I know there are a lot of speculations as to what Google is looking for these days and how they determine rankings, etc. I just wanted to say that I honestly don't think link building and all this other off-page SEO is THAT critical to successful rankings anymore. I say that because I had a site that I never did any off-site SEO for, was getting thousands of visitors per week, and sold it for $12,000 after just 9 months of owning it. I really think Google is starting to look more at the site itself rather than what is linking to it, and I know some of you are going to jump all over me for saying that. I think they have started realizing that just because a site has a lot of back links doesn't mean it's a quality site for useful information. We've all seen ugly sites that don't deserve to even be indexed, yet they still get ranked in the top 2 pages because somebody used SEO software to give their site back links and look important. Just what I think, but I know some of you will disagree.
Well, it depends on the niche. For example, if you don't have something like a blog or lets just say a website where you can "read" much or get many information/news, it doesn't have to mean that it's bad and in this case you still need backlinks - amongst other things of course.
Those of us who saw the rise of Google in 1998 knew (and some we're taught) that the whole PR thing was flawed Vig (well obviously a percentage therein that is). At least that is how I remember it when using Alta Vista, Excite, Infoseek and Web Crawler as well as others got overtaken by Google. Not that it/PR is going away any time soon though. That is not to say natural link building or "citations" due to merit are not of value at all, but more that such things have had to be brought into a more managable perspective and increasingly so. The spirit of natural linking due to the right things has without a doubt become one of the most manipulated aspects of the WWW. I to have found good on site content far more effective than most linking. However I also see ways such things might be improved to, as well, also. I am inclined to agree with you though Vig, but not on one point though "ugly site"? What is an ugly site? To me the ugliest sites are those covered in Google ads "above the fold" as they call it and a plain old white page with just text that others might call ugly is a simplistic joy, whereas I could say for example, ma.tt is (or could be) ugly to me, so how does one guage what is ugly?
I just meant "ugly" meaning site's that look like a 13-year-old kid drew on a computer screen. I know it doesn't really matter in the long-run, but if a design looks poor, the content on that site will more than likely be poor as well. Just my opinion though, obviously.
ButI thinkthatgetrankedinGoogleisveryimportant, I am new to SEO, do not know how to increase Web site traffic,this upset
Quite a difficult one to guage when you think about it as some of the simplest sites/designs one woukld say are awful and the opposite true for some of the most colourfully designed sites. One mans poison as it we're. But really it is accessibily and not how a site may look which is more important RE the SEO in relation to the OP's questioning...