Content should be the ONLY King!

 


Visitors: 270

I've been reading about SEO for a couple of months now and been stuffed with tricks and tweaks about keywords and key strings. I have read all about black and white hat SEO and all recommended guidelines and I've started to think more and more about what everybody is screaming about in their articles. “Content is king" or “Content rules" they say. But why on earth do the search engines put so much weight on all the SEO tricks and tweaks? Isnt it time to get back to basics?

I'm talking about the vast importance of getting incoming links from high rank websites, the importance of the page title, the keywords, the keywords in the URL and so on. When people are searching for something on the internet, they are usually looking for information, looking for products they want or services they need. The content of a site should answer for the ranking of the results, not sites with tons of incoming links or tweaked websites. When I search for ”swedish computer forum” I really want to find computer forums where they speak swedish and only forums for that matter, not high page ranked websites that frequently contain the words computer, forum or swedish.

I know that it was first meant for the title, the meta keywords and meta description to summon up the content of a site, but today its only used and taken advantage of by skillfull webmasters to make their sites climb the ranks. I know what I'm talking about because I've tested alot of tweaks on a website of mine and with anly two rows of content I reached many top 5 rankings in only three weeks using keywords and key strings that had tough competition.

Now that the Internet is full of skillful SEO marketeers, wouldnt it be better if the ”search engine owners” put less effort in fiddling with formulas that include url, titles, meta tags, incoming links and all the other stuff we know about, and instead using content as the only ranking factor? Or at least make the distance between the importance of content and importance of all the SEO tricks, alot greater than it is today.

This takes me closer to the point I want to make. Why do web directories even exist on the internet? Arent the search engines enough? Well, the web directories exist simply because the search engines are not doing their job. People use web directories, mainly because they have already tried finding what they are looking for through ordinary searches, but havent found it. The reason for not finding what they are looking for could of course be that people dont know how to use search engines, but this only brings me to another existing problem which I'm not going to talk anymore about, namely that people learn how to use search engines when it should be the search engines that should learn how people are searching. This has alot to do with semantics so I'm leaving this subject to people who know more about it.

A search engine should be a huge single directory. What I mean by this is that when spiders crawl the web, the spiders should not only categorize the websites. They should be able to understand the essence of the content on a specific website in order to categorize the site. Only when this has become reality, the webdirectories would be obsolete and a search engine would be perfect. How come we havent reached this milestone yet? I bet there are people who have thought of this long before me. I believe I've found the answer to that but first. . . .

think of all the advantages a perfect search engine would bring:

  • Webmasters wont waste time on SEO, instead they would emphasize on the site's content, bringing more quality to the Internet.
  • There wont be millions of sites about SEO, because it would be useless information. (Unless the sites would be about the history of SEO)
  • It would be easier to find what one is looking for, since search engines ”know” how people search for information.

Overall the Internet would consist of more quality sites instead of what we have now - millions of pages with advertising, link directories and other useless information.

The only disadvantage I find is:

  • Less money for people who prosper on the Internet. . .

Well, what do you know? We're back to square one. . .

Habil Kantur M. Sc. Computer Science.
Currently working as a salesman in Sweden.
Been running the website Perfekt Syn - lasik ögonlaser och ögonoperationer since October 2005.
Bli rik och tjäna pengar på internet.Gratis online skola.

(823)

Article Source:


 
Rate this Article: 
 
Copywriting: Content is King
Rated 4 / 5
based on 5 votes
ArticleSlash

Related Articles:

Content is NOT King!

by: Mark Westbrook (June 22, 2008) 
(Internet and Businesses Online/SEO)

Content is NOT king

by: Adam Sorensen (November 29, 2005) 
(Internet and Businesses Online/SEO)

Content Is King

by: Jason Morris (March 03, 2005) 
(Internet and Businesses Online/SEO)

Content Really is King

by: Chris Sanderson (June 09, 2005) 
(Internet and Businesses Online/Affiliate Revenue)

Website Content is King

by: Stacey Morris (December 01, 2005) 
(Internet and Businesses Online/SEO)

Content is Not King Anymore

by: Aritra Basu (July 03, 2008) 
(Writing and Speaking)

3 Reasons why Content is Still King

by: Nick Usborne (December 09, 2004) 
(Writing and Speaking/Copywriting)

If Content is King who is Queen?

by: Trevor Lewis (March 30, 2005) 
(Internet and Businesses Online/Web Design)

Design vs Content: Who is KING?

by: Romelo Itong (March 22, 2005) 
(Internet and Businesses Online/Web Design)

Copywriting: Content is King

by: Chris Ross (April 23, 2005) 
(Writing and Speaking/Copywriting)