links are kING or is content King?

Not intended to be misleading, i mean sometimes someone creates some content, maybe a blogpost and it gets people linking back to it as they reference it, drop links to it in forums etc.

Depends on the type of content.

 

That makes it sounds like it's easy to get people to link to you. Sorry, but that just doesn't happen.

I don't care how good your content is, if you don't have a link building campaign, no one will see it.

 

lololol, touche! 30 minute steak with the potatoes baby! That's why they call me Content Girl!

 

What kind of strange discussion. There is no doubt about answering that question if you ever asked it the right way. I can achieve good rankings with good content and NO links! But what is a link good for pointing to a page without content. Content is not queen, nor king - it's the strange thing that rules rankings, it's the imperator, you might agree or not but a fact is a fact.

 

Perhaps for a totally obscure key phrase that's never searched for and has no competition whatsoever.

But there's no chance whatsoever of accomplishing this on any keyphrase with even the most minimum levels of competition.

 

Yeah, I was waiting for a comment like this!!!
What about 671,000 and a search term like "link building penalty" (without quotes) on Google?

Or studying the top 50 rankings on Yahoo for "web hosting" (without quotes and more than 2.000.000.000 competition) may be, if you know to analize you'll find out. If not, keep dreaming.

As you are that smart you might sort the rest yourself having a bit of research.

 

The phrase 'link building penalty' is searched for less than 10 times per month, GLOBALLY.

Not a very significant key phrase. Almost anyone can get on the first page of that SERP.

 

it's a 50/50 split, you need both!

 

This is NOT the question here

link building penalty >

#1 www.ksl-consulting.co.uk - 653 links
#2 +3 forums.seochat.com - 168037
#4 www.marketingblogeh.com - 359
#5 www.google.com - 270.424.077

Any further questions about the importance of content?

 

This doesnt make sense.

No had any questions regarding the importance of content. That is not the question here.

 

Well may not make sense for you, but it's reality shown by Google. And if you have any doubts about me telling you what's up there with this SERP results I might tell you that I know what I am talking about because the #4 is one of my sites.

 

So your point is that you can get on the first page of very obscure, non-competitive SERPS with only on page optimization?

That's been discussed.

 

equally important! but i will edge links > contents

 

I never stated what you try to put into my mouth!
You must be very ignorant, seeing the link stats, listening to Google communications about quality content and then, in a more or less serious discussion coming up with such stupid statements which a are totally OFF THEME.

Remember, we are talking about what is king or queen - links or content. This is not a discussion about how to rank well with which method under which circumsdances and my example is just one that makes it very clear and easy to understand even for newbies. Could show you countless other examples but they would need the analysis of an expert to see it and this won't help the beginners asking questions here.

 

You can't just focus on one and disregard the other. What are links to your site when you've got useless content? And what are great content for when you hardly got any traffic?

 

The example you showed me is pathetic. I could equally show you 100 times as many examples of pages that have the NUMBER 1 spot in Google with the worst content ever, and having only good backlinks.

Listen, no one is questioning that good content is incredibly valuable. But if you don't have good backlinks, no one will see it.

Sure you might have a page with good content, no backlinks, that ranks 4th on a SERP, but only becuase no one ever see's that SERP. It's a totally irrelevant search because less than 10 people search for it per month. You'd be lucky to get 1 click per month from it.

Just because you're 4th on a SERP, doesn't mean anyone will ever see it.

 

As I already said my friend, it's not about my site being seen, it's about the question if content is king or queen.

And I couldn't find a more clear example fast, able to make undestand everyone.

You can see with numbers and rankings provided by Google itself on Google that good content and few backlinks are doing better than poor content and loads of backlinks.

That's what it is all about here - am I wrong? Apart, I never said that backlinks are useless.

 

Yes, my friend. Sadly, you are wrong.
A quick re-cap, as you seem to have forgotten what the discussion was about.

The question was asked, what is king, content or backlinks.

- I answered that you have to have BOTH in order to succeed. Even if you have great content, it will never been seen by anyone unless you have links.

- You said that you can place well in SERPs even with no backlinks

- I said that might be true, but only for SERPS that have a very low search volume, and no competition. (i.e. no one will ever see it.)

- Then you showed me an example of a SERP that has very low search volume, and no competition. (i.e. no one ever sees it.)

You seem to think that by getting on the first page of a SERP that no one ever sees, and no one else one the internet is actively optimizing on, that this somehow proves that you don't need backlinks to get traffic.

Sadly, you're mistaken. Getting on the first page of Google means absolutly nothing if no one ever sees it.

 

Have a look at your own blogspot blog - 4 years of dup content and still a grey toolbar - you know very well that your arguments are very thin.

 

LOL, you're grasping for straws.

My blogspot blog is used for nothing more than a way to have my 'recent blog' place here in DP in each of my posts. Unfortunately, DP doesn't take drupal RSS yet.

NOW who's having trouble sticking to the topic?

You should quit while you're behind.