OrmeChristiansen744

It may be Queen, but it is definitely not King and I'll tell you why. I'm really sick and tired of hearing the virtues of material when all of the search-engines set more importance on off-site impacts. If content actually were master and you had five sites that were all for a passing fancy subject, well crafted and optimized, how could the search engines decide which site was most relevant? One of those sites is going to have to be first and one of those sites is going to have to be tenth. Well, Google found a solution because of this and that is off-site impacts, particularly link recognition - sites linking to your website. Each site relating to you is a "vote" for the site expressing, "this site is about so and so."

This off-site influence is so powerful that sites may rank quite well for terms that do not even exist in the site's copy. In the event that you search "miserable failure" on Google the #1 site is Biography of President George Bush. If you seek the copy on the website you'll find that the word "miserable failure" does not even exist on the site. If content is king how do a website rank #1 for a term that does not even exist on the site? Isn't this telling us that information really is not master and that link acceptance is really the ruling power?

I have a site that I put up for my mom's book about chastity, sex and relationships. The entire book is available to read on the web both on html pages or pdfs. The content is applicable and beautifully written. Is is number 1 for chastity in virtually any of the search engines? Number. Why? Since it lacks link popularity.

Information isn't King and probably never will soon be. It certainly helps, but it will never give you the weight searching engines that link reputation does now. click