So you think you're an SEO expert?

[The Old Sarge]

I'm not implying it, I'm saying it outright.

If you go to http://www.google.com/corporate/tech.html (which is in a link from YOUR link) you'll find this:

"PageRank Technology: PageRank reflects our view of the importance of web pages by considering more than 500 million variables and 2 billion terms. Pages that we believe are important pages receive a higher PageRank and are more likely to appear at the top of the search results."

"... more likely to appear ..." That's because sites/pages that garner high PR for content and backlinks very likely also have fine-tuned SEO. Notice that it does not come right out and say that backlinks result in better SERPs. It says " ... more likely ..."

A site can have all the backlinks from all the sites on the Internet with PR 5 or higher but if that site's SEO is neglected or non-existant, it is not likely to place very highly in the SERPs.

If you have hard evidence that backlinks result in better SERPs, please share it. IMO, this is not it. I could be wrong but so far I've seen no evidnece that I am.

[mikeyvegas]

Got it

I think we are splitting hairs. I thought you were saying backlinks don't play a role in SERP. What I am saying is backlinks are an important factor just like on-page optimization. One without the other will get you nothing.

So then my question is, once you optimize a page for a keyword and you get your ranking, say #23. How do you move up to #20? If your on page optimization is done, it's done. There is nothing more you can do on-page to move that ranking. Then you have to start generating backlinks. More highly relevant backlinks from quality sources, further up the rankings you move. Otherwise you would sit stagnant at #23.

If you disagree, which I think you do please help me understand how to move rankings after on-page SEO is complete. And provide evidence to support. That evidence would be a page that ranks well for a keyword with little to no backlinks compared to the pages around it.

I have evidence that shows a blank page with no optimization ranking for keywords simply based on the fact that it has a few back links. Standby and let me find it again.

Thanks,
Mike

[The Old Sarge]

I disagee. I got one of my sights to #1 in all three major SEs and several of the other lesser SEs with nothing but keyword/keyphrase usage and META tags. The site was at #1 long before I started any sort of linking program.

If your site isn't #1, IMO, your SEO is not complete. Study the sites above you and see what they do that you are not.

As for that blank page, are you sure that it doesn't rate high for the keywords used as anchor text rather than the actual links? And how is it possible to have no optimization at all? lol One word on the page optimizes it for that word ... even if that word is used as anchor text for a link. It's certainly not as completely optimized as it would be if it had honest to goodness valuable content with good keywords, but minimally optimzed (is that an oxymoron? lol ) nonetheless.

[mikeyvegas]

I am not doubting the necessity of on-page SEO. However, I am saying that telling people that all they need to do to rank #1 is on-page SEO is not the complete story.

If on page was all you needed to do why would you start a linking program on that site you got ranked #1? Your watercolor site has 8K links. That seems like a lot of effort if you could achieve #1 rankings for any keyword by on-page alone.

Yes there are keywords that you can rank for using strictly on page SEO, however for highly competitive keywords you absolutely must do more.

And of course it's the anchor text pointing to that blank page that is causing it to rank for that keyword. I am not sure I understood your question.

Please feel free to provide an example of #1 rankings with little or no link building. Or we could run a test. Create two stand-alone pages on a domain. Pick a target keyword. On one page, focus on on-page optimization. On the second page, post some unrelated text but fire a bunch of links at it. See which one shows up in the SERPS fastest and highest. I guarantee the linked page will rank first and highest. Oh and do a 3rd page with very little on page and fire some links and I bet it will cream both of the other two results.

Therefore you need to optimize on page because it is fast and easy but long term you need to focus on link building in order to increase rankings.

[The Old Sarge]

I am not doubting the necessity of on-page SEO. However, I am saying that telling people that all they need to do to rank #1 is on-page SEO is not the complete story.

I've never told anyone that. What I've said is that backlinks do not contribute to SERPs.

... why would you start a linking program on that site you got ranked #1?

To bring more targeted traffic. And so visitors to either site have access to sites they may not have been aware of. THere's more to a Web site's purpose than SERPs.

Your watercolor site has 8K links. That seems like a lot of effort if you could achieve #1 rankings for any keyword by on-page alone.

99.9% of that is incidental. Things I didn't have to really "work at". Things like my signature right here. And if you notice, that anchor text in my signature IS my keyphrase for which the site ranks #1. Likewise nearly 100% of the backlinks I've developed. I insist that they use that keyphrase as the anchor text. So ... is it the links or the anchor text? I maintain that it's the anchor text.

And of course it's the anchor text pointing to that blank page that is causing it to rank for that keyword. I am not sure I understood your question.

My point is that the blank page ranks for the words that make up the anchor text, not for the actual links themselves. You know ... "Original Watercolor Art" as opposed to the actual url ... http://www.plumedarcher.com

Please feel free to provide an example of #1 rankings with little or no link building. Or we could run a test. Create two stand-alone pages on a domain. Pick a target keyword. On one page, focus on on-page optimization. On the second page, post some unrelated text but fire a bunch of links at it. See which one shows up in the SERPS fastest and highest. I guarantee the linked page will rank first and highest. Oh and do a 3rd page with very little on page and fire some links and I bet it will cream both of the other two results.

Tests? lol How do you think I came to my current opinion that backlinks don't contribute to SERPs? Would you like to hear how I got another page to rank in the top 5 of Google with nothing on the page but images and the alt tags for those images?

[mikeyvegas]

As I thought, we are splitting hairs. Of course it is the anchor text. I was never implying that a link, in and of itself, contributes to SERPs. Without the anchor text the search engine has no way of knowing what the link means.

And I considering posting your site on link directories, reciprocal linking and/or using a link manager to be work. Which is how most of your 8K links have been generated.

So as I said before, they key to high SERPs is by on-page optimization and high quality link building using relevant anchor text. One without the other is futile, as is a link without proper anchor text.

Congratulations on having a great system that allowed you to get #1 rankings for important keywords for your business.

I've always loved painting....poorly. And I think watercolor is the toughest way to paint. You have some beautiful work.

[The Old Sarge]

... link building using relevant anchor text.

You mean we've been talking about the same thing all along?! lol

Seriously, I wish some other folks would/could understand the difference between links (actual urls) and anchor text..

Thanks for the kind words about the paintings. But I must tell you ... they're not mine. My sister-in-law is the artist.

[Boat]

SEO is really a hard work for me. I am new in this line. Feel difficult to going on

[C0ldf1re]

Would you like to hear how I got another page to rank in the top 5 of Google with nothing on the page but images and the alt tags for those images?

Yes, please! (Please use small words to let the n00bs understand.)

[goodscool]

The top priority of SEO should be the content!

[C0ldf1re]

The top priority of SEO should be the content!

Well, yes, "should". But when you find that nobody is finding your content, you start to wonder about the SEO "tricks".

[C0ldf1re]

lolz its not only claim. its work in practice man.

3oltan's post that started this thread made quite an impression on me. It seemed a sensible plan to find out where my high-ranking competitors had got back-links, and do the same as they did but do it better.

Unfortunately, things have been difficult. There are some sites linking to my competitors' sites. I know the links are there because I can see them in the page source, and they aren't no-follow either. All the same, Google won't disclose them.

I ask Google to tell me "link: www.theirwebsite.com" and I only get told part of the whole answer.

Can anyone help me by suggesting how I discover the back-links that Google is keeping quiet about?

[The Old Sarge]

3oltan's post that started this thread made quite an impression on me. It seemed a sensible plan to find out where my high-ranking competitors had got back-links, and do the same as they did but do it better.

Unfortunately, things have been difficult. There are some sites linking to my competitors' sites. I know the links are there because I can see them in the page source, and they aren't no-follow either. All the same, Google won't disclose them.

I ask Google to tell me "link: www.theirwebsite.com" and I only get told part of the whole answer.

Can anyone help me by suggesting how I discover the back-links that Google is keeping quiet about?

As for what backlinks high PR sites might have, be aware that some of the highest PR sites don't participate in any sort of linking at all. Their site's are high PR for content, and possibly enormously high traffic.

Go to http://www.sears.com/ (Sears, PR 7) and see if you can find links to anything except more Sears -owned sites.

Go to http://www.si.edu/ (The Smithsonian Instituion, PR 8). What externeal links can you find?

Now, where can you find links TO these sites, rather than FROM them? You'll have to try the "link:www....." again with each site. As to the backlinks Google is keeping quite about? Are you sure they're keeping quite or is it a matter of simply not listing them all?

[C0ldf1re]

As to the backlinks Google is keeping quite about? Are you sure they're keeping quite or is it a matter of simply not listing them all?

Isn't "not listing" the same as "not telling", and isn't that the same as "keeping quiet"?

Of course, your point about backlinks not being essential is valid. I know it. I did a site years ago without trying for any backlinks, because I didn't even know what backlinks were. I just told the search engines about the site, and enough people searched for my content to bring the site up to page rank 3. All the same, perhaps doing SEO would have got the site an even higher rank and visibility.

Unless 3oltan, and lots of other clever people, are deluding themselves, backlinks do help.

[The Old Sarge]

Isn't "not listing" the same as "not telling", and isn't that the same as "keeping quiet"?

Not necessarily. It may be a simple matter of abridgment. I don't see how keeping links a secret could benefit anyone involved.