EiseleStrait908

It may possibly be Queen, but it is certainly not King and I'll inform you why. I am actually tired of hearing the virtues of content when all of the search engines place far more worth on off-internet site influences. If content material actually have been king and you had ten websites that have been all on the same subject, nicely written and optimized, how would the search engines establish which website was most relevant? 1 of those websites is going to have to be 1st and a single of those sites is going to have to be tenth. Well, Google discovered an answer for this and that is off-internet site influences, particularly link popularity - web sites linking to your site. Each internet site linking to you is a "vote" for your internet site saying, "this internet site is about so and so."

This off-website influence is so powerful that sites can rank really well for terms that do not even exist in the site's copy. If you search "miserable failure" on Google the #1 website is Biography of President George Bush. If you search the copy on the homepage you are going to locate that the term "miserable failure" does not even exist on the page. If content material is king how can a site rank #1 for a term that doesn't even exist on the web page? Isn't this telling us that content really is not king and that hyperlink popularity is actually the reigning power?

I have a web site that I place up for my mom's book all about chastity, sex and relationships. The whole book is accessible to read on-line either on html pages or pdfs. The content is relevant and beautifully written. Is is #1 for chastity in any of the search engines? No. Why? Simply because it lacks hyperlink popularity.

Content is not King and most likely in no way will be. It definitely helps, but it will by no means give you the weight in search engines that link recognition does now. more