It might be Queen, but it's certainly not King and I will let you know why. Does Power For Patriots Work includes more about the reason for this thing. When all the search-engines set more value on off-site influences I'm really sick and tired of hearing the virtues of content. If material actually were king and you'd ten websites that were all for a passing fancy issue, well written and improved, how could the search engines determine which site was most appropriate? One of those sites is going to have to be first and one of those sites is going to have to be tenth. Well, Google found an answer with this and that is off-site impacts, particularly link popularity - sites linking to your website. Each site connecting to you is really a "vote" for your site saying, "this site is all about so and so." This off-site influence is so strong that sites could rank very well for terms that do not even exist in the site's copy. In the event that you search "miserable failure" on Google the #1 website is Biography of President George Bush. If you seek the copy on the website you'll discover that the definition of "miserable failure" does not even exist on the page. If content is king just how can a site position #1 for a term that does not even occur on the page? Isn't this telling us that material really is not king and that link popularity is really the power? I have a website that I set up for my mom's book all about chastity, sex and relationships. To explore additional information, we know you check out: address . The whole book is available to learn online sometimes on html pages or pdfs. The content is pertinent and beautifully written. Is is #1 for chastity in any of the various search engines? No. Why? Because it lacks link popularity. Content is not King and probably never is going to be. It certainly helps, but it will never give you the weight searching engines that link popularity does today.
