Why Your Quality Content Sucks...

[Trent Brownrigg]

Here is a post I just came across today about the latest Google update and the quality content people think they have on their sites. A lot of Warriors might be interested in reading it and some Warriors flat out need to read it...

Why Your Quality Content Sucks | SEO Theory – SEO Theory and Analysis Blog

Note - I didn't write it. It's not my blog. I gain nothing from posting this link. I just wanted to share it for the sake of sharing.

[jonnyrhinestone]

Thanks for the post!

[Happy_Balance]

Trent, I read it and liked it, thanks.

True today in 2011

High quality content is often overlooked in search queries when it’s outperformed by “optimized quality content”. That’s a sad fact of search engine life. The search engines make a pretty good effort to surface as much high quality content as they can but no system is perfect.

Urgent >>> Your might be happy to learn this:
Are *you* prepared for the near to medium-term future?

• The Semantic Web is finally coming.
• It has been developing for many years and the momentum is picking up.
• "SEO People" will be left in the dust, just like all other trend-followers and copycats throughout history.

Are you prepared for a better future, or still focusing on tired, old SEO?
The Semantic Web is finally coming soon!

[faysal969]

Thank you very much for sharing this nice link.

I like that article.

[Alexandre Valois]

Content is about user experience. It's time people start to realize it.

Content is not words. Content is not links. Content is what guides the user experience through a transformation and education process, and that's where the mythical "value" will be found.

Slapping rehashed content from your "research" aka plagiarised content is not valuble content. What new pieces of the puzzle do you bring to the table? What discoveries have you and your team made? What's your take and opinion on industry news (content curation)?

Think outside the SEO / Article Marketing lies mindset.

[kat38]

Interesting.

[BenoitT]

Great article reminding you shouldn't write for SEO but for humans

[donhx]

The article you referenced by Michael Martinez was totally unconvincing. Just more waffle on the topic and not very helpful.

"Quality articles" can be defined as content interesting enough that people will want to read and which rank high in search engines. They are not primarily link bait. Martinez mentioned exceptions, but there are always exceptions to everything.

[Kierkegaard]

I think it was a LOW quality article.

The main point was weak and certainly not worth the word count. The same idea was repeated over and over as the author rambled on and on. People who agreed with him before reading the article will agree with him after reading it, people who disagreed before reading will still disagree afterwards. Those sitting on the fence will probably come to the conclusion that it's not worth jumping off into either garden.

When we talk about quality content we're not talking about something like the difference between the quality and the tabloid press. We're talking about articles written for human beings for the purposes of being read by human beings. Basically we're using the word quality to mean that the articles have some degree of merit in their own right. Not just, in the words of T, 'jibber-jabber' to plaster adverts around.

Thus, a 'quality article' is an article that has the quality of being worth reading in its own right.

[Quentin]

I always thought that quality content was content that was original and was well written.

If this is true it will always rank well and get lots of visits.

All my sites have quality content and the dreaded Google bump very rarely effects our sites.

Quentin

[Happy_Balance]

Originally Posted by Quentin

I always thought that quality content was content that was original and was well written.

If this is true it will always rank well and get lots of visits.

All my sites have quality content and the dreaded Google bump very rarely effects our sites.

Quentin

That's the way it should be Quentin, quality not Spam.
Google is better than previous search engines, and a massive amount of low quality content still slips through.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by Kierkegaard

I think it was a LOW quality article.

A low quality article about the quality of articles? Hmmmm.

Paul

[Trent Brownrigg]

I don't think it's a low quality article at all. I guess that proves this point of his...

Your "quality content" might be HIGH quality content in your eyes and LOW quality content in my eyes. Which of us is right?

[Torreylee]

Originally Posted by BenoitT

Great article reminding you shouldn't write for SEO but for humans

I believe we should write for both if making money is a goal. If you write awesome copy for human but it's not found by searchers then we get into the "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" situation.

But yes great QUALITY content written with readers in mind is GOLD. But lets be realistic about SEOs power as well.

[TokiTover]

So what is quality content? If I find an article that helps me solve a issue then great. But that's all it is. Information that helped me out. Call it what you want.