RickiParsley831

It may be Queen, but it is absolutely not King and I will inform you why. I am truly tired of hearing the virtues of content when all of the search engines place more worth on off-web site influences. If content really were king and you had ten websites that have been all on the exact same subject, properly written and optimized, how would the search engines decide which internet site was most relevant? 1 of those sites is going to have to be first and one of these web sites is going to have to be tenth. Well, Google discovered an answer for this and that is off-website influences, specifically hyperlink recognition - web sites linking to your site. Every web site linking to you is a "vote" for your internet site saying, "this internet site is about so and so."

This off-website influence is so robust that websites can rank really effectively for terms that don't even exist in the site's copy. If you search "miserable failure" on Google the #1 web site is Biography of President George Bush. If you search the copy on the homepage you will discover that the term "miserable failure" does not even exist on the page. If content is king how can a site rank #1 for a term that doesn't even exist on the web page? Is not this telling us that content material genuinely is not king and that link reputation is genuinely the reigning energy?

I have a web site that I place up for my mom's book all about chastity, sex and relationships. The entire book is accessible to study on the internet either on html pages or pdfs. The content is relevant and beautifully written. Is is #1 for chastity in any of the search engines? No. Why? Simply because it lacks hyperlink reputation.

Content is not King and probably never will be. It certainly aids, but it will never give you the weight in search engines that link reputation does now. visit our site