Google SEO question, help me settle this argument
 

Whats most important to ranking high in Google? Content or inbound links?

yes you are teh corrects

inbound links

content and relevance... then comes inbound links, properly placed, "named" and timed...


i might even go as far as saying the title is more important than inbound links...


its easier anyway...

inbound links are tricky, useful yes, but not the deal maker...

which one will rank you higher?
more content
or
more inbound links?

This SEO guy Im thinking of hiring said it's inbound links.
He said thats why when you search for "click here" in Google Adobe comes up #1. Because most people use the phrase "click here" when linking to Adobe. Even though "Click here" doesnt appear on the Adobe site.

There is no one most important, rather a combination of important factors. LIke Relevant Inbound Links

niether

there are many dynamics at play for high serp results and the formula for returning results is dynamic itself

inbound links mean nothing

keyword bombing will soon mean nothing

everything means nothing but really means everything

that being said... if you have a budget .. hit me on ICQ

nothing....relationships with google employees :)))

It may be the most important thing, it all depends how he works it. That is probably the only answer.

Some use brute link power, some use thousands of shit links, there is many ways, and many ways work. The results he has shown you should tell you if what he says has value.

He has shown you some results i hope?

I would have to agree that it is mostly on inbound links :thumbsup

more then 50% of the algo anyways

Wrong.

Updates. Relevance. Content. Page structure. Links are dead last.

I have some sites on the front page for their category. I have done next to NO link building, other than a few other sites I have. I do not do link trading because many remove your link as soon as you put theirs up.

If you update often. Use good page structure. Including page titles, etc. Then traffic, and good SEO will come easily.

SEO is not the end all magic wand. I know sites in some of my niches with a lot more traffic who are not even ON the first FIVE or TEN pages under SERPS.

SEO is a piece in the puzzle. You are best served by building a small network of similar sites. Cross link them smartly. Update often and use the right page structure.

:2 cents:

updates do not get you ranked better then relevant inbound links....

ok well when some of you end up getting 40-70k/day traffic from G/Y/M over a single domain come and tell me it was done thanks to a page title, page structure or content. Of course it takes a combination of factors, but lack of linking power won't get you that far.

:thumbsup

I would rank both content and links as the 2 most important for LONGTERM success.

I would have a hard time ranking one over the other, but if i had too, i would trade raw link power for content.

THIS.... sums it up chief.

Links are a piece in the puzzle taken on the whole.

:2 cents:

I have sites that have not updated in over 2 years and rank VERY GOOD in google, because i have alot of links to me and done a certain way :winkwink:

wow...not too sound like an ass but there is alot of misinformation in this post.

I have a site ranked for massive terms on google right now and its been there for 18 months.

I havent changed shit on it for months (12-16). So i will just finish up by saying i gotcha :)

right 100% right

but the q was links over content

it is a combo of both, but inbound links come first

hit me up on icq please, i can show you some shit lol but i wont post it here

205700725

Jdoughs btw if your really bob and dougs lost brother, you are my idle

I have one as well that I haven't updated in two or more years still showing up on page one of SERPS. I do not, or have not, done anything with the site. Including any "links". So you haven't got shit.

Must be the content, keywords, and page structure then huh? Or are those links building on automatic pilot?

:winkwink:

Feel free to start posting your solid first page listed sites in Google, and I'll stand corrected hoss.

:pimp

who needs one way backlinks?

~Ray

It's like asking what is more important in a car, engine or transmission... you need both...

I havent got shit? Not sure what you mean by that but i assure you it's not shit i have.

:thumbsup

just curious, you said in your previous post that updates was #1

if you havent updated in over 2 yrs and still showing up on page 1? how can it be updates?


not pickin on you, just noticed that


everyone has their own ideas what works and what doesnt

:winkwink:

Content and inbound links are both important, but inbound links will weigh more.

Case in point: Google search for miserable failure linking to George Bush's site without those words on the pages.
WG

I have and havent gotten a response.

Oh, I am not taking it personal chief. I know what works for me. :)

But I haven't done any link building of any kind, in the traditional sense, for probably 2-3 years or longer. I do have a few links between my sites, on the same C-block IP. But that is about it.

However, I have a number of sites on page one in SERPS for the key words I wanted and they rank solid. Obviously, my updated one is higher. :winkwink:

That said, we all have whatever works. For the SEO experts, I always ask them to show me a long list of their examples to back up their claims.

I know for me personally, I get my stuff ranked nicely in Google while not doing the "all important" linking. So most SEO "experts" you can take their "hot tip" advice with a grain of salt.

Carry on.

i bookmarked this thread for education, but i got confusion :error

Thanks
Do you know if Wikipedia ranks high for EVERYTHING because they have a massive amount of content? or because of inbound links? or a combo of both?
I always wondered why wikipedia ranks at the top or almost the top for almost everything.

Main reason is because they're considered an authority site.
Then of course the massive amounts of content and shear backlinks to every page on there and don't forget the massive PR. I'm not surprised they rank on top for almost every subject.
WG

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

you may want to ask this question on a seo forum, not a surfer forum :2 cents:

Consistancy is a very important factor as well.

The fact that the content changes is one thing, the fact that it consistantly changes day after day, month after month, is another.

Same with the links and all other aspects. Getting 500 shitty links, 200 not bad links and 50-70 quality inbounds in one day to a site is great and maybe spammage, getting them consistantly everyday is monstrous and what makes se superdomains.

Now the same serps that display that massively linked to and massively updated page, will also show sites (possible right below or above) that are static, and havent changed in months or years, and have low ammount of links to them added. But just like the superdomain, they are consistant in their strategy. If they strayed, ie started adding tons of content or tons of links, it would almost certainly effect their rankings.

this thread actually made me think... some good points there... :)

You might want to back up your claims of SEO greatness....


or pass out your grain of salt.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh