What i do for ranking my blog ?

My main point was: don't get obsessed with SEO, it's only one form of marketing, but don't confuse SEO with other marketing forms.

And learn how to write for your clients, give them what they want, but do it around keywords... As opposed to write what they want, then add keywords.

I've seen it done both ways, I've done it both ways, and adding keywords after the fact is less effective, more awkward.

I never, ever suggested anyone write crap. I have an objection to people touting 'quality' content as the greatest SEO tactic.

Though you are right about quality content, you're wrong about the automatically part.

When you have some down time, Google one of your terms, go to page 3 or 4... Often, you see much better quality there than on page 1.

Because those people think like you, while the people on page 1 think like Netiapina.

And, as far as quality, that's too damn subjective... Some of the most linked and shared pages on the net have images of cats falling, clouds that look like penises, and other such stuff.

Anyway, no matter how awesome your content is, nobody's going to link to it if they never see it.

To see it, you, the content owner, must do something to place it in front of their eyes. One such thing is SEO.

Instead of waiting for someone to go to page 147 in Google results, you could link to it from different sites yourself... Once it gets on page 2, maybe people will start linking to it, if it is, indeed, awesome content.

But they have to find it first.

SEO comes first; content second, from this point of view.

I know you disagree, but you don't do it based on facts. I've ranked #2 and #3 pages that had nothing on them but the keyword in the title and again as content. The whole site was 1 page with a keyword as title and the keyword as content and the keyword as domain name.

People landed on my page said, WTF, and left. But I made them land on my page. And some of them clicked on Google's ads and I made money.

It was a win/win for me and Google.

At the same time, many pages on a 57-page site of mine n the same niche just languished, though they had excellent content. Why: I did not get around to doing anything but the on-page SEO, and they were not easy terms I was going for.

Some, though, were the same level as the practically empty pages.

It's not your "quality is important" speech that I oppose per se, but "you will automatically perform better". No, you will not get anything automatically. If your great content sits on page 7 of Google results no real user will browse that far. As DABK pointed out you've got to get that content to the users before your site ranks. If you're lucky enough to strike a homerun with great content only - that's really great for you! But there's so much great content that it's harder and harder for your piece to stand out.

It's pretty weird to post such a confident claims that make it sound like "performing better" is certain. Granted, inductive reasoning would point to the direction that it's more likely that people like to link decent pieces than some random garbage. But what length would you go to get those links? How long are you willing to wait? What if your competition builds a solid "artificial" link profile that you just can't match in any foreseeable future?

I agree that "natural" link building is more desirable than something artificial, but it's possible that the links don't materialize. If you take the "natural" route you should at least consider either to bait or to ask for them.

All of this quality discussion is bit out of place in this thread. OP's content is crap. It's of course possible to write solid pieces on After Effects Plugins, but it'd probably take a different person to pull that off. There's simply no quality there.