None consider no hat though - the sorts of sites iowarth is referring to, the true "content is king" sites. Yes, they will rank high using scientific terms - compare a google search on "fly eye morphology" "fly eye design" and "fly eye shape" - but as the example shows, fail pretty badly when more common terms are used. "Spring travel", by itself, could equally refer to vehicle engineering or vacations. On SEs, it clearly refers to commercial travel sites, with one exception on G - a commercial stock car parts site. I'll bet there are some wonderful websites out there talking about the mechanics of spring travel, and other spring information. But, no SEO, no SERP position.
If content is King, it's like the king in chess - something to be proteccted, and rally round, but without much power; you have to have it, but the game is won by other pieces on the board. However, when it is taken away, the game is lost. Sad, but true, and hopefully this analogy won't predict the future of the web.
12-15-2005, 07:13 PM
My searches revolve largely around the biological sciences and if specific scientific terms are not used (as often they can't be)
Have you tried Scientific Search Engines (http://www.scientific-search-engines.com/) or Scientific weblogs (http://www.nodalpoint.org/node/1623).
Science Advisory Board (SAB), a panel of 25,000 life science professionals that runs nine different blogs. "Scientists were saying to us that there wasn't a venue where they could freely write about theirs and others' work," says Tamara Zemlo, executive director of communications at SAB. With this in mind, Zemlo helped create blogs such as Tools of the Trade, where scientists keep a diary of their experiences with products from companies such as Roche, VWR, and NEB.
-- The Power of the Blog; The Scientist (http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/8/1/37/1)
There is traffic from search engines. But there is also traffic from other sites. Not all content is linked, but it seems to be a growing interest.
12-16-2005, 02:37 PM
If you search “miserable failure” on Google the #1 site is Biography of President George Bush. If you search the copy on the homepage you’ll find that the term “miserable failure” does not even exist on the page. If content is king how can a site rank #1 for a term that doesn’t even exist on the page? Isn’t this telling us that content really isn’t king and that link popularity is really the reigning power?
ADAM Web Design
12-16-2005, 05:50 PM
Actually, the fact that Google, Yahoo! and MSN all turn up George Bush as the first result for "miserable failure" indicates that link popularity is the reigning power. Not Google by itself. :)
12-16-2005, 08:16 PM
I have several portals or should I say sub portals or modules on my website titled Meeting Junction .The revenue generating modules are the Dating, Classifieds & the Market place with lots of freebies thrown in. As it is a fairly new site & no budget for advertising, the revenue generated is not even half decent. However I have loads of content on the site. At the time of writing, the site Alexa ranking = 84,585 & the front page Google traffic rank = 3, whatever that means, which may be half decent, considering the fact that there is not much traffic to the revenue generating modules.
Mod edit = Please keep it relevant. Thanks, JKomp.
12-18-2005, 12:29 PM
"going door to door with this incredble offer?
That post requires a MODs touch.