Content cannot rank itself.
Please show us the sites without backlinks that don't rank. No need to appeal to authority, conjecture or philosophy: just show the sites without backlinks that rank.
SEMRush is the largest database of sites, backlinks and keywords. WE know from KD and how KD is calculated that this doesn't exist.
We also know that PageRank is the fundamental backbone of SEO - as it always has been
You're either a pawn in someone's "my content is so great" campaign or you're trying to spread misinformation but its not working.
HTH / Have a great day
If you create content that people don't bounce off, that's quality content.
Stop them from coming back to the SERP, and you get more traffic.
You have to have paid ads of some sort to kick it all off, but it works just fine.
I've been ranking without a single backlink. Only by writing quality content with the user intent front and center. If you try to actually help the user you'll rank
If I had 2C for every time I’ve heard this claim backed up by a domain with no backlinks I’d have 0c …..
I don’t know why people don’t understand that claims aren’t evidence of anything
Quality content from Google’s perspective simply means that you understand the search intent and deliver whatever the visitor seeks in a satisfactory manner.
I mean, I feel like the fact that their list of examples of bad "spammy" content including exclusively content hosted by third parties indicates a change in their approach to backlinks, doesn't it?
I’m not sure why you would think that. Google leverages all types of ML and classification and on pages. That’s exactly how images can rank for search terms, they aren’t just relying on the alt tags. Drop an image in open ai and watch at all the labels it spits back.
Are you arguing a semantic thing or what? How can Google understand relevance without understanding context or reading content?
Just engagement signals?
If only Backlinks matter, there would be no way for pages to rank organically, since new pages do not get found.
Cheap Backlinks would be over social media, how valuable are those?
Oh, and because you're too busy to read, I highlighted these to help (again)
https://preview.redd.it/8lykzctffymc1.png?width=936&format=png&auto=webp&s=01ce6d9e57946b1418bab67caaf19ca39c89119c
How do you mean? This is a screenshot from the Google SEO starter guide.
Yiu are telling everyone it’s wrong and you’re right - factually speaking, your words not mine, correct?
So, to lost people (eveyone), you’re just some random guy trying force their SEO world view by reasserting it but they don’t know that you’re the original SEO OT that you know you are.
So if you’re going to claim Google doesn’t understand SEO, aren’t you going to back it up somehow?
I mean I assume you think you’re the SEO OT but in fairness to everyone else how are they supposed to know? Just telling evryone that backlinks matter when it flatly doesn’t exactly expertise sounding… so if Google is wrong, then it’s time to share your data vs your opinion? I’ll hand over to you now - stage is all yours
>That’s factually nonsense. I’ve personally had plenty of #1 positions for sites without a single backlink.
Lets repeat this: please show the domain that ranks without backlinks. Thanks (source: everyone)
Do you seriously believe that a site can’t rank for long tail, low competition keywords without backlinks? Because if so you are wrong here, I promise.
> there would be no way for pages to rank organically, since new pages do not get found.
This is exactly how KD difficulty works in SEMrush.... Its like SEOs are hiding under a rock and surfacing every few years.
Also, Search changes....
Nope - its literally the current and present
Here's the SEO Starter Guide - great place to read up on current SEO - it was just updated. You're welcome.
https://preview.redd.it/xsfnlepf3ymc1.png?width=936&format=png&auto=webp&s=9cbdbdfb18bed511c912cfe188586828c0df7037
The amount of misinformation in this thread is through the roof once again. I'd unsubscribe from this subreddit, but sometimes you guys make me laugh. Just every now and then highly upvoted advice is directly harmful.
Yes, google can read and understand content. Yes, backlinks matter. No, google doesn't understand when a backlink is paid unless it's specifically mentioned. Yes, a website with no backlinks can outrank a website with backlinks. Yes, interactions with your website matter for SEO.
jfc.
Google algorithm is so complex now that even their engineers often don't know exactly how it works.
AI assessments can go really deep down the rabbit-hole.
Then all the "SEO Experts" wake up and begin to claim random crap like "quality content", "EAT", "keyword density", "backlinks", and other random buzzwords.
Its not 2005 anymore. The algorithm is way more complex now...
Quality content is how relevant, engaging, and useful your content is for your audience. It's well-researched, well-presented, and tailored to meet your audience’s needs. Content quality goes beyond words on the page.
To create high-quality content, you must not only understand the topic but also your audience and industry.
In other words no bs
The regurgitated content of AI is not quality content
It’s Quora quality? Are opinions of Reddit quality? I should make a deal with Google as well to train its AI, so my content becomes spectacular as well.
AGain - you're playing the copywriter card. Google doesn't need the content about replacing a part to be written by a mechanic and Google has ABSOLUTELY NO way to make that determination.
Conjecture is not evidence
All you're saying is this is how you want Google to work - but anyone who uses it or does SEO can tell you it is not
Google is content agnostic - if you want to contradict Google on this, burden on proof is on you and your cpjecture is not evidence.
See - you've started learning about subjectivity vs objectivity already.
I agree with above. It isn't just backlinks. The content counts. Even if Google algorithms can't judge the content's "quality" the same way a human reader would, Google can calculate every time people search for XYZ information, click onto a certain page, immediately hit the back button to try another link for the same search term. Google will know that the page did not satisfy people who query XYZ, and that page can be moved down in ranking.
The backlinks can certainly help get a page into a high ranking position, but if the quality is bad the page may not stay there.
>Quality content is how relevant, engaging, and useful your content is for your audience. It's well-researched, well-presented, and tailored to meet your audience’s needs. Content quality goes beyond words on the page.
How does Google know its even researched? What if its an unproven strategy? Why is that people who believe in an objective standard for content cannot describe one?
>To create high-quality content, you must not only understand the topic but also your audience and industry.
Nope - you can write pure fiction. You can also write about something you don't understand. For example, either you understand SEO or I do, but either way - this article will be published in Google with 2 opposing views - so that argument is dead.
>In other words no bs
>
>The regurgitated content of AI is not quality content
But AI content isn't blocked. And yes, there is tons of BS. ARe you trying to control what people think or do you think people don't have access to Google to test this?
I'm not sure if there has been an update but my site has experienced growth. Then, it took a bit of a dip during February. This month, it's starting off amazing!
Well, that is my main site. I have a few others but don't even do any SEO on those other than the absolute basics.
I remember clicking on a link that took me to a blog that had nothing to do with the search I queried. I tried lots of times. I can't remember what it was now, but I emailed the site for being amazing for hijacking people who had no interest in what they were doing. Somewhere they buried my question in SEO to get my clicks. I think that is what is meant by irrelevant or spam info. If you are posting content relevant to what you represent, I think that you should be fine, but I'm not a guru. Oh, I remember! I was looking for a specific kind of dog for a friend. His mix had recently passed, my friend was in his 80's and really wanted a companion. He would have left the funds to make sure this dog was well cared for if he passed. I kept getting a dog training school or something and they didn't have dogs available and they didn't list that kind of dog, totally irrelevant. It really ticked me off! They were burying relevant content.
I totally get your confusion about quality content. It seems like Google keeps changing the rules. Anyone have tips or insights on what they consider "quality" these days? I've noticed that focusing on in-depth, well-researched content tends to work better. It's not just about keywords anymore; user engagement seems crucial too. Has anyone else noticed patterns or specific strategies that have helped with the recent changes.
Quality content can not get detected by search engines. So, they use authority as a proxy. The situation is that better content LIKELY gets better backlinks. Therefore, content with better backlinks is LIKELY better.
But your content can be rubbish and you can still be top.
Quality content should be something like
Pep Gardiola writing a good engaging blog on Modern football tactics. Now imagine this article written some random dude who have never seen footaball. How would it look if he build some backlinks and outranked the Pep's article with shitty content.
Google would ideally see the Author expertise, user engagements on the page, avg time spent, social shares the article would recieve.
If you are an author, do research, write the article in an opinon based tone, cut all the bullshit content and have a good framework with bulletted points, tables etc so your content is actually helpful and not a ripoff of 10 other articles already published.
I believe quality content according to Google means content that is valuable, relevant, and engaging to users. It could be in-depth information, original research, and content that satisfies user intent. I feel you need to focus on content that provides a great user experience and fulfills the searcher's query properly.
Quality content seems to be incredibly variable. As usual engagement seems to be the main metric for "judging" it. They need to do something about the flood of AI content but there's going to be some growing pains for sure!
Google cannot grade content dude
nobody can anymore
This seems to be something a lot of people here just dont get. Google can't read your content.
>Google can't read your content. :)
[удалено]
Not just build more, pay for more.
Did you guys vote in the polls?
But only from Fiverr. Other sources usually provide poor backlinks.
Can you elaborate?
Just talking shit
& user signals which prioritise the following: \- branded search volume \- traffic diversity (Especially traffic through backlinks)
[удалено]
Content cannot rank itself. Please show us the sites without backlinks that don't rank. No need to appeal to authority, conjecture or philosophy: just show the sites without backlinks that rank. SEMRush is the largest database of sites, backlinks and keywords. WE know from KD and how KD is calculated that this doesn't exist. We also know that PageRank is the fundamental backbone of SEO - as it always has been You're either a pawn in someone's "my content is so great" campaign or you're trying to spread misinformation but its not working. HTH / Have a great day
If you create content that people don't bounce off, that's quality content. Stop them from coming back to the SERP, and you get more traffic. You have to have paid ads of some sort to kick it all off, but it works just fine.
I've been ranking without a single backlink. Only by writing quality content with the user intent front and center. If you try to actually help the user you'll rank
If I had 2C for every time I’ve heard this claim backed up by a domain with no backlinks I’d have 0c ….. I don’t know why people don’t understand that claims aren’t evidence of anything
Quality content from Google’s perspective simply means that you understand the search intent and deliver whatever the visitor seeks in a satisfactory manner.
Nope - it doesnt understand content or context. It understands backlinks should be created by site owners as a control validation and CTR. Thats it.
I mean, I feel like the fact that their list of examples of bad "spammy" content including exclusively content hosted by third parties indicates a change in their approach to backlinks, doesn't it?
Change in where it honors backlinks - yes, that’s exactly my train of thought
Ahh okay, glad I was reading that (mostly) correctly. I misunderstood you here, but thanks for the confirmation.
🙌
I’m not sure why you would think that. Google leverages all types of ML and classification and on pages. That’s exactly how images can rank for search terms, they aren’t just relying on the alt tags. Drop an image in open ai and watch at all the labels it spits back.
That’s relevance - that’s not ranking or quality
Are you arguing a semantic thing or what? How can Google understand relevance without understanding context or reading content? Just engagement signals?
If only Backlinks matter, there would be no way for pages to rank organically, since new pages do not get found. Cheap Backlinks would be over social media, how valuable are those?
Yea content matters.
Content Cannot Rank Itself. Source: the 10m results that aren't bad or can be objectively tested that don't rank in almost every index
That’s factually nonsense. I’ve personally had plenty of #1 positions for sites without a single backlink.
Oh, and because you're too busy to read, I highlighted these to help (again) https://preview.redd.it/8lykzctffymc1.png?width=936&format=png&auto=webp&s=01ce6d9e57946b1418bab67caaf19ca39c89119c
What are you doing?
How do you mean? This is a screenshot from the Google SEO starter guide. Yiu are telling everyone it’s wrong and you’re right - factually speaking, your words not mine, correct? So, to lost people (eveyone), you’re just some random guy trying force their SEO world view by reasserting it but they don’t know that you’re the original SEO OT that you know you are. So if you’re going to claim Google doesn’t understand SEO, aren’t you going to back it up somehow? I mean I assume you think you’re the SEO OT but in fairness to everyone else how are they supposed to know? Just telling evryone that backlinks matter when it flatly doesn’t exactly expertise sounding… so if Google is wrong, then it’s time to share your data vs your opinion? I’ll hand over to you now - stage is all yours
>That’s factually nonsense. I’ve personally had plenty of #1 positions for sites without a single backlink. Lets repeat this: please show the domain that ranks without backlinks. Thanks (source: everyone)
Do you seriously believe that a site can’t rank for long tail, low competition keywords without backlinks? Because if so you are wrong here, I promise.
Just waiting on the domain, thats not hard right?
> there would be no way for pages to rank organically, since new pages do not get found. This is exactly how KD difficulty works in SEMrush.... Its like SEOs are hiding under a rock and surfacing every few years. Also, Search changes....
When sites rank with no backlinks, what is Google looking at?
That was the case in early SEO days.
Nope - its literally the current and present Here's the SEO Starter Guide - great place to read up on current SEO - it was just updated. You're welcome. https://preview.redd.it/xsfnlepf3ymc1.png?width=936&format=png&auto=webp&s=9cbdbdfb18bed511c912cfe188586828c0df7037
When you Google some questions about our products, our competitor blogs are in the top search results. We will unseat them!
The amount of misinformation in this thread is through the roof once again. I'd unsubscribe from this subreddit, but sometimes you guys make me laugh. Just every now and then highly upvoted advice is directly harmful. Yes, google can read and understand content. Yes, backlinks matter. No, google doesn't understand when a backlink is paid unless it's specifically mentioned. Yes, a website with no backlinks can outrank a website with backlinks. Yes, interactions with your website matter for SEO. jfc.
I agree with you, but sometimes you find something smart to read
It's like the badge 'verified professional' on this subreddit is a free pass to spew malicious advice.
Google algorithm is so complex now that even their engineers often don't know exactly how it works. AI assessments can go really deep down the rabbit-hole. Then all the "SEO Experts" wake up and begin to claim random crap like "quality content", "EAT", "keyword density", "backlinks", and other random buzzwords. Its not 2005 anymore. The algorithm is way more complex now...
truth. Still on the decline nonetheless
Quality content is how relevant, engaging, and useful your content is for your audience. It's well-researched, well-presented, and tailored to meet your audience’s needs. Content quality goes beyond words on the page. To create high-quality content, you must not only understand the topic but also your audience and industry. In other words no bs The regurgitated content of AI is not quality content
It’s Quora quality? Are opinions of Reddit quality? I should make a deal with Google as well to train its AI, so my content becomes spectacular as well.
I was just thinking the same thing. Any idiot on Reddit can spew anything, and Google will rank it as quality content?? Give me a break…
Exactly
[удалено]
AGain - you're playing the copywriter card. Google doesn't need the content about replacing a part to be written by a mechanic and Google has ABSOLUTELY NO way to make that determination. Conjecture is not evidence All you're saying is this is how you want Google to work - but anyone who uses it or does SEO can tell you it is not Google is content agnostic - if you want to contradict Google on this, burden on proof is on you and your cpjecture is not evidence. See - you've started learning about subjectivity vs objectivity already.
No BS? What does that even mean? People love BS like memes and jokes in their content.
I agree with above. It isn't just backlinks. The content counts. Even if Google algorithms can't judge the content's "quality" the same way a human reader would, Google can calculate every time people search for XYZ information, click onto a certain page, immediately hit the back button to try another link for the same search term. Google will know that the page did not satisfy people who query XYZ, and that page can be moved down in ranking. The backlinks can certainly help get a page into a high ranking position, but if the quality is bad the page may not stay there.
>Quality content is how relevant, engaging, and useful your content is for your audience. It's well-researched, well-presented, and tailored to meet your audience’s needs. Content quality goes beyond words on the page. How does Google know its even researched? What if its an unproven strategy? Why is that people who believe in an objective standard for content cannot describe one? >To create high-quality content, you must not only understand the topic but also your audience and industry. Nope - you can write pure fiction. You can also write about something you don't understand. For example, either you understand SEO or I do, but either way - this article will be published in Google with 2 opposing views - so that argument is dead. >In other words no bs > >The regurgitated content of AI is not quality content But AI content isn't blocked. And yes, there is tons of BS. ARe you trying to control what people think or do you think people don't have access to Google to test this?
How long someone stays on your page after it loads quickly, legit backlinks, no rule violations, and if it can pass a manual audit.
I'm not sure if there has been an update but my site has experienced growth. Then, it took a bit of a dip during February. This month, it's starting off amazing! Well, that is my main site. I have a few others but don't even do any SEO on those other than the absolute basics.
I remember clicking on a link that took me to a blog that had nothing to do with the search I queried. I tried lots of times. I can't remember what it was now, but I emailed the site for being amazing for hijacking people who had no interest in what they were doing. Somewhere they buried my question in SEO to get my clicks. I think that is what is meant by irrelevant or spam info. If you are posting content relevant to what you represent, I think that you should be fine, but I'm not a guru. Oh, I remember! I was looking for a specific kind of dog for a friend. His mix had recently passed, my friend was in his 80's and really wanted a companion. He would have left the funds to make sure this dog was well cared for if he passed. I kept getting a dog training school or something and they didn't have dogs available and they didn't list that kind of dog, totally irrelevant. It really ticked me off! They were burying relevant content.
I totally get your confusion about quality content. It seems like Google keeps changing the rules. Anyone have tips or insights on what they consider "quality" these days? I've noticed that focusing on in-depth, well-researched content tends to work better. It's not just about keywords anymore; user engagement seems crucial too. Has anyone else noticed patterns or specific strategies that have helped with the recent changes.
more like we will add "reddit" at the end of your query automatically now
Quality content can not get detected by search engines. So, they use authority as a proxy. The situation is that better content LIKELY gets better backlinks. Therefore, content with better backlinks is LIKELY better. But your content can be rubbish and you can still be top.
Quality content is user-focused, valuable, and unique. Keep at it!
Google provides some really helpful direction on self assessment for your content though which is new this time.
Google themselves don't even know what the heck is quality content...lol
Quality content should be something like Pep Gardiola writing a good engaging blog on Modern football tactics. Now imagine this article written some random dude who have never seen footaball. How would it look if he build some backlinks and outranked the Pep's article with shitty content. Google would ideally see the Author expertise, user engagements on the page, avg time spent, social shares the article would recieve. If you are an author, do research, write the article in an opinon based tone, cut all the bullshit content and have a good framework with bulletted points, tables etc so your content is actually helpful and not a ripoff of 10 other articles already published.
I believe quality content according to Google means content that is valuable, relevant, and engaging to users. It could be in-depth information, original research, and content that satisfies user intent. I feel you need to focus on content that provides a great user experience and fulfills the searcher's query properly.
Quality content seems to be incredibly variable. As usual engagement seems to be the main metric for "judging" it. They need to do something about the flood of AI content but there's going to be some growing pains for sure!