I have been been experimenting with self declared SEO-expert's comments and my own theories. Here I want to share something extra-ordinary. Due to the nature of my BLOG and my own LAZYwork culture --I have been posting some meaningful articles from a local daily on my BLOG. --I just copy/paste and give credit to the daily. But I discovered that my PR0 blog is outdoing PR7 newpapers on many keywords-- ( Ofcouurs I have optimised my BLOG strongly and it might hit PR^ in first update)--I copied from it. for example follow the links and check the first 3 positions http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=Jindal+SEZ&btnG=Search&meta= So this discard all theories of so called SEO experts. --This proves that Links is the King ( Links ultimately PR--I'll have great PR for my BLOG--no matter what) --and Contents the Queeen.
First of all i would like to clear that there is no specific theory, Algo and behaviour of Search Engines vary from time to time. SEO is simply natural thing, like how do you link to other resources so that users of your own site can get benefited. If you placed content from somewhere else on your blog, and G found it as useful resource and there is less competitive keyword you mentioned above, so due to these reasons your blog get up on Google Search. I would not agree that content is not a king, it's always King if it was not, then why Wikipedia's site is on 1st page of Google Search for most of competitive keywords
I am no--SEO expert. I Just follow Google's webmaster's guidelines strictly. I am flattered--fel out of this world --and can't explain --how --I rank #1/2 on Google ahead of a renowned newspaper site from whom I copied the article. This proves all SEO-experts wrong ---they just create sensation by propagating some theories of their own that has no relation with Google's Alog --or Search ethics.
What if I can show you multiple exapmles of the same thing? Will you discard all those theories you read from renowned ( certificateless --as there is no cetificate ) SEO experts?