Last night something hit me – the logical conclusion of Google’s anti-spam drive is that individual pages with rank according to the quality of their link profiles.
In other words – pages will rank best if many people are linking to them.
I know – that in itself isn’t a revelation – but it’s not the ranking of the page that concerns me, but of any links on the pages for link building purposes.
I’m thinking specifically about Jim Boykin’s post here: Tips for finding the best pages to get links from
which shows that the great value links are on pages which themselves have many other sites linking to that page. Here’s Jim’s graphic:
He also continues the argument here – Get backlinks from pages with backlinks.
It’s hard to argue that it isn’t a great ideal – but we all probably know you can have links far removed from that ideal and still rank a site on Google at the moment.
But for how much longer?
There’s a difference between Google giving such pages *some* weight vs *most* weight.
In other words, I can envisage a day when Google will turn the known on link weight on such pages up to the point that only links from such pages can significantly matter.
Think about the outcome – you’ll only see content pages from major authorities for major information searches.
The effect would be that Google would hardly lose out – they’ve been focused on anti-spam rather than relevancy for the past couple of years.
But for publishers, it means the small sites get a ride on an ever diminishing marketshare.
Look at Google’s SERPs. We’re already part-way through the process.
Now how does this affect content development for link building?
Simply put, there’s little point building content that no one links to. It requires a focus on making people want to revisit the site and link to its content.
That means publishers who want to take advantage of link building – such as myself – need to focus on developing Remarkable websites.
Creating Passionate Users posts the following graphic:
That means for web publishers, you need to be at the extremes.
I’m no good at trying to play bad guy for link baiting. Just not in my character. So I’m left with making sites that people can love.
I figure to do that requires:
1. Frequently updated content
Frequently updated content is almost a cliche now, but if you check what the major players are doing in your niche, this is the rate that needs to be matched.
2. Unique content
You can’t simply have a site filled with rewritten content only. You need a unique handle. For example, rewrite a couple of stories into a single story makes for a unique story. Not a great story. But in volume you’re offering something different.
And the bottom line – it needs investment.
It’s too easy to see a good site break a profit and try to grab the profits only. But the big warning is that having a good site is not enough – you need to make it remarkable.
You need to invest in making poor sites good, and good sites remarkable.
The ideal being you can cash in a larger reward later down the road.
One of my key link building strategies has been to create content and build links from that, but I see already I desperately need to change tact to play catch-up.
I need to ensure I invest as much as possible in content generation, so that as a publisher I’m creating very regularly updated unique content on a number of sites.
My main focus in this strategy is news – and I can already see that rewriting from news sources simply isn’t enough. What’s required is a closer interraction with social media sites, not simply to help attract attention to your remarkable site, but keep the traffic there – defensible traffic, in other words.
I’m now reveiwing my overall publishing strategy. I want high quality pages, which can deliver high quality links.
And that means I must now invest more to make those sites remarkable.
ADDED: ProBlogger just posted some great news gathering tips.
Related posts to:
"Content development for links needs to be remarkable":
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Previous: « iPhone – I want one!
Next: eyeOS a threat to Google and Microsoft? »
Visited 5287 times, 1 so far today since July 24th 2007