BobbiSpruill205

It may be Queen, but it is absolutely not King and I'll tell you why. I'm truly tired of hearing the virtues of content when all of the search engines put more worth on off-site influences. If content material really had been king and you had ten sites that were all on the same topic, effectively written and optimized, how would the search engines decide which internet site was most relevant? One of those internet sites is going to have to be very first and 1 of those sites is going to have to be tenth. Properly, Google found an answer for this and that is off-internet site influences, especially hyperlink recognition - internet sites linking to your site. Every internet site linking to you is a "vote" for your site saying, "this website is about so and so."

This off-website influence is so strong that internet sites can rank incredibly properly for terms that never even exist in the site's copy. If you search "miserable failure" on Google the #1 website 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 web page. If content is king how can a web site rank #1 for a term that does not even exist on the web page? Is not this telling us that content material genuinely isn't king and that link reputation is truly the reigning power?

I have a website that I put up for my mom's book all about chastity, sex and relationships. The complete book is available to study on the web either on html pages or pdfs. The content material is relevant and beautifully written. Is is #1 for chastity in any of the search engines? No. Why? Due to the fact it lacks hyperlink popularity.

Content material is not King and probably never will be. It absolutely helps, but it will by no means give you the weight in search engines that link reputation does now. advertisers