SEO: Is content still "king?" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Search Engine Optimization and Web Business



Message

_gail -> SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/30/2004 19:18:07)

My sister asked me to look at a website done for one of the companies she does consulting for. They've asked her to come up with some key words.

So, I go to the site and every single page in the site is Flash...it is only graphics (including graphics for copy) and there is not one typed word in the site. The designer didn't even put alt tags on the images, so there is not even that type of text in the source code.

Am I missing something? I thought textural content was the most important when it comes to search engines.

thanks, gail



BobbyDouglas -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/30/2004 23:40:18)

Seems to me it is the # of revelant backlinks that is now "king." Your example of a flash site, sorta proves content is worthless in some areas.

I do not doubt content is good, but it sure doesn't seem to be weighed as good anymore.... Joe will prolly chime in here and be a bit more specific & useful [:D]



Mojo -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 1:28:32)

Linking structure is #1.

Everything else is #2.



_gail -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 7:54:58)

So are you both saying that it doesn't matter a hill of beans that there is no text on pages within a site?

I was talking more about how effective a search engine indexes a site, not so much that it has to be on the first page when someone does a search. I've been told within the past year that textural content is very important and to, for example, use text headings instead of creating a graphic for them; that search engines like text.

Here's a hypothetical example, using my own site which has a page rank of 6. I cut all typed text from each page. I then paste the copy for each page into photoshop file and save as a graphic. Then paste each graphic into the appropriate page. My site is now all graphics, without a bit of copy in it. All is still well?

Hope I'm explaining myself okay.

gail



Mojo -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 11:51:11)

quote:

So are you both saying that it doesn't matter a hill of beans that there is no text on pages within a site?


I didn't say that. I only responded to your statement "I thought textural content was the most important when it comes to search engines."

Saying that one technique is more important than the other does not mean you can neglect the lesser technique.

Your hypothetical situation is confusing... If you don't have any content, how will search engines know what your site is about? You must have content. Just as to live, your body needs both food and water, but water is much more important - so it is with your site - you must have content, but currently, links are more important.

Many experts like to say that content is king, build a good site, give it frequent updates, have unique content etc. This is all partially true, but you have to ask yourself - what is the motivation for these experts to fully instruct you in SEO when that is where they make their living? Also, it is difficult to give out all the pearls of your profession when revealing them will cause:
1 - the technique will be killed off by the search engines in short time
2 - by the act of killing off one technique a search engine will create a few more opportunities to expoit which takes time to figure out

A year and a half ago you could type in a query on Google for a targeted site and have backlinks listed in order from the highest PR site down to the lowest. This was great when doing recon on a competitor site, but someone posted this technique on an open forum and within a few days it no longer worked.

(there are hundreds of points to consider for ranking well in the SERPs for a site)



_gail -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 12:01:13)

Thanks, Mojo.

Here's the site I've been asked to look at:

http://www.thecommencement.com/

I did not design or create it, I've only been asked to make comments about it to help my little sister. I doubt the company even knows she's asking me about this. I expressed concern that the site has no text in it, only graphics.

I've been told that having "real" text is very important and don't want to mislead her.

So, let me ask it another way. They decide to go out an hire a SEO expert. Can the expert work with the site as is?

Thanks for all the help with this.



Mojo -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 12:04:51)

I haven't looked at it yet - I just want to address something.

quote:

I've been told that having "real" text is very important and don't want to mislead her.


Your correct. Having unique content that can be indexed is very important. I don't want anyone reading this to think I said otherwise.



_gail -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 12:08:11)

Plus, now I'm so darn curious for my own understanding. I work so hard at creating and crafting content, matching key words in the source code to words within the page. I just hope I'm not wasting my own time.

I haven't been following this stuff for about six months, but I can't believe it's changed that quickly from what was recommended to me then.

gail



Mojo -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 12:20:02)

It hasn't changed much in 6 months. There have always been two camps - Those that state content is king and those that belive links are king. In truth, both are necessary, but I believe and have proven to myself many times that links are king.

Your client site is beautiful, but for people to find it in the search engines they will need to add some indexable content. Metas are not enough. For some of the phrases they will be targeting they can probably get away with zero content and just many well formed back links. For others, they will need both.

They will probably not want to change their site much. My experience with these artful, well designed sites is the designer, in some fashion, said - "if you build it, they will come". The client has a tasteful site that is fun to browse so they probably trust the designer and believe that the traffic will come.

Anyhow, there are things that can be done to add easy to index content without taking away from the original design. It will just take work and trust.



Mojo -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 12:25:25)

I feel I shoud add my opinion on something....

Content IS KING for sites that are a long term project. If you don't need to very profitable or make a decent amount of money IMMEDIATELY - having strong, unique content that is frequently updated is the way to go.

I say this because good content in an interesting subject should bring back links to you naturally. By the time you have tons of links, you will also have an old site that is well indexed with lots of content.

If your in a competitive area, only time will tell if you will win the war - my clients don't want to wait 1 or 2 years to increase their bottom line. I work to provide shortcuts.



_gail -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 12:32:29)

Excellent and informative information. I've learned a lot. Thanks again, gail



BobbyDouglas -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 14:02:01)

quote:

Content IS KING for sites that are a long term project. If you don't need to very profitable or make a decent amount of money IMMEDIATELY - having strong, unique content that is frequently updated is the way to go.

- Good example of this would be the outfront tutorials.

Abbout 10% of the time when I look something up for FP on google, I seem to see a link to outfront tutorials.

I am sure the content plays a major role, but of course there are a lot of backlinks too.



dpf -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 14:55:45)

As always, mojo's comments help us all - I dont add to his; I just learn from him.
I looked at gail's site and its design is quite enchanting but a major question leaped out at me - why in the world would you make that site with Flash? It is a "flat" site that could have been made exactly the same way with more conventional techniques (re: html, css) - nothing that I saw on the site utilizes the extensive technologies inherent in Flash so why use Flash with the natural disadvantage of having the content be invisible to SE's?

I actually began looking at the site expecting to see some sections that utilized some Flash technologies and was going to suggest rebuilding the site with html/css and insert small Flash movies at key points leaving content as html-based. I think that is the technique to employ when wanting to use Flash. just MHO



_gail -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (12/31/2004 15:02:36)

I just spoke to my sister about an hour ago. She says they are using the site primarily as a brouchure. So, evidently, they will be primarily giving the url out in paper brochures, on business cards and advertising materials.

I wonder, then, why they want key words put in the source code. This business never ceases to amaze me!



dgrant004 -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (1/20/2005 10:45:24)

Great Thread. Time to add my 2 cents. Most of this is information that is freely available, but it bears restating. As Google continues to lose market share, there is a great opportunity to optimize for the middlemarket SE's. What most folks fail to consider is this: the vast majority of seaches happen OFF Google. With an estimated total market share of 36-38%, the math is simple. 62%-66% off all seaches DON'T happen on the "G". There is also alot less competitive pressure on the middlemarket engines. Some of my best leads come from MSS for example.

Though backlinks are still looked at by ALL of the engines, I have had many sites that I have optimized achieve a top 5 ranking of MSN, Yahoo, ASK, and others WITH UNDER 5 inbound links.

Common sense dictates that the basics work best. A keyword density of 5-7%, effective use of "associated keywords", Keyword heavy title tags, alt image tags at about 75%, etc, etc.

The Flash part of this can be a thread unto itself, but change is coming. Just like PDF's are now indexed and (wow) actaully ranked by the "G", efforts behind the scenes at G are underway to effectively index flash. Flash heavy sites will start to show up as top ranked sites withing the next year.

David
www.ProfessionalWebsiteServices.com




_gail -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (1/20/2005 12:12:28)

quote:

Flash heavy sites will start to show up as top ranked sites withing the next year.


Why in the world why? Just because they use flash?

Thanks for the great info!

gail



Mojo -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (1/20/2005 12:38:17)

There has been talk of flash finally being about to rank for a few years already...

Sites will not rank higher because they use flash. I think dgrant004 was trying to point out that sites which have been held back because of their flash content will start to rank at their 'true' position. Whatever that may be. Certainly lower than me and mine [:D]




dpf -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (1/20/2005 12:47:08)

quote:

Sites will not rank higher because they use flash. I think dgrant004 was trying to point out that sites which have been held back because of their flash content will start to rank at their 'true' position.
exactly



_gail -> RE: SEO: Is content still "king?" (1/20/2005 12:55:13)

quote:

Sites will not rank higher because they use flash.


Thanks for the clarification.

quote:

Certainly lower than me and mine


Lol! Certainly higher than me and mine.

gail



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125