Content vs. backlinks (Full Version)

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



Message

womble -> Content vs. backlinks (6/29/2006 21:08:04)

A contraversial one, this one, I know, but I thought I'd share my experiences...

Tonight, while submitting a site to DMOZ I decided to check out a client site I submitted to DMOZ a couple of months ago and then forgot about it. To my surprise (after stuff I've read about DMOZ recently) it was listed! That prompted me to check out the site's ranking in various serach engines. I've done no serious SEO on it, just designed the site, added the content, put in the meta keywords, published the site and submitted to the major SE's, and that was that. Moved onto the next project.

There's around 50 pages of what I would consider good quality content on there (at least in human terms), but the site has very few backlinks at all. We're talking possibly (being optimistic) just into double figures, from sites that are pretty relevant, but don't have significant PRs. In it's present form the site's been up about 8 months.

With the two keywords I think it's most likely people would use if they were looking for information on the subject in question, I got the following results:

  • Google - 36th
  • Yahoo - 20th
  • MSN - 4th
  • Ask.com - 11th
  • AltaVista - 9th


Not bad going I don't think.



cupcake -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 0:30:31)

quote:

ORIGINAL: womble
To my surprise (after stuff I've read about DMOZ recently) it was listed!


Goes to show that you can't believe everything you read. [;)]



Tailslide -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 2:54:59)

Thing is, if you really have unique, quality content (and the site you're talking about does) then you don't have huge competition in the SERPs.

These days though there are very few sites that actually do have good, unique content - it's usually just rehashed pap or directories of directories of directories (ad infinitum). When you don't have decent content or are unable to effectively localise your market then you have no choice but to rely on backlinks.



thatguy -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 8:48:54)

Overall I say backlinks can overcome content, especially in Google it would seem, but not vice versa - and therefore backlinks win.

Googlebombing is the old example of this - type in miserable failure and see what comes up. Hint: many pages without miserable or failure in the entire webpage. Just a lot of links with miserable failure pointing to them. How good and unique your content is will determine how many backlinks you will need to rank.

BTW, I've noticed the same thing with MSN ranking me higher on many things. I think they must have links a lot lower in the algo. Maybe a good measure of where your content is at??? And maybe google is a good measure of where the links are at???



Reflect -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 10:11:23)

I think it comes down to the genre you are trying to place in as far as content, quantity, and quality of links come into play.

Now a second step you could do is get 1000 back links pointing to that site. Then see what sort of boost you get. I think you will see a rise, which will show you that it is a mixture of content and backlinks.

However on the competitive keywords, read high millions on returns of query, it will always at this point in time, come down to backlinks having a greater weight.

IMHO only.

Take care,

Brian



Tailslide -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 10:24:07)

It does depend on your market. If you're trying to appeal to a limited locale then backlinks aren't that important. If you're trying to appeal to national or international audiences then they are.



Mojo -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 11:01:12)

It's backlinks, backlinks, backlinks.



rdouglass -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 11:03:12)

quote:

it is a mixture of content and backlinks


I think Brian is right on here in that if you want to be ranked high, you just *cannot* ignore either. Yes content is important and yes links are important.

Sure, discuss all the Googlebombs and how they are unfair but just where are users using the search engines and realize that so many people use Google. Just remember tho that not everyone used Google. [;)]

It's like most other arguements regarding things like CSS vs. tables and stuff like that; you just cannot go completely either way, you have to work with both to be truly effective and efficient.



Tailslide -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 11:39:15)

It still depends on your target audience and how far and wide they're spread - I've got very few quality backlinks (less than 20) to my site but I get top or second position in Google because I'm targeted for my location.




rdouglass -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 11:48:27)

quote:

because I'm targeted for my location


How common are the search terms you're using? I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe you're getting such good results for *common search terms* with so few back links. I am definitely of the 'camp' that both are needed for good rankings.

I'm calling you on this one, Tailslide. [;)] What are the search terms that you're placing so high with without substantial backlinks?



Tailslide -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 11:58:01)

For me it's

website design bedford - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=website+design+bedford&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

and

bedfordshire website design - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=bedfordshire+website+design&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB

(This is using google.co.uk)

I agree that backlinks are needed for a wider audience, but if you only really want a fairly limited response (i.e. city, county, whatever) then I've found that being more specific with the terms i.e. localising with town name for instance certainly helps. I get about 80% of my clients from Google and I get enough work to have to turn stuff away (in other words I'm happy with the volume).

Obviously I'd need more backlinks if I wanted to compete with just "website design" as a key phrase - but I don't need to!

All I'm getting at is that being more specific and localising in key phrases can help some businesses who work within a certain area.



womble -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 13:05:35)

Yes, like Tail, the site in question is quite location specific (though it does attract visitors from further afield), and in terms of content I suppose on a scale of uniqueness it's erring towards the unique end of the scale though there are a few national scale sites that cover a similar area.

On backlinks, again, like Tail, the site doesn't have that many quality backlinks. Those it has on the whole are also pretty localised, and then it's listed in a handful of directories.

Yes, maybe more backlinks may increase it's SE ranking, but requests for the site's e-newsletter suggest it's hitting it's target audience, so for eight months old I don't think it's doing too bad.



rdouglass -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 13:16:27)

quote:

being more specific with the terms i.e. localising with town name for instance


Ah. I get your point now but I suspect if you tried the same search with just website design you'd get far different results. [;)]

Maybe you're not after the bigger audience and that's OK but I think many sites (at least on most of the sites I work on) don't want to limit to a local area. That's why they get on the web in the first place so they don't have to publish an ad in every local Yellow Pages or other such publication / directory and to reach a *global* or at least regional audience.

Now if you are doing specific locally focused stuff that is obviously different.



Tailslide -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (6/30/2006 13:24:21)

Sorry, that's what I was getting at with Localisation.

quote:

I suspect if you tried the same search with just website design you'd get far different results.


Exactly, I realise that - but why would I want to try? I can't work more hours than I do now so there's just no point. Plus I actually like getting out of the house occasionally to meet the clients! This particular approach suits me and many companies like me who's customers are looking for local businesses on the web.

I don't argue that Backlinks are needed on popular search terms for a wide audience, just that we tend to be a bit blinded that they're always the only solution when they're not. It all depends on the audience - quality can beat quantity for small businesses in particular.

Really unique content is another solution - but of course the problem is that there's just so little really unique content around these days [:D]



Starhugger -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (7/12/2006 14:59:49)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thatguy

Googlebombing is the old example of this - type in miserable failure and see what comes up. Hint: many pages without miserable or failure in the entire webpage. Just a lot of links with miserable failure pointing to them.

Pardon my duh, but what is Googlebombing? And how on earth does a phrase like that get pointed at an officialgovernment website?? That's bizarre!

Starhugger



Starhugger -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (7/12/2006 15:06:11)

Okay, never mind. I just got the gist of it from Wikipedia. That IS bizarre! I keep hearing about how we should try to vary the anchor text of our backlinks, and that this will be considered a good thing in our SE rankings. But wow, it sure hasn't hurt Bush! [:D] (well, depends how you define "hurt" I guess... [;)] )

Starhugger



frypo -> RE: Content vs. backlinks (8/28/2006 7:38:50)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rdouglass

quote:

it is a mixture of content and backlinks


I think Brian is right on here in that if you want to be ranked high, you just *cannot* ignore either. Yes content is important and yes links are important.

…..

It's like most other arguements regarding things like CSS vs. tables and stuff like that; you just cannot go completely either way, you have to work with both to be truly effective and efficient.



quote:

Maybe you're not after the bigger audience and that's OK but I think many sites (at least on most of the sites I work on) don't want to limit to a local area. That's why they get on the web in the first place so they don't have to publish an ad in every local Yellow Pages or other such publication / directory and to reach a *global* or at least regional audience.


Yes, indeed, if you want word about your business to spread all around the world you will need more and more of backlinks. This is also right for situations when you don't have _unique_ content – your new site just one of the hundreds of websites with similar popular services/products. And in that case you really need to spend time on promotion to compete with web resources which already have a good length of service in this field of services.

There are rumors by one of my acquaintance that new project will help webmasters to get high quality incoming links. I obtained link from him to page of that project. You can get free report about it here, http://www. mavericksocializer.com/free-report.html . To my knowledge it will use fair technique, not Googlebombing of some sort ;).

<edit>I broke the link but left in case for anyone. Marketing.</edit>



megabuff -> how relevent are yuor keywords (8/28/2006 10:17:16)

yes, as in the comments about keywords.

how relevant are they?

I have a program that searches and tells me how many times a work was searched for in the last month on various search engines.

So when i got an email saying this mob could boost my traffic and they out in some eg. one of which was a site that was pos 3 in google.

thing was the key word was "customwebdesign"

I replied to them that you would not get many searches for that and were they trying to put one over me.

they repleid "you would be surprises how many people actully search with that term"!

well i gues they were surprised when i replied i had searched and there were none [;)]


I did the same search for bedford wed design and got zero for that as well. (web design got 255,ooo)
I suppose it has some advantages by targeting local buisness but if you want to expand your horisens, it is th e WWW, why not go big as well?

BTY tailslide, out of curiosity , what sort of traffic do you get?





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125