It is always debatable what quality content on a web page since there is no set standard for it. One may think it quality but others may not think that way. It is still possible for many to come in agreement and say "this website gives good information"; thus quality content. But I am not too sure if a directory can provide "any" quality content. After all, a directory is a site that lists bunch of links though they may have descriptions for all the listed links - and they are really short introduction description of each link rather. In that sense, directories got disadvantage compared to other informational sites, and the challenge for directory owners is bigger. But how do you define quality content in the light of SEO - getting ranked in high SERPs? You can claim and many can agree that you have got a good content, yet your site is nowhere in SERPs. Do you think quality content is really important in SEO or rather important for the visitors/users of the site. Ultimately, I agree that a unique and quality content is what everybody is looking for, but if SEs don't recognize it, I think it's very difficult to define what quality content in terms of SEO. What's your view?
Quality is trying to set a standard, for your approvals, for your content, which is not easy as some folks might/will have differing opinions about quality But I think Quality of Service is important too we try to edit our Directory 2/3 times a day and work on our directory every day as we consider that part of the quality control
I wonder who can do that? And how one can claim his way of judging quality sites is the perfect way? Well, I think there is no absolute here. Maybe quality content is rather a matter of personal opinion or preference, or an SEO myth by so-called SEO experts to make certain webmasters to believe their theory. I would really like to know how Google can know this site is more quality than that one.
Google jugdes relevance more than quality. If you do a search for "best quality sites", google won't send you to the best quality sites but will send you to sites that will list the best quality sites.
I seen countless thousands of websites and if quality control were to be applied to them more then half would have been rejected for whatever reasons that we all know as directory owners. For a website to be considered quality..... It must first and for most "Grab my attention" with color or images forthwith. It is said that a visitor to a site stays only stays a few seconds and if not interested leaves, so if you have not properly done all has been lost. Secondary would be typos bad or faulty images or links that are incorrect. We are all human and pron to errr so to define quality is to be deemed in the eye of the beholder and not its creator and its time restraints. thx malcolm
Right. So, quality content is rather irrelevant in terms of SEO? If Google only picks up keywords in content on a web page to somehow find relevancy to other website /web page, wouldn't it a matter of playing with keywords such as keyword density and positions of keywords?
Good point there. Quality of a website should include the visual effect, not just texts and what's written. But SEs can not see images. So, that's another thing that "quality" we talk here is not really about search engine optimization?
The thread title asks: How do you define "quality content"? For me, quality content is not about format or colors (those are artistic factors). Quality content is something that keeps me reading the site once I have arrived there. It is helpful and relevant to the needs that brought me to the website in the first place. It goes without saying that it should be reasonably well written, with a minimum of grammar and spelling errors. But the "grab-and-keep-my-attention" factor is to me the essence of quality content.
But when you have a quality site from Serg it helps Selecting from Directories http://www.bestdirs.com/ A growing database of free, paid and niche link directories all around the web.
That is so true. Google ranks pages based on the keyword density on that page. If you have a page with quality content about "Best quality sites" I am sure you will rank up there. If you have just a site with good quality content, that means you will be ranked for the keywords you have targeted on that content not as a "Good quality content" Does that make sense? Blu
So, like I said, it's more like a keyword play? An SEO attempt to supposedly write a quality content on a web page is usually about placing keywords all over that page. Keyword density, positions of keywords, and text decoration or H1 tags, etc. would be applied. To me, it's rather hard to have a quality content with an SEO mind. Probably a content written without SEO purpose could be more honest and on target.
He made a great site and I was smart enough to buy it (I'm so chuffed with the link detail pages having PR3)
well, title tags are originally for url, I believe. I know you can use that for images. But search engines still rely on texts not visual effects based on designs or colors. Quality of a web site is both quality content and how attractive it looks, I think. But ultimately as I have asked in the first place, such effort of webmasters seem so out of question for SEO? "how do you define quality content in the light of SEO - getting ranked in high SERPs? Do you think quality content is really important in SEO or rather important for the visitors/users of the site?"