Links are very important!

[simleon]

Im working on some sites as I am a Seo of an English company in Uk. I have noticed that a lot of sites are in first results with important keywords without any good text on that page or any good keyword density.

I know that this is because of back links, but how can them make such a diffrent? Site's with bad text, and often with no keywords on the page, is on 2° result on google with keywords that are so important.

Thas anybody know how can this happen?

Simone - Seo & Sem specialyst

[bsaric]

SE don't rank websites by "good content". SE also don't know what is good content. Links are important factor and thats the way things works.

The Keyword Density of Non-Sense (http://www.miislita.com/fractals/keyword-density-optimization.html)

[simleon]

content is keywords ... thats what i mean for content , and thats very important....

Simone

[bsaric]

Ok.

Maybe i did understand wrong, i do have problems with english also :).

[simleon]

Ya, when we talk about content in seo, its the content good for search engines, so title, good keyword density, file name ecc..

And that is the main thing on seo, with link building.

But what i was saying is that a lot of sites have incredil good results with no keyword density and very bad seo optimization but only with links.

So my question is, how can a search engine give a keyword toa site only with links??

Simone

[JohnW]

This is a fairly basic thing. Perhaps start reading here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

[jackson992]

and thus lies the problem with Google for the longest time.

[mcanerin]

Actually, it works more than it doesn't. For example, for a long time most of Disney's sites were flash and invisible to search engines.

However, due to anchor text, the search engines were aware that the site was relevant to Disney and ranked it accordingly.

Think about it this way - the anchor text in incoming links is treated as *virtual* content for your site. Therefore, keywords in the anchor text act as if they were on your page, to a degree. Therefore, you DO have content.

Ian

[simleon]

Does google look the content of the page from where the link comes from? Or its just the anchor text the important thing for ranking?

Simone - Seo

[mcanerin]

It looks at both (to deal with the "Click Here" issue), but puts a far greater emphasis on the actual anchor text.

Ian

[simleon]

Ya thats what i think, its very important,sometimes more important than on site seo.

Simone

[bsaric]

In most cases it is more important then onpage seo.

[mcanerin]

The problem is, that if on-site SEO was overly important, then it would be really, really easy to spam.

With links, it's only moderately easy to spam, and very difficult to spam total nonsense.

Back in 1995 or so, I did a search for my son - "Disney kids games" on altavista, which ruled the search roost at the time. The results were at least 3 pages of p0rn, with no Disney in sight.

When I checked to see why, I found that the owners of the sites had put black on black text for every imaginable keyword, from knitting to dog training, stuffed on page.

That's what happens when you let pure on-page SEO rule. P0rn gets served to kids by scumbags looking for "traffic". The reason many people have faith in on-page SEO is because they are not seeing the crap that is weeded out before it gets to them. We are talking virus loaders, pop-up hell, you name it. Ask is still bad for virus loaders, probably because they don't look at links the same way as the others (though admittedly their system works very well most of the time).

When Google came by later on, that same search resulted in the proper results, and Google quickly became the leading search engine BECAUSE it let links rule.

Don't forget history, lest it repeat itself.

Ian

[jackson992]

Ya thats what i think, its very important,sometimes more important than on site seo.

Simone

And that's the part I hate. Things should be mostly based on on the page.

[jackson992]

It is not hard to spot spamming of on page critera

[mcanerin]

It is not hard to spot spamming of on page critera

Really? If that was so then there would be no spam in SERPS, and my AltaVista example (which ONLY looked at on-page) would not exist.

It's easy to see stupid levels of keyword stuffing, but even that isn't spam sometimes - some words are easy to use a lot in some pages naturally. The problem with trying to identify spam using on-page algos is 1) spammers constantly test algos, 2) you can get a lot of false positives, and 3) it only works well for languages the programmers know. There are more languages in the world than English, you know - Google supports about 150 and that still leaves almost 2000 to go.

If you talk to a real spammer (not a script kiddy or wannabe) they will tell you (as they have told me) that what kills them is link analysis, not content detection.

Everyone, let me be real clear about this - link analysis and other off-page criteria measurment is not going away. No matter how much you complain about it.

If you are hoping to convince a search engine that your website is good, you will first need to convince some people. This is measured by links, tags visits and other indicators.

If you can't find anyone who is willing to link to you, then your site is probably in dire need of having it's content looked at, no matter how good it's "SEO" is. SEO isn't the point - useful content is.

There is no shortcut here.

Ian

[jackson992]

The only reason people go after links is for search engine rankings. This should tell you something.

[mcanerin]

The only reason *newbies* go after links is for rankings.

Experienced marketers have been using them to drive traffic since the web started, and long before Google and link analysis appeared. That's what the web is all about. Experienced marketers use PPC links, newsletter links, banner ads and many other links that don't affect rankings in the least.

BTW, for some people, SEO'ing pages, doing keyword research, and many other things are done only for rankings.

If search engines did not exist, then you would still require links to let people know where your site was. The same does NOT apply to on-page SEO. That's search engine only behavior, and that's what should be telling you something.

Ian

[jackson992]

not at all. If it wasn't for the search engines I would never get one link. I would much rather add thousands of more pages than go after links. On page SEO is done for the visitors so they know what the page is about. Unless you're a spammer and just repeat the same word numerous times for no discernable reason.

[mcanerin]

If it wasn't for the search engines I would never get one link.

Then you probably need better content, no?

I would much rather add thousands of more pages than go after links.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. It looks like you are saying that you'd rather generate spam content than get links. I would not recommend that, and it's pretty much a poster-child argument for link analysis.

On page SEO is done for the visitors so they know what the page is about

Huh? The page is about what the page is about.

The only reason to do on-page SEO is to tell the search engine what the page is about. Humans can figure out what a page is saying without an SEO getting involved.

People have been writing (books, scrolls, hieroglyphics, magazines) for a few millennia now and at no point was there any perceived need for SEO until search engines came along.

That's what the term is: "SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION". Not "writing skills", "communication skills" or "usability".

Unless you're a spammer and just repeat the same word numerous times for no discernable reason.

Spammers do a lot of things for reasons other than usability, from getting links they should not even be pursuing to stuffing keywords on pages to hiding things from people/search engines.

The problem I see here is that you don't seem to realize that SEO consists of good content AND good links. It's not either/or. Just focusing on one or the other will only work until someone using both techniques comes along.

Ian

[mcanerin]

If it wasn't for the search engines I would never get one link. I would much rather add thousands of more pages than go after links.

I've re-read this line and now it looks like you are basically saying that you would be happier adding content than pursuing links, rather than advocating spamming.

Assuming this is what you were trying to say, I agree with your philosophy - I haven't done any link building on my own site for years. I just make tools and write articles that people like to link to.

But that would not have helped me back in the old days when I first launched my site.

Let me give you an analogy I like to use. I used to do some work for a couple of record companies.

You are a music artist. What do you do to get people to listen to your music?

There are 3 basic approaches:

1) You can make the best damn music you can and let people find you and be amazed and delighted.
2) You market the hell out of yourself - interviews, videos, press releases, scandals, etc.
3) You combine the two methods.

Most artists start out preferring the first approach. It's the purest choice. They hope that by appearing at local clubs, the buzz will get out and they will naturally attract attention. It's also (not a coincidence - most artists are broke when they start out) the cheapest method.

While a commendable concept, it's also naive. The fact is that there are so many crap bands and wannabes doing the same circuit that it would be like winning a lottery to get noticed by the right people. Actually, I think your chances are better for winning the lottery.

Some of the best artists in the world are unknown right now, and will be unknown forever. This is a damn shame, but it's the way the numbers work. This is musics "long tail". They will often have a small but loyal following. Not many people come, but most that do, stay.

This is the equivalent of a content-only strategy.

The second approach is the pop-music approach. Build a huge buzz and push it like crazy. This can create one-hit wonders and the flavour of the week. Often the main talent of the "artist" is looking good, rather than their musical talents.

This can be very successful in the short term. It's also very expensive and behind the scenes is very time consuming.

The end result though, is that the flavor of the week disappears into obscurity next week. The people come, but do not stay.

This is the equivalent of a links-only strategy.

The third approach is the combination of the two. You create the best damn music you can and market like crazy. This is the hardest method, of course.

It's also the best. Think of the artists you were listening to 5 years ago, and still listen to today. I'll bet very one of them is a great artist, and also has great marketing (videos, concerts, news releases, website, etc).

These artists are the most successful. Their marketing gets people to come, and their talent convinces them to stay, and to tell others. In the first scenario, you have people telling others, as well, but since it's a small group, the word of mouth doesn't work very well, and tends to be local.

For the same artist with great marketing, there are more people visiting and therefore more people spreading word of mouth. Once it hits a certain critical level, it can actually be nearly self-sustaining. The people come, and they stay.

This is the equivalent of a content + links strategy.

In short, you can wish that people will just magically recognise your talent without marketing, but it's not likely to be very successful. This is fine if you are a hobbyist, but not so fine if you are a business.

I know people who seem to think that their skills alone should get them a new job, and that they don't actually have to get off the couch and get their resume out there. I think they are still on the couch...

"If you market, they will come, if you have content, they will stay."

Ian

[dazzlindonna]

Ian, that post should be printed out by every webmaster or SEO, and tacked to the wall, for constant reference. Fabulous.

[simleon]

:p I agree!

Seo is the best part of a web based process, lets keep it live and professional, in every web team job on a project.

Simone - Seo

[jackson992]

I can get many more products up on my site and it feels more like progress than the drudgery of getting links. There's not enough hours in th e day to add more products for merchants as it is lol. In the beginning, links were used but not valued nearly as much as they are now. Any time a phrase is searched for and that phrase is not found anywhere on the page, then that is a bad search result.

[jonratcliffe]

"If you market, they will come, if you have content, they will stay."

Well done mcanerin, a great post and great advice. Its advice that all (web) business owners should read aswell as SEO's and Developers.

Its amazing how many clients don't think in terms of repeat visits, placing quality content far below superficial appearance effectivelly lining themselves up for the quick win/1 hit wonder scenario.

I can already think of a few clients who could benefit from this advice!

[PhilC]

If you really want to know what it is that makes links so powerful, read this article (http://www.webworkshop.net/google-and-inbound-links.html).

[simleon]

PhilC, the article is just perfect, good job and thanks.

Simone - Seo

[fabiob]

Content is king and it will be more so as people keep exploiting linking for the sake of ranks. Although it still is true you can optimize a site with little content, a lot of useful copy will go a long way to rank well. After all, what are the SEs looking for? The answer is simple: the best possible user experience. If I am doing a search and the top results returned are of sites with little information, I will move on. The theory that a site is more important as many others are linking to it was fine and justified in the past until people exploited it.
When was the last time that anyone searched for something, found a site with little information about what they were looking for and said: "Great site!". We can say with some degree of certainty SEs are employing and/or testing semantic text relationships and various other AI technologies. At this stage there is a lot of human input in programming but eventually it will be completely unattended.
All these companies in India, Pakistan etc who specialize in link development may quickly go out of business if they do not adapt and get some English majors who can write for users and SEs alike. Writing takes a lot of effort and research but in the end it will pay more than any reciprocal linking strategy.
Building sites with users and search engines alike in mind is the hallmark of SEO services.

I am not saying by any means linking is dead. It just needs to be done correctly. Exchange with related sites, post articles, subscribe to relevant and important directories, issue optimized press releases. Do not waste time reciprocating with a children's apparel company if you are selling steaks....

[PhilC]

It still makes me smile when I read posts that declare content to be king. It also makes me smile when I read the same message from search engine people - "my advice is to create good content", etc. Matt is always saying it - he says it again in his recent videos. It's the party line - but it doesn't work!

Content was king before Google came along. Since Google became the #1 engine, and other engines copied them, links have been king. Even Google's newest major update (Big Daddy) was largely about improving their handling of links, because they rely so heavily on them for their rankings. In the future, the semantics of content will undoubtedly take over from links, but that's the sometime in future, and we are living in the present.

We can say with some degree of certainty SEs are employing and/or testing semantic text relationships and various other AI technologies.No we can't. You can guess at it, but that's all you can do. I can say with total certainty that semantics-based engines have existed for several years, but only small, niche ones. Doing it with a large scale engine is very different, and may not happen for a long time yet. In the meantime, content helps, but links are king.

[fabiob]

It may make you laugh but I am putting the money where my mouth is. Take a look at www.greatgiclee.com. Lots of content, ranks #1 for giclee in Yahoo!, it is on page 1 in Google for the same term. We designed the site with a lot of relevant information (compared to competitors) and done very little linking. Google backlink check only shows one back link. Last time we did some linking was months ago. It outranks many other much more established sites.

Again, it is common sense: if I was a SE engineer I would try to weed out people who want to rank high by linking everywhere and reward good information rich sites. Besides, read my post more carefully at the end.

Quote: "I am not saying by any means linking is dead. It just needs to be done correctly. Exchange with related sites, post articles, subscribe to relevant and important directories, issue optimized press releases. Do not waste time reciprocating with a children's apparel company if you are selling steaks...."

Or are you advocating free-for-all link exchanges? Because if you are, then we very much disagree.

As for text recognition, I am well aware it's not a new thing but it looks like we agree it is in the future.

[PhilC]

giclee isn't exactly a competitive searchterm - I've never heard of the word - whatever it is. Content really does get rankings when there is little or no competition.

Again, it is common sense: if I was a SE engineer ...That's the problem. We all think about what we would do if we ran a search engine, but what we would do and what the engines actually do differ greatly - largely due to restraints of one kind or another.

Or are you advocating free-for-all link exchanges?I don't think I even hinted at that. Links are king at the present time - that's all I said.

[Marcia]

giclee is not exactly a high dollar money making commercial word that could be considered even moderately competitive.

It may make you laugh but I am putting the money where my mouth is. Take a look at www.greatgiclee.com. Lots of content, ranks #1 for giclee in Yahoo!, it is on page 1 in Google for the same term. We designed the site with a lot of relevant information (compared to competitors) and done very little linking. Google backlink check only shows one back link. Last time we did some linking was months ago. It outranks many other much more established sites.Google does not show backlinks. Rather, take a look at what Yahoo! Site Explorer shows for backlinks

http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=http%3A%2F%2Fgreatgiclee.com&bwm=i&bwmf=s&bwmo=&fr=slv8-msgr&fr2=seo-rd-se

420 links (including an ODP listing). And the keyword is in the domain name, and is therefore present in anchor text.

[jackson992]

I also agree that links are king. Remember not all sites are for informational purposes. Not all sites want content like many sales and coupon sites. The reason these sites do so well is beacuse of their links.

[fabiob]

Giclee is more of a competitve keyword you may think...The site is bringing over $300/month in Adsense revenue and single words are hard to optimize for. To buy a top 3 rank in Adwords for the keyword, last I checked, it was $1.31 a pop. We managed PPC for the term and it was costing about $600/month. As for the Google backlink check, I am well aware it does not show many backlinks. Yes, I know what I am going to hear now: Google also does not show many backlinks that are relevant, such as DMOZ etc. Well, this is what Google reports. Every time we optimized sites we saw ranks and PR go up when backlinks were added and recognized by Google. Going back to "content is king", with 2 sites being pretty much equal in the amount and quality of backlinks, the one with better content will always outrank the other.
As for the comment about not all sites being informational, I agree in part. It should not stop sites with ie coupons, to actually describe deals. There are some sites out there that continuosly refresh content to show and explain the best deals. Besides, many of these "coupon" sites receive a great amount of incoming links from others who believe the site is valuable.

[Marcia]

Take a look at www.greatgiclee.com. Lots of content, ranks #1 for giclee in Yahoo!, it is on page 1 in Google for the same term.

Google search for giclee - #9 (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-11,GGLD:en&q=giclee)

Google search for inanchor:giclee - #10 (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-11,GGLD:en&q=inanchor%3Agiclee)

[SEMBasics]

If it wasn't for the search engines I would never get one link. I would much rather add thousands of more pages than go after links.

But, of course, we are interested in search engines because our potential customers are interested in search engines. People need a way to find the sites that they are interested in, and search engines are one of the more popular ways of doing that on the web. So in order to market our site it is important to be aware of how it is that the search engines determine results.

What is interesting is that the search engines actually want what you are referring to -- they want us to ignore links and focus on content. They simply use links as a means of indicating relevancy. As the search engines get better at weeding out spam we are going to find a return to the focus on content - but that content will not be limited to our sites only. People who are able to add value to the web as a whole (by writing quality articles that link to their site, adding worthwhile comments on blogs and forums, by writing quality, interesting press releases which lead to interesting news stories, etc.) will start to find that they rank better in the search engines as they start to attract the kind of links that Google likes.

Of course, this may mean that there are great sites out there which don't get noticed by Google, but no search engine can be perfect. Google needs a system whereby they can provide their customers with relevant results. Their system is to rely heavily on incoming links. Of course, any short comings in this system leave room for other search engines to develop other means of returning "relevant" results. Whether or not this will happen is another story, but it certainly seems to me to be a practical possibility.

In short (if that is still possible at this point:)), given that Google wants quality content in their search results, content will become a more important factor in ranking well in the future, but only that content which receives the types of links that Google likes. At the same time, this leaves open the possibility for other search engines to develop other means of determining relevancy which will favor different types of quality content.