Links are more important than content!

[Levels]

In my opinion, strong links are more important than conent.

My Forum, Age: 8months, 1000posts (good quality), some links (pr2), SERP 2 for my main keyword

Competitors Forum, Age: 8montha, 30post (bad quality), more good links (mostly paid), pr3, SERP 1 for my main keyword

 

[Andy98]

What good are links if the content isn't worth reading?

 

[Levels]

Still if there are two forums for an upcoming topic, people will choose the one on top of google. If they have more traffic the content will follow from members.

 

[Andy98]

Still if there are two forums for an upcoming topic, people will choose the one on top of google. If they have more traffic the content will follow from members.

But what if the first forum looked off and had major errors with the theme or basic quality, and the second looked near perfect, but the first still has better links?
Would it still get more traffic than the second? (Besides spiders)

 

[Levels]

No, but thats not the case. Just for the SEO, the links are stronger than more and good content.

 

[Andy98]

No, but thats not the case. Just for the SEO, the links are stronger than more and good content.

They may be 'stronger', but in most cases, links don't decide which forum gets more traffic. In the end, users will eventually settle where content is more relatable to them.

 

[chrisranjana]

What good are links if the content isn't worth reading?

I have to second that. Getting people to come to your website is only battle half won, we need to make them stay !

 

[meetdilip]

Good content + good links help a lot if used together. Bad content normally give high bounce rates.

 

[jadmperry]

In my opinion, strong links are more important than conent.

My Forum, Age: 8months, 1000posts (good quality), some links (pr2), SERP 2 for my main keyword

Competitors Forum, Age: 8montha, 30post (bad quality), more good links (mostly paid), pr3, SERP 1 for my main keyword

With a lack of context, it is near impossible to tell what importance to place on the above information. And, even more important, for what purpose are you placing "importance" on? (i.e., is it just to get traffic? Is it to drive advertising dollars? The goal and its purpose is a critical point to be addressed).

Plus, it looks like your point of comparison is a "bad quality" posting site. So, it seems strange/illogical to compare or argue links vs. content on that basis.

I don't have any particular feeling about the topic overall. Just struck me that the evidence for the proposition is wrong.

 

[Levels]

I understand all of you but if both sites are quite new (8 months), people first check out the one on top. And this forum is run by a company, they know what they are doing. But instead of investing time to write content, they invest money in good links. So if people find them first they will most likely stay there, even if my forum has a lot more and better content.

 

[jadmperry]

I understand all of you but if both sites are quite new (8 months), people first check out the one on top. And this forum is run by a company, they know what they are doing. But instead of investing time to write content, they invest money in good links. So if people find them first they will most likely stay there, even if my forum has a lot more and better content.

But, the average person, how would they know on search how "old" (8 months) that the forum is?

I think it is a fair point that a "company" (one that is focused or deals with the forum topic, or is an "official" topic/forum for the company itself) would have a leg up on others in the same space. However, a forum could surpass/be better than the "official" site.

 

[Jack_Rouse]

In my opinion, strong links are more important than conent.

My Forum, Age: 8months, 1000posts (good quality), some links (pr2), SERP 2 for my main keyword

Competitors Forum, Age: 8montha, 30post (bad quality), more good links (mostly paid), pr3, SERP 1 for my main keyword

A lot depends on where the links are coming from, and associating links as the reason for a difference in PR show that you have very little knowledge of SEO, the content is crucial to the keyword, the competing may have better keyword density in it's content, it may have better tags with better keyword density.

Saying links are better for SEO than content, is like saying black tyres are better than white ones.

 

[Levels]

@Jack
I work as an SEO Junior since 3 years, before I made a bachelor in journalism. I am sure I have an advanced knowledge in SEO and I know how to write great content (not in english though). I never mentioned a connection between PR and Links and PR and SERP. Wait, because its written next to it in brackets? But obviously there is a connection between Links and SERP.

I am analyzing both sites since the beginning, all they do is buying links.

I work on high quality content daily, I get all my links natural (topic related links) and I use my 6+ years of SEO knowledge.

I can say you that: They have worse content and besides buying links they don't care about SEO.

Still, they rank a lot better on SE's. So yeah, links are king, not saying that content is unimportant.

 

[Jack_Rouse]

@Jack
I work as an SEO Junior since 3 years, before I made a bachelor in journalism. I am sure I have an advanced knowledge in SEO and I know how to write great content (not in english though). I never mentioned a connection between PR and Links and PR and SERP. Wait, because its written next to it in brackets? But obviously there is a connection between Links and SERP.

I am analyzing both sites since the beginning, all they do is buying links.

I work on high quality content daily, I get all my links natural (topic related links) and I use my 6+ years of SEO knowledge.

I can say you that: They have worse content and besides buying links they don't care about SEO.

Still, they rank a lot better on SE's. So yeah, links are king, not saying that content is unimportant.

You may be a junior in SEO, but whoever you are listening to is wrong in a big way.
If you don't believe me then watch a few Youtube video's from Matt Cutts, I am sure you know who he is, and he will put you straight on a lot of things.
Prior to Panda and Penguin you would have been right, but since those two algorithms links are no more important to SEO than any other factor, why.. because people were cheating the system by using link rings, link farms etc, now that does not work, relevance is the key, so the competitors links may be more relevant than yours.

 

[Levels]

I thought that too. Analyzing told me the opposite for this specific case.

 

[Jack_Rouse]

I thought that too. Analyzing told me the opposite for this specific case.

It depends on what and how you are doing the analysis.

Too many people spend too long worrying about SEO, despite what a thousand or more companies on the net will tell you, there is no magic formula, yeah I could get my site to page one of google for a given keyword, but the chances are no-one would ever search for a soccer forum by entering "half time tea break".
Ask them to get you to the top by using "Football Forum" and it's a different matter.

 

[mysiteguy]

Any time I hear someone concerned about their "keyword" I have to laugh. The vast bulk of traffic comes from long tail searches (in most cases, not all) --- and this is why content is so important.

 

[GeorgeB.]

You may be a junior in SEO, but whoever you are listening to is wrong in a big way.
If you don't believe me then watch a few Youtube video's from Matt Cutts, I am sure you know who he is, and he will put you straight on a lot of things.
Prior to Panda and Penguin you would have been right, but since those two algorithms links are no more important to SEO than any other factor, why.. because people were cheating the system by using link rings, link farms etc, now that does not work, relevance is the key, so the competitors links may be more relevant than yours.

lol

 

[GTB]

The only way I'd have thought LINKS can benefit your own forum, is when you link back to topics on your forum, from other topics on it when the content is of similar topic related. Link building on your own forum, not from yours to another.

 

[Jack_Rouse]

The only way I'd have thought LINKS can benefit your own forum, is when you link back to topics on your forum, from other topics on it when the content is of similar topic related. Link building on your own forum, not from yours to another.

Internal links are of no real benefit at all, other than showing search engines you have a well constructed site.

The best links are anchor text from high ranking relevant sites, either anchoring your URL, or a keyword or phrase.