Content is NOT king!

[pdstein]

Anyone who has spent 2 weeks in the field of search engine marketing knows that when search engine representatives are asked, "What does your search engine look for?" they always reply with, "Quality content." But is that really the case?

First of all, let's understand the motivation behind the response. When a search engine rep is asked "What does your search engine look for?" they understand there are two main groups of people listening to the answer.

One group is search marketers. To them "What does your search engine look for?" means "What do I have to do to get my site to the top of the rankings?" Search engines strive for relevancy. They don't want search marketers manipulating the results to get their site to the top. So by telling search marketers they are looking for quality content, they are hoping search marketers will stop trying to use gimicks to get their site to move up in the rankings.

The other group listening to the search engine reps is the search engine users. To them "What does your search engine look for?" means "What can I expect to find at the top of the results when I use your search engine?" As search engines fight it out for market share, relevancy is the #1 thing people look for. Saying their search engine looks for quality content is telling search engine users they put relevant, quality sites at the top of the rankings.

Does anyone really think search engine reps are going to tell search users, "We put sites whose owners have spent hundreds of hours exchanging links with other sites at the top of our results even if their content is bad?" Or "We put sites that have a keyword density of X at the top of our results even if no one has ever heard of the site?" Obviously not. So let's all agree that "quality content" is going to be the company line, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Second, "quality content" is more or less a matter of opinion. Two human beings can read a web page and one might think it's quality content while the other thinks it's crap. If human beings can't agree on what constitutes quality content, how is a computer algorithm suposed to measure quality?

It's tough. So, algorithms look at quantitative, measurable aspects of a web page that tend to imply quality - inbound links and the "quality" of those links being the most prominent right now.

It's analogous to diagnosing an illness by looking at the symptoms. If you want to know if a person has the flu you check their temperature, ask if they have a headache, look for a runny nose, etc. The closer those symptoms resemble those of the typical flu sufferer, the higher confidence you have that that person has the flu even though you've never done a DNA test on the organisms floating around in their blood stream.

It's the same way with search engines. They are looking for symptoms of a quality site. The closer the observable, measurable symptoms of a site resemble those of previously observed quality sites, the higher confidence the search engine has in the quality of that site and the higher that site will rank in the search enging results.

As anyone who has tried to play hookie by faking an illness knows, symptoms can be manipulated. Just touch the thermometer to simulate the symptom of a fever. Eat a couple chili peppers to show signs of a runny nose and watery eyes. In the same way symptoms of quality content can be simulated by search marketers.

The bottom line: quality content is NOT king - the apperance of symptoms of quality content is king.

================================================== =

pdstein is an ordinary guy who while consuming beer becomes capable of extraordinary random thoughts on search marketing.

[Dcrux]

Great post. And it sums up the SE position rather nicely. There might be one small point to add.

Many sites are not doing SE positioning for their health. Bad, or even fair content, doesn't convert to sales very well.

The point is cost ...and the more ineffective the content, the more you have to depend on SE gimmicks and SE companies. So let's all agree that "content isn't king" is going to be the company line of companies selling rank, regardless of whether it's true or not.

As guess what. The more vapid, ineffective, and interchangeable pages get, the less relevant search engines get. Google instinctively knows bad rank poisons the well -- a fact SE experts find inconvenient. Not to mention another inconvenient fact: good content generates linking without the hard work, or SEO expense.

True, everybody has a different idea of what good content is. But targeted traffic has to see certain things or they will leave. You can test content and headlines and see how long people stay, or not. You can see user defections in your web analytics, and your wallet. The ugly fact for the content camp: you actually have to target and understand your audience.

Something every sort of writer has had to come to terms with, from copywriter to information provider.

The message from the purveyors of raw traffic is predictable: more traffic. Make no mistake, high traffic low-conversion sales are not cost free, eating up bandwidth the client has to pay for.

As I've written in this section, not every "king" is a good one. Some deserve overthrow. So it is with bad content. Most content needs expensive and chronic SE gimmickry because it can't rank without it. You can see how this plays right to the content-isn't-king bottom line of SE firms. A more productive discussion might be to see how good content and good, targeted traffic, work to complement each other.

[dburdon]

PDstein,

a good summation. I would agree, content is not king. But it should be.

Unfortunately all the major engines use a short-cut to ascertain content. They automated their content analysis. Its the only way that makes economic sense in a vast and dynamic world linke the Internet. In implementing their short-cuts the engines have allowed people to manipulate the results.

Whatever technique -on page or off page - the engines come up, with people will attempt to manipulate the results. Just look at the hue and cry immediately after Jagger. Now everything's gone quiet. Do you think that's becuase the SEO community is satisfied with the status quo? Of course not. We're all out there trying to crack the code.

The value of a top organic ranking makes cracking the code a lucrative business.

[Faglork]

As I've written in this section, not every "king" is a good one. Some deserve overthrow. So it is with bad content. Most content needs expensive and chronic SE gimmickry because it can't rank without it. You can see how this plays right to the content-isn't-king bottom line of SE firms. A more productive discussion might be to see how good content and good, targeted traffic, work to complement each other.

Exactly ... very good point.

Additionally, "good" and "bad" content is NOT "more or less a matter of opinion". You can actually meter the success of good content - you just have to watch how your visitors behave after you improve the content. See
http://www.sun.com/980713/webwriting/
for an example.

Good content is content which generates ROI and does not detract from it. Whatever ROI may mean in a given case - it could spell "a better informed audience" as well (think consumer protection websites et al.). And mind you, we are not talking websites alone, on corporate intranets the quality of the content may save thousands of dollars as well.


faglork

[MsLeigh]

Content IS king, and I'll tell you why.

Links may get you high rankings, but your CONTENT sells your products. Your CONTENT answers the question that your customers are asking. Is your content giving the answers you want?

Yes, you were talking about search engines, but all the traffic in the world wouldn't lead to anything if you weren't getting what you wanted in the end.

So high quality content is king. Professional content by a professional writer, not that 'writer' you paid $2.00 for a keyword filled article. A good copy writer/SEO writer that can sell what you're trying to sell.

And that is what makes content king.

[DrTandem1]

With regards to Google's SERPs, no, content is not king. At least not directly. Google appears to deduce content from IBLs.

That being said, you can be #1 in your chosen SERP, but a lack of content or the ability of your visitors to find the content once they find your site is a deal breaker. No content, no sales.

I know of plenty of sites that are not found in the SERPs and do quite well with sales because of their content and products. How do people find them? Not through the SEs! They are found from traditional advertising and word-of-mouth.

Traditional internet marketing says traffic=sales. To a point, that is correct. No traffic will obviously get you no sales. However, the inverse is not true. It gives you the possibility of sales, but no content is about as bad as no traffic.

Furthermore, if your site takes forever to load, requires cutting-edge plug-ins, requires registration and has poor navigation, I don't care if it is #1 in the SERPs, your sales will be poor unless you have a hot widget that no one else has.

After all, the visitor is searching for CONTENT. Nothing is more annoying than going to a site that doesn't deliver what was expected.

[pdstein]

MsLeigh & Faglork, content IS king when it comes to conversions. Once a visitor is on your site it's content (and usability) that is going to turn him or her into a buyer. However, this topic about search engine rankings.

[Peaforabrain]

Yes, theres always an analogy, content is not a King but a Prince. I get the impression that all the other SE's go for page optimization whilst Google likes content, not necessarily good quality though. It especially likes lots of content and if you have ever competed with a big site such as Alibaba for keywords, you will know its difficult.

Big Article directories are the same and if you happen to compete with an article on an article site using the same keywords, the only way to beat it is to have thousends of incoming links. So with a new website, getting enough links is hard. Articles are the backdoor to SEO, you can promote your website and stand a good chance of beating the competition simply by submitting articles relevant to your subject.

Obviously the best way is to have lots of good quality content, lots of links and SEO pages. This comes with time if you work at it.

[Andilinks]

pdstein

You have indeed identified the SE company line and their rationale for it.

What you've neglected to say is that yours is a very good SE marketer's company line and your motivation for using it is much the same as the SE's. That is, to maximize profits by persuading your clients and potential clients.

Maximizing profits is a very good thing and I very much approve. :) However you may not always be creating wealth--sometimes maximizing profits means merely playing a zero sum game and transfering wealth. SE marketers usually don't care if they are creating wealth or transferring it, and often the search engine doesn't care either.

Those who don't care are just spam in the system. I don't want to appear overly moralistic, but I do think everyone should ask themselves this question: Am I creating wealth or just transferring it? Yes, I think SE marketers can create wealth by keeping the search engines honest. They also can engage in legal theft by stealing the best result from the searcher, I've seen it.

Andi

[jackson992]

One thing that hasn't mentioned is what constitutes content. Do I have long written articles on my site? No . I am an affiliate marketers and my conent is in the terms of what products I have listed, the prices and what store sells it.