Content? Google Now Admits They Will Ignore Content

[Titans]

Content is king, but the problem is everyone + dog is pumping out similar content so now there are billions of kings out there.

Same reason why Google is now focusing on Twitter/Articles/Forum posts.

[Stephen Root]

How's this news? This is common knowledge to anyone who has bothered to actually study and research how Google ranks pages. Content has and will always be secondary and your site will never ever rank based solely on content. That has always been Google's idea.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Stephen Root

How's this news? This is common knowledge to anyone who has bothered to actually study and research how Google ranks pages. Content has and will always be secondary and your site will never ever rank based solely on content. That has always been Google's idea.

News is what is new to people. Many people have never heard Matt Cutt actually say that Google will ignore content even in a site it begins to crawl simply because it doesn't have enough backlinks

[jasonmorgan]

Originally Posted by Pat Jackson

Jason, why are you quoting my post to say that it's wrong?

Re-read my post below. I said exactly the same thing you just did.

I said situation 1 would be much more successful. The one that emphasizes backlinks over content.

My bad... sorry about that. I mis-read what you had written.

Been going bananas creating backlinks non-stop and my eyes are getting blurry... I think I see dead people.

[DesignerSurrey]

I kind of thought that content wasn't so important. The sites I compete with for my keywords don't have particularly good content but they do really well! It's the backlinks that count....

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by DesignerSurrey

I kind of thought that content wasn't so important. The sites I compete with for my keywords don't have particularly good content but they do really well! It's the backlinks that count....

Not really true. Content with backlinks is whats important. Theres no reason to not have both.

[seobro]

This is not rocket science. People pay for backlinx because because they bring traffic and juice. This is the pay per post model that is hated by the search engines.

[The_Slippery_Pie]

This has got to be the most confusing crap I've ever heard. First I'm told to get links, then I'm told to create more content, then I'm told to get links this way not that way. Where's the forum for absolute brand new people? I've got a headache!

[Mike Anthony]

NO need for a headache. If you don't take an either or approach the answer is simple.

Get Backlinks AND develop great content.

[Glassjaw009]

Mike, Thanked for sharing the vids.

[edpudol1973]

This is the reason why, there are many sites that have almost no content or very short content that rank well than other sites who have high quality content but lower back link.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by edpudol1973

This is the reason why, there are many sites that have almost no content or very short content that rank well than other sites who have high quality content but lower back link.

True for the short term but generally speaking a site with good content and enough backlinks to get traffic (from decent placement in serps) has a better chance of out distancing a one page wonder in the long run. There are just some pretty nice sites to get a link from that you will never get without good content.

[searchnology]

I think what most "content hawkers" see as a result of producing quality content is a fairly healthy amount of natural backlinking. They then discern that it is the content itself and not the resulting backlinks and therefore serps that bring them traffic.

It doesn't mean that they are wrong in that content is important but not specifically for the reasons they think.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

I've seen a few people here subscribe to the "if I build it they will come" philosophy of getting their site ranked highly on Google. Basically the theory goes that if you write great content and you do good keyword research you don't have to worry much. Google will reward you. Well I was recently going through some videos by Matt Cutt's and found two very interesting.

In the first Matt indicates flat out that even if you have tons of content Google will only crawl your site to the degree that it has backlinks. Here it is

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

So it means that if you create ton loads of content (even great content) Google will ignore much of it unless you have a number of backlinks to your site (notice also he refers to links to various pages on the site level not just a page when he discusses authority). You might have been under the impression that if Google bot found your site at all the bot would crawl through all your navigation.

The second video admits that Google may just flat out ignore your site entirely if its new and you don't have enough backlinks to it.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

So content is king only when your are being recognized for content (or building backlinks to your content) by other sites linking to you. Despite what Google says great content will not get you listed highly on their site. Every webmaster needs to know this fact. Maybe now people will stop saying that content is all you need to concentrate on. If you build it they won't come.

[MusicisMagic]

I don't think that is necessarily true...I think it's a combination of both content and backlinks..

[Solidsnake]

Google don't read content but follow links.. simple as that...

[Morpheo]

You guys need to listen to Cutts more carefully! He didn't say content wasn't king -- it still is -- there just isn't a variable in the ranking algorithm accounting for the shear size of your site. And this comes as no surprise at all. What? You expected that 10,000 blank pages would give you a SERPs boost? This is search engine spam control #1: don't incentivize shear volume. If this weren't the case, I would auto-generate a 10,000,000 page site in 30 minutes and outrank everyone.

The question posed to Cutts should have been phrased like this: Does the number of QUALITY pages affect authority? I my experience, whether directly accounted for in the algorithm, or just indirectory due to natural backlinking, YES volume of quality content possitively impacts your SERPs. Not to mention, it enlarges your "drag-net".

Think of your site like a giant stinging jellyfish hunting for a meal. If it has only 10 tentacles, it's not likely to catch much, and will probably go hungry. But if it has 1000 tentacles, it will catch more than it can eat. Mind you, as Cutts says, 1000 sting-less tentacles are absolutely useless.

EDIT: I've actually noticed that Google has an uncanny ability to "read" content when your site reaches an authority tipping point. Once it's large enough, my content gets ranked really well without a single backlink. That's because I build up so much authority that my own internal links are sufficient to do the trick. I just added a blog to my site with super quality content, and the blog's homepage went from PR0 to PR4 in a matter of weeks, with no direct linking.

What you guys aren't realizing is that quality content = backlinks. The two are inseparable in most niches. Unfortunately for IMers, your niches aren't very viral. Hence your spamming. If you were developing a Photoshop Tutorials site, good content alone would be sufficient to get you ranked well, not in itself, but in concert with the thousands of viral links it would generate. The best SEO is like jujitsu, you gotta leverage the weight of your opponent. To make that happen, you gotta build quality websites that get viral backlinks. Bottom line: we're forced to spam because we choose the wrong niche! And we choose the wrong niche because we're greedy and short-sighted.

[Manivannan]

gone are the days when content ruled.
Now it is the era of backlink domination.
anyway screw google algorithms!

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Morpheo

You guys need to listen to Cutts more carefully! He didn't say content wasn't king -- it still is -- there just isn't a variable in the ranking algorithm accounting for the shear size of your site. And this comes as no surprise at all. What? You expected that 10,000 blank pages would give you a SERPs boost?

I don't recall anyone in the thread making any such statement about blank pages. The whole point is not to state that content doesn't matter but that content without backlinks will be ignored. I listened to Matt VERY carefully. Did you even watch it? It has nothing to do with indexing blank pages. It assumes there is content and it is POINT BLANK clear that backlinks are necessary to getting a body of content in the index.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by Franco Mocke

Dor instance they keep telling us "no follow" links count for nothing and don't even get followed by the search engines, but I ranked a site of mine for a relatively good keyword with only using no-follow links, yet again proving they lie to the public.

Sorry I'm calling your bluff and would personally love if you could prove this since it would make my life a ton load easier. However I am going to bet that a you had follow backlinks or it was a near worthless term you ranked for.

Its too easy to come on a forurm and claim to have proof that you will share with no one that contradict nofollow. Way too easy. So wheres the evidence on this?

[theteach]

Well, I have to say this is interesting.

I have a video tutoring website with about 250 articles.

Last year, my friend purchased about 500 good niche keyword domains. Each domain had 1 page of content and few backlinks.

What's interesting here is that some of his pages had about half of the traffic that my website had in the same day!

Here's the kicker!!!! His sites that did the best, had Adsense on them whereas my articles don't have adsense.

I wonder if many of us are overlooking the fact that Google is a business that subscribes to the theory of 'if you'll scratch my back I'll scratch yours'.

Just my 2 cents.

[Joshua.E1]

In the past, content is king. Now relevancy and thrust are more important.

Having a a lot of web pages suddenly might not be a very good idea.

In this case for the two videos, I would suggest that we focus on a new page a day, get it link up by some authoritative sites if you can, if not get it link from some related forums.

Its better to build it a page a day then to build everything yet on one comes to your website.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by theteach

Here's the kicker!!!! His sites that did the best, had Adsense on them whereas my articles don't have adsense.

I wonder if many of us are overlooking the fact that Google is a business that subscribes to the theory of 'if you'll scratch my back I'll scratch yours'.

Just my 2 cents.

Well plenty of sites rank well without Adsense so if there is such a benefit it would be relatively small. Although to be honest its kind of funny that Google talks about inferior landing pages because I have always considered a heavily adsensed page an inferior user experience.