- Well, Bounce Rate is a very important factor in Google. If you use Google Analytic you may know what i mean, if not than Google collects all the data for websites. Let me take an example, i will talk more latter as i saw that you disagree for Bounce Rate.
Originally Posted by Stevie D
I agree, Content is more important than links, maybe because i was a little in rush while writing this i wrote Links and Content.
Yes, except that to emphasis the importance, I would say it's the other way round, more like content and links.
It's important to highlight and distinguish the two factors here.
First, and most important – if you don't have good content on your site, people won't stay there. Even if they visit, whether from a direct link or a search engine, they'll take one look and run away. And so you've lost your sale, you've lost your advertising revenue. There's no point in having a website if it doesn't engage visitors to hang around and get involved.
Second – search engines. I put it second because there's no point in bigging your site up in search engines and getting to #1 on Google if people come to your site and give up straight away because there's nothing there. But of course, without good content you're very unlikely to get to #1 in Google unless it's a really niche site with hardly any competitors. Search engines thrive on content, and the more and the better yours is, the more they will like your site.
Yes it is possible if you have a superb content and have a great on-site optimization + if you are trying to rank for a low competitive keyword.
A bit of an over-simplification. Having the right links from the right sites will help, but it's also possible to get a top ranking with hardly any links. And it's also increasingly difficult to get quality links that Google pays any attention to.
Yes, that's why i mention somewhere in the beginning of this post "Bounce Rate". If your site is ugly - isn't user friendly than the bounce rate will be very high. Google takes in consideration bounce rating.
That's more about usability and user experience than SEO. Sure, if your site is ugly then people aren't going to like it so they aren't going to voluntarily link to it, but the much deeper problem is that people aren't going to like it. It's like the 'content' issue – SEO can only get you so far, but if all it does is deliver people to a website that they don't like, it's a waste of effort.
If you want to do an experiment make a bot, it may be a very complex bot even though in the beginning it may look simple. Make the bot to visit the pages, and stay for a short period of time on the top ranking sites. After that let the bots visit your site and let them stay and surf your site for a longer period. If you have a good link building structure and if you do this test, you will be amazed with the results.
Yes, it is important and i agree with you it doesn't matter if the sites loads in 50ms or 100ms.
That's true, although I think some people make it out to be more important than it really is. Google aren't going to be bothered about whether your site loads in 50ms or 100ms, what they're doing is demoting sites that take ages to load. If your site is so slow that while it's loading you start to think "Man, this is soooo slow" then Google is thinking the same. If it's quick enough that you don't notice the wait, Google isn't going to worry about exactly how fast it is.
I gotta say, we do like irony here :lol:
Well, yes it is not just grammatical errors, it is everything that has to do with content. Let say, a well structured article, 700-1000 words long in length is better than a 300-500 word article if the quality is the same.
Low quality content is way more than just grammatical errors. I'm not convinced that Google pays all that much attention to the quality of language/writing, other than that if you've got spelling mistakes in key words and phrases, these are less likely to rank well when people type the correct spelling into Google.
Low quality content can be anything from short articles that don't go into any depth, articles that appear to be incorrect or take an uncommon stance, pages that just take content from other sites and re-hash them (which may well be written from scratch, but if they don't say anything new that isn't already said anywhere else, what's the point?).
Google analysis a lot of things in content like "Capitalization" , "Bold", "Italic", "H-tags" and a lot of other things in content (I didn't include all the things that google take in consideration) i tried to cover most important things here.
Yes, but Panda has killed it.
To be fair, keyword stuffing has been a dumb thing to do for years before Panda came out.
Google has a lot of way of knowing your bounce rate, it owns the Google analytic tool.
Google has very little way of knowing your bounce rate, and I'm not convinced that they use it as a signal at all because what little data they can collect is so flaky.
Okay, I meant guest post not just blog posts, Guest Posts on different sites are very important and increase rankings.
I wouldn't say that blog posts were anywhere near the most important. Static pages and 'official' sites are massively more important than blog posts. Obviously, it's much harder to get a link from BBC News (or CNN, NDTV or whatever) than from a blog, but that is why they are like gold dust. Even links within the content of general articles are more important than blog posts, for the key reason that they are likely to be around for longer. A blog post may become a long-term hit but the vast majority fade into obscurity very quickly.
Sorry to say but Forum Links are still valuable. I'm not talking about profile links or links on signature, there are other natural ways of link building on Forums - Same goes about blog comments too.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying there – are forums good or bad? Well actually I don't need to ask ... link building on forums is unlikely to do your SEO any good at all. Why? Because anybody can do it, which means that Google assumes it's just you promoting your site and so just zones out. Of course, that's if Google even sees the link. Most reputable forums mark all user-generated links as "nofollow", meaning that Google completely ignores them, and most of the rest strictly censor all posts for self-promotional links. Here, we do both. And even on the rare occasion that Google does see the links (and particularly on sites that don't police them carefully) just how much weight do you think they are going to put on them? On forums like that, there will be hundreds of outbound links, and each comments page is unlikely to have a good PR to start with, so you're dividing a very small amount of link juice between a very large number of links, you wouldn't have enough left to spread on a piece of toast.
Yes, Infographics do not have text but when you post an infographic i don't think that you post it just a picture: For example firstly i write a summary of my infographic containing all information and there is the trick of Infographics.
Infographics have a huge disadvantage when it comes to SEO, because they have no text content that the search engines can understand. As far as Google is concerned, your entire infographic is summed up by the few words of alt text that you've put with it – whereas if you had written out a textual description instead then you would have all that lovely content for Google to read and index. And sacrificing content in the vague hope of getting links (bearing in mind that a significant number of them are likely to be hotlinks, which don't do you a lot of good) doesn't seem like a good SEO strategy.
I'm not saying that infographics are a bad thing, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't use them. Use them where it's appropriate to the content and the context, use them to get people's attention and hold their interest. But don't forget that they have pretty much zero accessibility, and don't think that it's helping your position in the search results either.[/font]