| It may be Queen, but it is definitely not | | | | Biography of President George Bush. If you |
| King and I'll tell you why. I'm really tired | | | | search the copy on the homepage you'll find |
| of hearing the virtues of content when all of | | | | that the term "miserable failure" does not |
| the search engines put more value on off-site | | | | even exist on the page. If content is king |
| influences. If content really were king and | | | | how can a site rank #1 for a term that |
| you had ten sites that were all on the same | | | | doesn't even exist on the page? Isn't this |
| subject, well written and optimized, how | | | | telling us that content really isn't king and |
| would the search engines determine which site | | | | that link popularity is really the reigning |
| was most relevant? One of those sites is | | | | power?I have a site that I put up for my |
| going to have to be first and one of those | | | | mom's book all about chastity, sex and |
| sites is going to have to be tenth. Well, | | | | relationships. The whole book is available to |
| Google found an answer for this and that is | | | | read online either on html pages or pdfs. The |
| off-site influences, specifically link | | | | content is relevant and beautifully written. |
| popularity - sites linking to your site. Each | | | | Is is #1 for chastity in any of the search |
| site linking to you is a "vote" for your site | | | | engines? No. Why? Because it lacks link |
| saying, "this site is about so and so."This | | | | popularity.Content is not King and probably |
| off-site influence is so strong that sites | | | | never will be. It definitely helps, but it |
| can rank extremely well for terms that don't | | | | will never give you the weight in search |
| even exist in the site's copy. If you search | | | | engines that link popularity does now. |
| "miserable failure" on Google the #1 site is | | | | |