Comments for SEO Blog

Comment on Google Out of Traffic? by James Robert London

James Robert London — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:16:51 +0000

It’s really a helpful information. I am really surprised to know the story.

Comment on Yahoo, Bing Who? by James Robert London

James Robert London — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:12:26 +0000

I think every search engine marketers does concentrate on Google more than Yahoo and Bing just because Google is more comfirtable than Yahoo and Bing.

Comment on SEO is Only About Links by James Robert London

James Robert London — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 05:07:00 +0000

Interesting post. I agree with you. SEO is all about links. If you have a good content on your site and if search engine spiders doesn’t find your link, then your good content is limited to your visitors only.

Comment on SEO is Only About Links by admin

admin — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:45:59 +0000

@Jeffrey Gross: by quality links I don’t mean any specific type of site/page/content but rather links from high quality sites themselves as well as prominent pages on those sites. How many and what quality links the site has? What PageRank? How many links are to the page you’ll be getting link from? Is the niche and content related to your site? Where the link will be located (at the bottom of the page, or at the top, in relevant context)? Those are the main questions I answer to tell the quality of a link.

Comment on SEO is Only About Links by Godot

Godot — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 09:22:50 +0000

Content and networking are both important for SEO. Links without relevant content is useless, as is content without enough ‘linking’.

Comment on SEO is Only About Links by Jeffrey Gross

Jeffrey Gross — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:21:33 +0000

interesting! when you say high quality links, what do you mean? any specific choiuces like, articles, press releases or if you have anyother choice plzz share it with all of us here

Comment on SEO is Only About Links by admin

admin — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:43:03 +0000

As I said above, things like content and keywords and everything that is considered “on-page SEO” is the issue of creating the site. Of course you need a site before you can rank it. But the process of actual ranking is all about inbound links, provided you actively seek to be ranked, i.e. do SEO.

What’s more important and what shows the preferences of search engines, is that you can rank a completely irrelevant page for any keyword you want by building enough backlinks. If there are other pivotal factors, how come their absence doesn’t prevent from ranking?

Comment on SEO is Only About Links by submitcube

submitcube — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:09:08 +0000

Not only links are the only in SEO, there are other factors like proper keyword, sensible contents and backlinks that play a pivotal role in ranking. Thanks for sharing this nice piece.

Comment on SEO is Only About Links by admin

admin — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:06:11 +0000

Depends on how you look at it. I agree with your point of view, but I also agree with the one I made in this post.

What you described, the “on-page SEO”, is actually just making the site search engine friendly. It’s a design issue. So you can say that a search engine friendly site can rank with zero SEO, but when you’re trying to rank it for a particular keyword it all comes down to links.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that SEO is simple when you have a user friendly site – it’s all about links.

Comment on SEO is Only About Links by Amanda

Amanda — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:42:33 +0000

I disagree that it is *all* links. Backlinks do play a major role, but a website with very few backlinks will be ranked based on its “relevance”, which is derived from keywords in the content. Yes, you can be ranked without any content.. but it does add to your ranking for specific keywords. Without keywords in your title, meta tags, and content, search engines wouldn’t know what to rank you for! Especially when your backlink anchor text isn’t relevant, like your “click here” example.. that site might not be highly ranked for the keywords they were actually going for.