Google is so Smart: Inbound Links or Unique Content?

[JamesF]

Hey guys,
I'm new to the forum here, but not new to seo or internet marketing. Major question:

Is Google smart enough to know good content and sites and rank them to the top even if they don't have much backlinks?

Case in point; one of my sites (magento store, not the one in my signature) ranks top 5 for a good, competitive keyword and has pr of 3, with 3 inbound links. Crappy links from one mini site I made and two from some youtube video descriptions. (<-- yeah, I'm baffled too) It does have the keywords in the title and descript though.

Now, to clarify and deepen my question is: if you put up quality content or make a good useful site for folks, with no link building; will it eventually rank pretty good because Google crawls the site and determines "hey, this is a pretty good site, but it has no links, but it's alot better and helpful than these other top 30, let's put them in top 10".. (without Google using factors like CTR, inbound links, bounce rate, etc.) purely from your content and figuring out somehow it's better and more useful than the other sites..


Just curious to see other's opinions..

Sincerely,
James F.

[jazbo]

Search is all about relevancy. Wriet good, relevant content and build links to it. Do your keyterm research, use ttools to determine related subjects, and keep building.

[Zeus66]

Google does seem to be getting better at distinguishing good, unique content that truly helps a site's visitors. But for any keyword that has even moderate competition, you can't ignore backlinks. I do think Google is in the process of downplaying the ranking power of backlinks from certain sources, but their architecture is too dependent on links to ever really ignore them. I am heartened by Google's most recent changes, which seem to be in large part about rewarding superior content and curbing attempts to game the system by crafty backlinking games. I think content wins out over the long run in any competitive niche, bottom line.

John

[JamesF]

So question: does revelancy outweight inbound links sometimes?

Can Google go "hey this site matches perfectly to this keyword and what users are looking for, even though the inbound links suck, let's rank this site over this site that is almost as revelant with 100 links"..

[Dean Martin]

It seems to me that bounce rate and time on the site is the easiest way to measure both relevancy and quality of content. I tend to think that Google's algorithm somehow figures that into the equation.

Maybe that's why relevant photos and videos seem to get my sites an immediate bump in the rankings.

[ChrisSTX]

Most people will argue that there are many factors (hundreds) that Google uses to determine rankings/placement in the SERPs. Out of these factors, the search engine algorithm is going to place different weight on each factor - i.e Title, Backlinks (one-way, reciprocal, link-wheels, etc), domain age and many more.

In short - Google is going to show you more love for backlinks that provide relevancy to your site/topic in which you are linking to, links from authoritative sites, etc.

Quality vs. Quantity - this is a arguable factor as well, and to give a concise answer, it really depends on your competition and the keywords and key-phrases you plan to target. The best answer to give in a situation like this is to just build your backlinks, and then track them and see what method works best for your domain in question.

Good content / "On-Page" SEO needs to be scrutinized as well. You may not see Pg. 1 right off the bat w/ on-page SEO, but down the road when you get those initial backlinks and your domain grows a little older - this could mean the difference between a position 8 and position 1 ranking - you would be surprised.

dlmartin is also spot on with bounce rate and time on page.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by dlmartin

It seems to me that bounce rate and time on the site is the easiest way to measure both relevancy and quality of content.

This can't be measured accurately in a statistically meaningful way due to differences in user behavior (opening links tabs, blocking tracking cookies, etc), site type (Digg has a high bounce rate for example), and so forth.

As for content, it's based on statistical relevancy between different words on the target page based on previous content Google has encountered. For example, 'tiger' might mean a large number of different things but if a page also mentions 'golf' that connects the dots statistically enough for Google to assume that the page is talking about Tiger Woods and not tiger conservation, a muscle balm or the computer retailer. The stronger your page connects the dots, the better it will rank for particular keywords.

[jaratvit]

it is logical to assume that if we focus on building GOOD/QUALITY content – Google needs to and wants to find it and rank it well.

[TheRetiredBuilder]

Originally Posted by dlmartin

It seems to me that bounce rate and time on the site is the easiest way to measure both relevancy and quality of content. I tend to think that Google's algorithm somehow figures that into the equation.

Maybe that's why relevant photos and videos seem to get my sites an immediate bump in the rankings.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!

YouTube - Is Google Analytics data a factor in a...

[yukon]

It's all about relevancy, nothing more!

[dude91]

Originally Posted by TheRetiredBuilder

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!

He was talking about search quality not SERPS !

[TheRetiredBuilder]

Originally Posted by dude91

He was talking about search quality not SERPS !

WTF?????????????

Maybe you should watch the video again and pay close attention to the last 35 seconds

[Groovystar]

Relevancy is a BIG factor. Offsite even more than onsite.

...My site might rise up eventually due to content and quality alone, but I'm not willing to wait another 4 years to see if it does :P It is awesome NOW and so it should be up there NOW