Links or Content?

[skionxb]

What is better to rank higher in google? I know many people will say both. But in my opinion LINKs are the most important factors in today Google's algorithm. Any thoughts on that?

[chris123]

Links. But you can't make linkbait without content ;)

[fsmedia]

chris is right. Unique content is the best because it will attract new links to your site, but at the same time you need more quality links in order to rank high.

[Valrod]

It's a catch 22, but if I had to pick I would rather have thousands of pages indexed than just have PR. Reading the google blog, Matt points out not to worry too much about PR. Maybe he's right and we're all just too obsessed with it or maybe they just want to throw us off.

I'd work on both though, slowly but surely with one (content), you will get the other (links).

[dudy255]

yes if you have unique content other sites will link to your site.

[Anita]

Based on my limited experience, I'd go for content. I run a humor blog (in the sig), and my site has received between 100 and 1000 hits per day from Google. I have a 0 PR (site is only 2 months old), but have TONS of content.

In the end, targetted traffic is more important than anything else.

[Valrod]

Based on my limited experience, I'd go for content. I run a humor blog (in the sig), and my site has received between 100 and 1000 hits per day from Google. I have a 0 PR (site is only 2 months old), but have TONS of content.

In the end, targetted traffic is more important than anything else.

Cool, let me thread jack for a moment, how'd you get the "digg this" at the bottom of all your posts. I'd like to do the same on mine, but I haven't really found a hack that works for wordpress.

[jhmattern]

Focus on quality content. If you're providing good unique content, high quality links will come on their own much, and you'll end up with both. Buying / getting links on the otherhand as your focus, won't help you in the content area.

[Rasputin]

If you are targetting a non-competitive niche, the focus can be more on content. But more competitive terms require more active site promotion - either getting links, or promoting your site in other ways that make people want to link to it.

As said above it's a catch 22. It is very possible to have 500 pages of fascinating content that no one knows about, and google ignore because it has no links. Hence no one finds your site and no one links to it.

Broadly I would think 50% of time should be spent on content and 50% on site promotion. Buying relevant links can help you get out of the catch 22 situation. Buying links just for PR won't help at all.

[vid]

I'll say both, but I put my attention more on content...

[bsales]

both Good Quality Content and In bound links is more valued .

link SPAM or LINKS for LINK Farm results in drop

[kh7]

It's not just links, but QUALITY, ON TOPIC links that determine the google algorithms. But yes, content is king any day because it provides the keywords and makes it possible to get those links.

[Mong]

Imho only links are most important factor...
now you have two ways..

1) launching campaign for getting high quality backlinks for your low quality contents {or no content}
2) launching campaign for getting high quality backlinks for your high quality contents {original content}

Its crystal clear that contents rank nowhere in Google if you don't have proper backup of quality backlinks.

So if you will follow (1) route you will have less success but on route (2) you rate of success is higher. .... {here success is only getting quality backlinks}

I hope you can now understand interconnections of ranking higher in Google with different type of contents and backup of links. :)

[jhmattern]

You don't have to launch a campaign for link-building. If your content is high quality, and you promote in other ways to get any kind of decent audience, they'll link to you on their own. The same does NOT work, however, for sites filled with crap content. You need to create an actual, and worthy, resource. Content also has more "staying power", as you never know how Google and others will look at those same links tomorrow... high quality, unique content will never have a reason to be penalized.

[Sem-Advance]

Neither one

There are over 100 parts to the algorithim.. great content and good links without proper meta info wont rank your pages for high competition keyword terms.

[ferret77]

I call BS

how many of you guys have created e-commerce sites that genrated enough links off their content to rank?

I bet few to none.

Yet everyone in the world says if you have great content people will link to you, why? Isn't really rare that happens?

I mean how many website visitors have a website to even link to you from?

[jhmattern]

If you just put content up and let it sit Ferret, you're right... but then you'd be a pretty incompetent webmaster. You still have to market the site to bring visitors. Backlinks come naturally IF your content is good and IF you know how to market it. You don't need to spend a lot of time specifically trying to get backlinks. They come naturally with other promotion.

If you send a press release and honestly have something worth saying, you'll get some high quality backlinks without the extra time of trying to manually solicit them.

If you publish something important, like an exclusive interview with someone who actually matters in your niche, and market it effectively to get viewers, they'll link to it if it's remotely worth it.

If you run a contest or promotion, and simply announce it in a highly targeted forum (or other outlet), people will link to it if they think it's of interest to their own audiences (such as for their blogs).

It's not hard. You just have to think about traffic in general, and actually giving them something worthwhile. It's also how most of the large content networks get huge incoming links, aside from interlinking. They don't go around submitting to directories, posting in tons of forums for sig links, or do link exchanges the vast majority of the time. People want to link to an article, so they do. That strategy also ups your deep links rather than just general home page links, helping you to rank well for more keyword phrases in the end.

[lekhi123]

Well i hope , you want to assist me.. i alwayz publish quality and good technology articles , also submitted the my blog to many directories, but still the traffic is 0. I want to get with the backlinks and i offered link exchange wth techlnological sites.. and i promised them that i will place their link on the front page.. but i am not able to get sweetness of success...

[jhmattern]

If you are having trouble marketing on your own, hire someone to help you. There are a lot of internet marketers here, and there's a lot of free advice here to help you do it well. ;) Submitting to blog directories isn't necessarily going to get you a ton of traffic... you need to be writing about something not everyone and their brother is already writing about (or with a unique spin), and market it. One tactic doesn't equal effective marketing. You need to create awareness that your site/blog actually exists, and links alone won't do that for you.

[kh7]

Jhmattern is right on the money.
Elaborating on what she said: there are tons of technology forums out there, so be an active contributor in a few of them. Mention your site (or rather: specific articles on your site) in relevant threads, and be a helpful contributor besides. Same with stumbleupon and delicio.us etc.

[mr_dean]

I partly agree with Mong. I have some websites with quality content, but they are getting backlinks really slowly. So, it is difficult to have natural grow of backlinks. I'm sure that in the end whitehat websites with quality content wins, but the process is quite slow... My websites gets 1 backlink with 5000 uniques, or something like that.

[gabrielangel]

Content is best for the long run, but I see sites with almost zero content in the top 20 all the time. They don't have good content, but they have enough relevant links to outweigh that fault.

[jhmattern]

In the end, it depends on your purpose. If you intend for your site to be any kind of authority site in the future, focus on content. If you really don't care, and are just in it for a quick buck (and willing to keep launching new small sites when niches die in popularity) then go for links.

[jubi]

Both - you like it or not, but without content your site will be worthless, whitout links it will be invisible :)

[princess06]

content for me :)

[lekhi123]

Thank you for the information and i am really happy that you people advised the things into such easy language. I will follow the things.

[visioninfotech]

both are needed, links are having more effect

[phd]

unique content + links from related sites

[kh7]

Natural growth of backlinks is not the same as just waiting for backlinks. Look at threads on this forum on social bookmarking to see how you can promote your site.
But these methods take unique interesting content to work.

[autorave]

I would rather spend the money buying links on hiring quality writers to come up with excellent content. Content leads to impressions and clicks, IMO :)

[MattKNC]

Links and content together plus an aged site. The longer your site has been around, the better it will be considered an authority site, increasing its overall value too.