What's the single most important ranking factor for Google?

[PixelStreamed]

What is the single most important factor for getting ranked in Google? I believe that it is the amount of incoming links and the anchor text from these incoming links that rank you for certain keywords. I just need others to confirm this.

The reason I ask is because I've been able to get my sites ranking top 10 in Yahoo, but when it comes to Google my sites are no where near the top, and incoming links with the correct text links have been the weakest area of those sites. Thanks in advance.

PixelStreamed

[David Wallace]

This has been discussed and debated in many forums. Some will say links. Some will say on the page SEO. Some will say both.

I say it really depends on the site and the industry. It usually is a combination of both good SEO which includes optimizing title tags and html text and a good number of quality, relevant links.

However, I have a client that does not have any incoming links but a ton of great content who ranks tops for all their search terms. Why? Because they are not in that competitive of an industry and while there are others companies that do the same thing they do, they must not be marketing that aggressively on the web yet.

I also have some sites ranking well due to external links and anchor text in which they do not heavily reflect the keywords they are ranking well for on the site itself.

Usually though it is a combination of both and not one single factor.

[pleeker]

Yeah. Kinda. :)

With algorithms as complex as they are, it's hard to just say THIS IS IT, but yes, the big difference between G and Y is the importance of inbound links and the anchor text of those links. Like you, I have sites with few inbound links ranking very well in Y and nowhere in G. On-page factors seem to be more important in Y than G. With G, the whole issue of Googlebombs proves that you can rank well based on inbound links and anchor text alone. (G-bombs are extreme examples, but they make a point about the algo.)

[pleeker]

Agreed on the issue of industry and competitiveness, great post David. There are too many possible issues to just boil things down to one factor across the board.

[PixelStreamed]

This has been discussed and debated in many forums. Some will say links. Some will say on the page SEO. Some will say both.

I say it really depends on the site and the industry. It usually is a combination of both good SEO which includes optimizing title tags and html text and a good number of quality, relevant links.

However, I have a client that does not have any incoming links but a ton of great content who ranks tops for all their search terms. Why? Because they are not in that competitive of an industry and while there are others companies that do the same thing they do, they must not be marketing that aggressively on the web yet.

I also have some sites ranking well due to external links and anchor text in which they do not heavily reflect the keywords they are ranking well for on the site itself.

Usually though it is a combination of both and not one single factor.

When talking about this topic I should have stated I'm talking about competitive keywords. It's pretty easy for anyone to get ranked high when it comes to noncompetitive keywords. The keywords I target are usually only highly competitive or relatively competitive keywords because of course I want the traffic that comes with it. I will be running a test on how much of a factor incoming anchor text links have an effect on a sites rankings for a particular keyword by the end of the year. I really do believe that income text links play the most important factor for Google because of alot of trial and error. I've done things like kewords in alt text, images, keywords in URL's, keywords in the name of the HTML files itself and non have seemed to work for getting ranked high. The hardest test is the incoming text link factor because of the difficulty of getting other to link to your site, but I think I've found a solution to testing this, but it might take awhile and cost some money.

PixelStreamed

[Anthony Parsons]

I would agree with Dave.

#1 - non-competitive term allintitle: 5 = do it with your eyes shut and the phrase in the title only (1 page linking to it)

#2 - non-competitive term allintitle: 500 = do it with your eyes shut, however; now the phrase needs to go in the title, maybe a heading, and a few structured sentences. (1 page linking to it)

#3 - non-competitive term allintitle: 1000 = now starting to concentrate on other aspects possibly such as page load time, a few more inbound links, well written content, etc

That is only an example, nothing specific, so please don't analyse it. The point is; it doesn't boil down to one thing, it boils down to each individual page and the phrase in question your targeting upon that page.

[Mel]

IMO there is no ONE important factor in getting ranked at Google.

While I am of the opinion that relevant anchor text links are currently one of the most powerful ranking techniques, if they are not supported by relevant page content the page maybe outranked by other pages with similar anchor text but better content.

Certainly there is no point in getting rankings for sites whose SERP title and description does not encourage surfers to click through to the site. Additionally, if there is not strong supporting content when the surfer reaches your page, then you may have wasted your time too.

Come to think about it, I may be wrong, there may be one most important factor to getting ranked at Google;

A holistic approach to getting rankings.

[Irony]

I think, the right word is dedication.

[sem4u]

Simply:

Off-page: keyword rich text links

On-page: title

Of course you need to use more than one factor.

[AussieWebmaster]

Being linked to by at least one place... have to be spidered to be in Google so that would be the first and most important step.

[JohnC]

... patience

The patience to keep learning
The patience to keep testing
The patience to keep changing
The patience to keep going

[bhartzer]

Mel is correct in saying that there's not one single thing. But, if you don't have any links to a site that will pretty much prohibit you from getting rankings.

[PixelStreamed]

Yeah. Kinda. :)

With algorithms as complex as they are, it's hard to just say THIS IS IT, but yes, the big difference between G and Y is the importance of inbound links and the anchor text of those links. Like you, I have sites with few inbound links ranking very well in Y and nowhere in G. On-page factors seem to be more important in Y than G. With G, the whole issue of Googlebombs proves that you can rank well based on inbound links and anchor text alone. (G-bombs are extreme examples, but they make a point about the algo.)

you have the same view as i do...thanks for the input...hopefully i can test the off-page factors more....these are alot harder to test though than the on-page factors.

[SEO Guy]

The question was "Most Important" and there is an answer.

Ask yourself in a VERY competitive market, is there 1 thing I can do in excess to rank well while not doing any of the others, the answer is YES

IBL (BAcklinks with appropriate anchor text) can dominate any market, an example I like to give is delphi.com take a look at this cache http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:r5kD35m3Ns0J:www.delphi.com/+forums&hl=en the term "forums" does not appear anywhere on the page, in fact google itself says "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: forums"

Just like the misserable failure or anything easily show, backlinks trump all other factors.

You will never add an H1 and jump to the top, or just add a title, or just add an alt tag (Which dont help at all) the fact is its a combonation for the rest of the factors but with enough backlinks alone, anyone can rank for anything.
My 2 cents

[Dodger]

Come to think about it, I may be wrong, there may be one most important factor to getting ranked at Google;

A holistic approach to getting rankings.

I am so proud of you Mel, you did not use your computers and Apple analogy. Your points are well spoken too.

I think this question is like the proverbial dead horse, it has been beat one too many times...and quite frankly is a waste of time to even discuss.

...I'll be moving on now. :D

[PixelStreamed]

The question was "Most Important" and there is an answer.

Ask yourself in a VERY competitive market, is there 1 thing I can do in excess to rank well while not doing any of the others, the answer is YES

IBL (BAcklinks with appropriate anchor text) can dominate any market, an example I like to give is delphi.com take a look at this cache http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:r5kD35m3Ns0J:www.delphi.com/+forums&hl=en the term "forums" does not appear anywhere on the page, in fact google itself says "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: forums"

Just like the misserable failure or anything easily show, backlinks trump all other factors.

You will never add an H1 and jump to the top, or just add a title, or just add an alt tag (Which dont help at all) the fact is its a combonation for the rest of the factors but with enough backlinks alone, anyone can rank for anything.
My 2 cents

you are the man! you answered my questions...that is what i thought i just needed some proof and some confirmation.

the george bush "miserable failure" deal never crossed my mind.....and the link is even more proof......at least now there is some hard evidence..thank you for your excellent insight!

[SEO Guy]

Dodger. what makes a cliche?

More directly why are their dead horses?

Its because some questions are so natural that unless the answer is easily accesible they will be asked over and over. We as seasoned vets lest not forget that at one time we asked "Hey guys what do you think google gives the most weight to"

Im sure my early posts in forums consist of "how do you get an avatar" "what i a backlink" and Im not in Google, why?" Actually it was more like I think My SEO is ripping me off, how do I tell if he's doing his job lol"

Anyways we should never discourage those who dont know from asking, thats what we are here for, arent we?

[Dodger]

Im sure my early posts in forums consist of "how do you get an avatar" "what i a backlink" and Im not in Google, why?" Actually it was more like I think My SEO is ripping me off, how do I tell if he's doing his job lol"

Anyways we should never discourage those who dont know from asking, thats what we are here for, arent we?

If the question came from a someone who did not understand, then I would not disagree with you on that. But PixelStreamed seems like a very intelligent person and appears to have been around the block on this issue.

Most of the people in this thread I recognize, and I also remember similar threads from various boards being replayed like a distant echo. But one thing had changed, and it is Mel's response which really surprised me and it is probably the best answer to the question overall.

[SEO Guy]

Who is Aaron :D

Anyways I gues I can empathize, I get tired of the same old same old if its the same user posting the same question, I dont know him nor have I seen him post so I must give him the benefit of the doubt when replying.

[Mel]

If the question came from a someone who did not understand, then I would not disagree with you on that. But PixelStreamed seems like a very intelligent person and appears to have been around the block on this issue.

Most of the people in this thread I recognize, and I also remember similar threads from various boards being replayed like a distant echo. But one thing had changed, and it is Mel's response which really surprised me and it is probably the best answer to the question overall.

Dont be too surprised Ron, if the question had been phrased differently, my answer would have been different:

Q:Which is the strongest ranking factor on Google
A: Anchor text links

Q: Which is the single most important factor for getting ranked on Google.
A: There is no single factor that works by itself.

[Alavina]

What is the single most important factor for getting ranked in Google?

Single most important factor: have a great site your visitors like. Traffic will pick up as will your ranking. Seriously, great content is the best thing you can do. This way your page ranks high on many keywords and in all engines, not only what you contemplated.

[Mel]

Can you please explain how having great content is going to get you great rankings in Google?

For example, great content with no header content does not equal great rankings

Great content with no inbound links means no Google listing, hence no rankings at all.

Great content with few anchor text links means poor rankings for competitive terms.

I think it may be a little more complicated than "build it and they will come"

[AussieWebmaster]

Again it is domain name, tiltle and inbound links in that order.

[Mel]

Domain Name???

[Dodger]

Oh boy ... I am staying out of this one. :eek:

[Anthony Parsons]

The question was "Most Important" and there is an answer.

Ask yourself in a VERY competitive market, is there 1 thing I can do in excess to rank well while not doing any of the others, the answer is YES

IBL (BAcklinks with appropriate anchor text) can dominate any market

First let me say bravo to SEO Guy for actually stating that. Let me also expand on this one.

Being one that delves with the very highly competitive market, backlinks is everything, however PR is not. Just recently an article was released with some information quoting Matt Cutts. He was quoted saying, "thematic incoming links from authority sites carry more weight than on-page optimization" and to further, "If you're not alternating your link text, especially if you're buying links, you may be harming your rankings. Identical link text, looks like (and 9/10 times is) a sign of manipulation of its PageRank algorithm."

The funny thing is, is that some people here who are too busy thinking about the Google conspiracy theories completely overlooked the point, what he said was spot on the money at present. Chasing terms for clients around the 20 million mark allintitle, I know the importance of backlinks. One of my clients competitors ranks in the top 10 with only 10 backlinks recorded in Google, nothing flash PR wise, but all topic relevant sites on quality pages with very few, if no other links pointing out. That is within a competition factor of 12 million to 19 million for the two main keywords. The site ranks #9 with 10 links.

If you think link factor, site and page relevance isn't important, as SEO Guy stated, IMO you have rocks in your head. So if you think about it, and spend most of your time working out your linking strategy, you can be untouchable. Being a realist, the downfall is, when the engines change how they evaluate links, and they will change, then goodbye site. This is when, IMO, all other factors should be used in conjunction with healthy links to achieve stability. {my disclaimer}

(Don't ask me for the site or market either please. A few very choice people who post here know about it as they required too}

[Jeff Martin]

Can you please explain how having great content is going to get you great rankings in Google?

For example, great content with no header content does not equal great rankings

Great content with no inbound links means no Google listing, hence no rankings at all.

Great content with few anchor text links means poor rankings for competitive terms.

I think it may be a little more complicated than "build it and they will come"

Something we need to keep in mind, putting aside PR/link networks (we all know a buddy who has one going ;) ), is that to naturally grow your backlinks to their full potential you need to have great content. If your site doesnt present a value why on earth would I want to link to it? Why would established sites want to link to your site? Without great content you are at a disadvantage as sites that are authoritive (to users) and provide value will naturally encourage other sites to link to it (and maybe even get some great PR).

There great seeing new links pop up for your sites that you didnt even need to solicit. Now just fire off a few emails and ask them to use good anchor text and now, with your normally link building, your cooking!

[Dodger]

Just recently an article was released with some information quoting Matt Cutts. He was quoted saying, "thematic incoming links from authority sites carry more weight than on-page optimization" and to further, "If you're not alternating your link text, especially if you're buying links, you may be harming your rankings. Identical link text, looks like (and 9/10 times is) a sign of manipulation of its PageRank algorithm."

(Don't ask me for the site or market either please. A few very choice people who post here know about it as they required too}

Okay, I will. You are citing passages from a WPN article by Garrett French, who in turn was citing passagess from a post type report on the SES Conference by Alan Webb (aka Webby) at SEOchat.

The second quote you mentioned above was not directly from Matt Cutts, but was however more like Alan speaking out loud. The post was very insightful, but you have to read between the lines and do the "squint test" to evaluate whether it was directly quoting, summarization of the speaker, or the opinion of Alan Webb.

The post should be read first hand in order to understand what I am talking about :: Alan Webb Post (http://forums.seochat.com/showpost.php?p=84321&postcount=2) Look under the heading of "Link Building Basics" for the Matt Cutts quotation?

Then under Advanced Link Building find this passage :: It was also hinted that Google finds suspect a large number of links pointing to the same site with identical link text. It looks (and 9/10 times is) a sign of manipulation of its pagerank algorithm though the purchase of links and artificial linkage.

As you can tell, this is not a quotation from Matt Cutts ... it is a mixture of statements and comments from the author (Webb) himself. I read thru this post and found it blending concepts from the panel at SES and the speaker who was answering their questions. It was hard to differentiate between the two plus Alan's thoughts at the same time.

I think we need to be careful in second-hand quotations from articles that are quoting again without going back and reading the original article itself. Even the Garrett French article transposed the wording a little bit on some of the passages from the original post. This is the main reason behind not allowing testimony that is heresay into evidence in trial proceedings. Once the quote gets out, then it is often repeated and echoed tenfold across other fora -- and that is where rumors and further speculations occur.

I do agree with the opinions of Alan and what he sensed when he wrote that post. I just want people to understand that it is his opinion, and not a fact from Matt Cutts.

[Anthony Parsons]

I wasn't aware of that other post dodger...thanks for that, well pointed out. Well, I change my quote to Alan / Matt / Bugs Bunny / And anyone else who had their two cents in it; The fact remains the same however about links and the quality and authority factors. The people who spoke about it at the SES are on the money when it comes to links, especially with highly competitive terms.

[Dodger]

I thought Warner Brothers sent Daffy Duck to the SES, and not Bugs Bunny. Of course I could be wrong about that. :confused:

[Anthony Parsons]

I like a good laugh.....LoL :)

[NFFC]

>What is the single most important factor for getting ranked in Google?

Links.

>why on earth would I want to link to it?

For $ or trading.

>Why would established sites want to link to your site?

See above.

>Without great content you are at a disadvantage as sites that are authoritive (to users) and provide value will naturally encourage other sites to link to it

And the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The question you should be answering is "how does an auction site get links when they aren't ebay" etc, or to put it another way, how does the back bedroom webmaster get a foothold?

>citing passages from a WPN article by Garrett French

Rumour has it that Mr French ain't the most reliable of "reporters", I'd be very careful about making decisions based on his "facts", IMHPO.

[Jeff Martin]

>>why on earth would I want to link to it?

For $ or trading..

I think you missed the theme of my post: natural. Natural meaning no maney exchanges hands and not the "Hey link to me and I'll link to you" pitch. Your site offers valuable content and without you paying or soliciting, other sites link to your site.

And the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The question you should be answering is "how does an auction site get links when they aren't ebay" etc, or to put it another way, how does the back bedroom webmaster get a foothold?

Providing valuable content and/or a valuable service is one of the few natural long-term solutions to link bulding. In the very beginning, with no links, I post to every web directory I know of. I have a list going of every web directory I see. It makes it that much easier when my next client comes along to get the ball rolling.

[PixelStreamed]

I have a list going of every web directory I see. It makes it that much easier when my next client comes along to get the ball rolling.


mind sharing it with me.

[AussieWebmaster]

I have always operated under the premise believe half of what you see, etc.
Healthy sceptism will not do you wrong. In this like any other industry you have to work with the information available and only take it to heart after thorough testing.

[NFFC]

>I think you missed the theme of my post: natural.

I think it is the other way round, of course :)

We all know that a ferrari is faster than a trabant [sun rises etc], the question is how does my trabant beat your ferrari? The answer isn't content, its mad horsepower baby! As far as Google is concerned horsepower = links, good content certainly makes getting links easier, on that we agree, but thats just a means to an end.

If we are both looking to rank at Google we both know that links are the key, just because you [for example] take the content approuch as opposed to a "buy the links" stratagy doesn't make you any less of a link ho than the buyers.

[unreviewed]

"What's the single most important ranking factor for Google? "

"Tops", would be the HTML title tag.
Search engines index words, not phrases. However, a search query is a phrase, and pattern matching within the return results, rewards the SEO that places the exact phrase within the title tag.

... it is possible that a new SEO is reading this thread, looking for an actual answer. ;)

[NFFC]

>Search engines index words, not phrases. However, a search query is a phrase, and pattern matching within the return results, rewards the SEO that places the exact phrase within the title tag.

And how does that work for the single keyword guys?

[unreviewed]

NFFC, regardless ... it is the "single most important ranking factor for Google".

Doesn't matter if you are about The National Family Farm Coalition, or Nottingham Forest Football Club or the Nepal Football Fan Club. If you want NFFC, your single best bet, is the title tag.

[Anthony Parsons]

NFFC, regardless ... it is the "single most important ranking factor for Google".

Doesn't matter if you are about The National Family Farm Coalition, or Nottingham Forest Football Club or the Nepal Football Fan Club. If you want NFFC, your single best bet, is the title tag.


You are both sort of correct (NFFC & Unreviewed) The title does play a large role in describing to the engines what it will find upon the page. Links play an extremely important role when you step out of the non-competitive arena.

On page, or off, keywords (single or phrased) mean alot for click-through ratio. You can have all the links in the world pointing to a site, rank #1, but if the results don't generally show the terms that the person is searching, you won't get the click-through that the other results will. It is human nature to scan headings, etc etc. That's a fact and not up for discussion here. So what you both say is technically correct, however; there is NO one method that stands out from the rest to get rankings. As I said in my first post on this thread.

It comes down more to an effort on your behalf how you achieve your rankings. Depending upon the competition factor for the niche terms, depends upon how much effort you need to apply to achieve those rankings & stability. People always complain when their site disappears, and the reason most disappear is because they rely on few methods to achieve the rankings and forget about stability. The more you apply both on and off page, the better chance you have of gaining and maintaining the rankings for the long term and not hit and miss.

I think you are really hard pressed to say just one method, ever. IMO, you have to look at in in a linear fashion to begin; as you start off things are easy and all techniques are used in small equal portions. Once you begin increasing that competition factor, all the techniques increase in proportion to counter the competition factors. When you hit a certain point way up the top of the competition factors, then the scale is no longer linear and link authority really comes into play.

[nuttakorn]

In my research, I have seen most seo company bought the text links for getting one-way links from high pagerank website. I think this technique need a lot of money but It is a factor that you cannot leave. Google has announced in SES at London that the thematic link is more important than on the page factor.

Nuttakorn
Asiawebplus.com

[Anthony Parsons]

In my research, I have seen most seo company bought the text links for getting one-way links from high pagerank website. I think this technique need a lot of money but It is a factor that you cannot leave. Google has announced in SES at London that the thematic link is more important than on the page factor.

Nuttakorn
Asiawebplus.com

Buying PR value does very little actually with anything below a PR8 site. You then have to take into account, how many other links are outbound on that page and so on down the list. You can buy a PR7 link on rubbish page and have a PR4 link on an authoritive page kick its little backside all over the SERP's. If you have to buy anything, IMO it is authority and the advertising potential not PR.

If you are going to mention buying PR value, then you really should only talk about it at PR8 and above, cause that's where authority goes out the window to some extent and sheer power kicks in.

[NFFC]

>your single best bet, is the title tag

I disagree.

Give me your sites and the links but no keywords in the title or I'll give you my sites and no links and as many keywords as you like in the title.

Is that a fair exchange?

>your single best bet, is the title tag

Not at the sharp end, may work for NFFC [;)], starts to unravel at the top end, see loans as an example.

[Mel]

This topic tries to answer a question that may be unanswerable as it is phrased, but it is interesting and does show an interesting range of opinions, but consider this:

For a page to be even considered as a candidate for Google rankings on a particular search term, it must first have be listed in the Google hitlists for those terms, and as best I can discover this contetn comes only from the page title, the page content and the anchor text content.

IMO for an item to rank as the single most important it must be one of the three above, since without appropriate content in at least one of them the page is not even going to be considered.

[hulkster]

Single most important factor: have a great site your visitors like. Traffic will pick up as will your ranking. Seriously, great content is the best thing you can do. This way your page ranks high on many keywords and in all engines, not only what you contemplated.


There's lots of opinions of what can be done short-term (seems like high PR BL with anchor text is the winner there) ... but IMHO, content is king in the long-term ... build a "good" web site that is actually useful, and in the long-run; users, websites, search engines, etc. will pick up on it and you'll rank well.

My two cents,
alek

[Anthony Parsons]

>your single best bet, is the title tag

I disagree.

Give me your sites and the links but no keywords in the title or I'll give you my sites and no links and as many keywords as you like in the title.

Is that a fair exchange?

>your single best bet, is the title tag

Not at the sharp end, may work for NFFC [;)], starts to unravel at the top end, see loans as an example.

I just looked at loans in Google and the first three results do not have the word loans in the title. So what is the point again?

Loans actually went up in competitiveness from when you search the term, it has a competition of 44 million, and when you do an allintitle, it has a competitiveness of of 44.7 million. You're giving examples of what I said not too when you get into the competitive arena. The title does heaps in a less than competitive arena, but does very little in the competitive one NFFC.

NFFC, you're way off mate about the title in the competitive world, way off.

[detlev]

Hello everyone,

I just looked at loans in Google and there is only one top 10 result, (albeit number 2), without loan(s) in the TITLE. I know links are vital, but do not underestimate the TITLE tag. It will continue to be important for a very long time.

Links are the number one most important thing in Google, but you stand to do much better when the query is in the TITLE too. All search engines like to show the query in the TITLE on the SERP.

*cheers*
-detlev

[Mel]

Take a look at the Google SERPs for loans and look at the cache of the #5 result (http://www.dlservicer.ed.gov/.) where it says that the only place they found the term loans was in links pointing to the site, for some idea of the relevance of the title. But that said, two or three factors are better than one anyday, and you have to have a good page title to have a goodlooking SERP.

[AussieWebmaster]

Nacho Nacho Man...
Some serious eradication.... guess there goes a few links if they had signatures...

I have to agree that it is an argument in semantics to try and isolate a factor... it is not like we are going to just use one anyway!

[Dodger]

I have to agree that it is an argument in semantics to try and isolate a factor... it is not like we are going to just use one anyway!

So the answer to the topic question is .... All of the Above. :eek:

[AussieWebmaster]

So the answer to the topic question is .... All of the Above. :eek:
Exactly... we are chasing a tail but really want the entire body.

[NFFC]

With respect I think we need to focus on what the original question was:

"What's the single most important ranking factor for Google?"

It didn't ask for the top three.

The question was very clear, single was a big clue.

Having said that the original post somewhat qualified the question by stating that "but when it comes to Google my sites are no where near the top" despite good rankings at Yahoo.

I think many in this thread have fallen into the newbie trap, assuming that just because someone asks a question they know little about SEO, that's just insulting to the original poster.

Lets put it another way, if you ranked 11th for loans what would you do? Add more of the word "loans" to your title [loans, loans, loans, loans :)], add the word to your body copy, load up the alt tags etc etc.

Or would you work on improving IBL's?

[Dodger]

Lets put it another way, if you ranked 11th for loans what would you do? Add more of the word "loans" to your title [loans, loans, loans, loans :)], add the word to your body copy, load up the alt tags etc etc.

If I ranked number 11 for loans, then I would be a happy camper. Not to be sarcastic ... you need to talk in more realistic terms. It is like the "computers" analogy, all of these single word searches do not explain or prove anything in my opinion. This is why there is a discussion about c-indices going on in another thread.

But I will answer your question ... the single most important factor for Google and every other search engine (let us not obsess on just one) is balance across the board. All of the above.

[Mel]

With respect I think we need to focus on what the original question was:

"What's the single most important ranking factor for Google?"

It didn't ask for the top three.

The question was very clear, single was a big clue.

Having said that the original post somewhat qualified the question by stating that "but when it comes to Google my sites are no where near the top" despite good rankings at Yahoo.

I think many in this thread have fallen into the newbie trap, assuming that just because someone asks a question they know little about SEO, that's just insulting to the original poster.

Lets put it another way, if you ranked 11th for loans what would you do? Add more of the word "loans" to your title [loans, loans, loans, loans :)], add the word to your body copy, load up the alt tags etc etc.

Or would you work on improving IBL's?

What you would do depends on what you have already done.

If you have the word in your page title, adding three more repititions of it is not going to help, and if you have already used alt tags on you linked images, H tags with keywords and have the keyword in your page content in an optimum way, there is not much more that you can efectively do there.

Its worth remembering that you have only one page title per page and only so much content on a page to work with, but you can add an unlimited number on anchor texts links pointing to that page.

In this case you would work on your anchor text links to get higher rankings.

[newsphinx]

Can you please explain how having great content is going to get you great rankings in Google?

For example, great content with no header content does not equal great rankings

Great content with no inbound links means no Google listing, hence no rankings at all.

Great content with few anchor text links means poor rankings for competitive terms.

I think it may be a little more complicated than "build it and they will come"

The value of great content lies in that you win one-way links to your site, no need to exchange or buy links. Its hard to believe a site with GREAT content will not win incoming link in the long run.

[Mel]

And how do webmasters find out about all your great content so they can link to your site if you are not ranked in search engines, or start an email campaign or take out advertisements?

Your nice new site is one of twenty million or so sites, and the only way anyone is going to find your great content is if you market it somehow, at least at first, and the easiest way to do that IMO, is by ranking well in search engines.

The idea that if you build it they will come has been disproven too many times.

[seobook]

The idea that if you build it they will come has been disproven too many times.

totally agree

I have spread a couple sites about that I have seen in AdWord ads on sites, but usually most people do not naturally go out of their way to dig deep to find new resources. most people are lazy.

Someway your site needs to get noticed. People do not usually want to syndicate your articles until AFTER you make a name for yourself. Most ideas are not naturally self spreading ideas. the whole catch phrase quality content is somewhat bogus.

the quality which makes content "quality content" is its syndication. people can play that quality concept all they want, but it usually only works AFTER you have made a name for yourself. you don't make a name for yourself until AFTER you start marketing your sites or you are seen by some people.

for a long time I really believed in the quality concept idea, but the only ways the quality concept idea works is if
1.) you included viral marketing into the design or release of the product / service / site
2.) one way or another you have made a solid reputation for yourself.
3.) you are the only one in a market - usually rare
4.) you have such extensive value in your content that people can't afford not to link to it - usually rare

[bwelford]

One very important feature of any article is its title. The title is the only thing that's seen by the casual passer-by. So you should really work hard on that title so that it encourages someone to explore. Ideally the title should express the USP (Unique Selling Proposition) of your article. That's the reason why your article is so much better than all the rest.

[Anthony Parsons]

How about this for a different analogy then.....

Original Question: "What's the single most important ranking factor for Google?"

Answer: Authority!

[PixelStreamed]

This thread made it as an article at webpronews.com. Pleeker was actually quoted. Here's the link: http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20040615AreBacklinksTheMostImportantFactorInGoogle RankingsDependsOnWhoYouAsk.html

even though there are disagreements, this thread has been informative to see all the different opinions

[pleeker]

This thread made it as an article at webpronews.com. Pleeker was actually quoted. Here's the link: http://www.webpronews.com/insiderreports/searchinsider/wpn-49-20040615AreBacklinksTheMostImportantFactorInGoogle RankingsDependsOnWhoYouAsk.html

Well there ya go. And I can't help but notice that here on SEWF I've suddenly been upgraded from "Junior Member" to "Member." Cool. So there's one aspect of the SEWF Reputation algorithm: 1 media quote = one level member upgrade. ;)

[hulkster]

Well there ya go. And I can't help but notice that here on SEWF I've suddenly been upgraded from "Junior Member" to "Member." Cool. So there's one aspect of the SEWF Reputation algorithm: 1 media quote = one level member upgrade. ;)

Hulk glad Puny Human pleeker happy being a Member.
Hulk's title (see under Hulkster) speaks for itself! ;-)

[PixelStreamed]

Well there ya go. And I can't help but notice that here on SEWF I've suddenly been upgraded from "Junior Member" to "Member." Cool. So there's one aspect of the SEWF Reputation algorithm: 1 media quote = one level member upgrade. ;)

LOL @ SEWF algorithm....maybe it was just coincidence?