I present to you a free translation of an article by the optimizer Ross Hudgens, who is well-known in SEO circles, from his series of articles on link building: Content Link Efficacy: Understanding Why Great Content Fails.
In an ideal Internet environment, search engines will rank the content by the quality of the information they provide, that is, by the ability of the content to most accurately respond to the user's request. Search engine algorithms will be so powerful that they will be able to determine both good grammar and sophisticated design, and possible costs for the delivery of goods, and even offer the necessary goods. Googl’s acquisition of the Like service. com, specializing in visual search, may indicate that soon this service can learn to determine the necessary style in fashion, and some experts suggest that a step in this direction is not far off.
Now, we are stuck in an alternative world, where we have to expend energy on “pushing” quality content for better ranking, instead of just focusing on creating quality content and knowing that search engines will do the same its ranking. In search results it often turns out that each vertical (niche) is isolated, i.e. the search results are too “one-sided”, and the ability of high-quality content to transform into qualitative search results may vary in elements depending on the type of site. And although the potential of sites providing high-quality content in their niche is quite high (inside this niche), sites in less popular niches can easily bypass websites from more popular niches in the search results by attracting the necessary funding to create a large network of "unnatural" backlinks. 2>
The “attractiveness” of content consists in the ability of quality content to transform into a reference mass, in other words, how much content has the same quality on different re ursah differs in the ability to generate the links, thus improving, own ranking in the search results.
This article presents conditional segmentation of site types, which gives an idea of how and why a specific topic (niche, vertical) can affect growth or, conversely, lead to the absence of reference link growth, even for high-quality content in a certain niche. . Let's start with the most attractive left side of the scale, where social services (blogs) are located, and finish in the unattractive right side of the scale, where sites are unacceptable by public morality.
Examples of sites: FunnyOrDie, YouTube, NewYorkTimes, TechCrunch
Similar Sites are not traditional blogs in the sense of having written content (posts), but they borrowed their “relevance” from blogs, ie, constant updating and frequent uploading of new content. For example, ICanHasCheezburger often uploads images of cats. As a result, a constant stream funny and funny pictures create a lot of backlinks. Similarly, the New York Times and TechCrunch post Only fresh news blocks, most of which are so well written and informative, that this itself stimulates crowds of bloggers to refer to these materials.
Since these services have constantly updated content bases, this leads to high return rates visitors and the duration of the study (viewing) resources, so they have a high potential for a constant increase in the links in contrast to other types of resources. For example, a site like the New York Times can attract thousands of "deep" backlinks (deeplinks) from just one blog, so this type of content makes these resources the most "link attractive" content providers on the web.
Examples of sites: Best Buy, NewEgg, Cafepress, Zappos
These are sites about products, they are quite “social” to talk about them, but the constant need for users to visit services of this kind (“lack the framework”) does not affect the return rates and the duration of the study by users of such resources. Most of these sites have blogs, but due to the “product orientation” of such sites, there is no opportunity to create a viral marketing platform, as in the above-mentioned resources of the first type. Such resources can sometimes spread a good infographic or related articles that will create backlinks, but even in this case, the ability of such resources to create a steady flow of links when adding new content is quite low in contrast to the resources that create a constantly updated stream of content.
However, these social and, at the same time, product-oriented sites are often discussed outside the network, so this type of site is good enough to attract multiple links due to the quality content they publish. Some examples of the most famous of these sites are: Best Buy, Fry's, or Sony. Related e-commerce sites are sites like Cafepress, Savings or Zappos, which are often referenced due to their good product offerings. Other examples of sites of this type are university sites or online applications.
Examples of sites (niches): insurance, real estate, transportation of goods, online training
Socially acceptable resources with static content that attracts links to themselves mainly due to the niche focus of resources. Such resources can create guidelines on how to build a house or stitch a T-shirt, but since this type of content is attractive for a limited group of users, it is also ineffective from the point of view of viral marketing, and accordingly the ceiling of “link efficiency” of such content is more low than in the previous two options. However, the wider the user base of such resources, the greater the likelihood that these users will communicate on relevant niche topics with their friends, thus increasing the specificity of these resources to generate links by placing quality content.
The closer we get to the part of the diagram where the least demanded types of resources are, the lower the potential of quality content to generate link mass, this is true even for the best content for These types of sites, for example, sites like Burial Insurance, Medigap, or Streamline Refinance can create algorithms that will compare the prices of service providers in real time based on specified criteria. Sounds interesting, yes? However, the likelihood that in this way it will be possible to collect links from more than a few news sites in a given niche will be very low. However, it is enough to take only one step towards “Social services that create static content”, and take, for example, travel comparison websites (trips), then we can see that they attract hundreds of thousands of links only with their engines for comparing travel vouchers.
Most likely, there may even be insurance comparison sites, but I don’t know about them, since nobody tells me about them for the simple reason that they are just not interesting to me, moreover, I think that such resources are not interesting for people from my environment to share them. with me.
Examples of sites (niches): pornography, pharma, casino / gambling, loans secured by wages
Sites in such niches as a casino, crediting on the security of future salary or pornography - nether network, its “bottom”. These types of sites can create the most amazing content in the world, but have absolutely no return on this content. Some of these “secret” topics, such as pornography or casinos, people only discuss with their closest / intimate partners, so it’s very unlikely that people will put their addictions on these topics in public. This means that the content doesn’t create links, and since few people will create public links to content of this type, search engines will not have the slightest idea of which site in the niche has better quality content.
Thus, creating high-quality content in these niches The labo influences the ranking results, and the winner is often the one who created the link mass using various “unnatural” methods that have nothing to do with the content presented on the site’s pages (which can still have the ability to form natural links to ).
So, what conclusions can webmasters and SEO specialists do for themselves? You need to focus your efforts in the places that are most important to your site. If your site belongs to the first category and focuses on social functions and fresh content, then the more time and effort you spend on building unique and high-quality content, the more useful it will be for search engines and for the overall success of the site. If your site is less socially oriented, then most of the time should be devoted to creating content, the value of which will diminish slightly over time, this will allow the content to be “linkable” in the long run.
The diagram below gives an approximate estimate of the amount of time you, as an SEO optimizer, have to spend on each piece of the puzzle known to optimizers called “Collect links.” This is not a scientific graph, but it is a good scale for assessing how much time / effort you need to spend on creating “linkable” content or on manipulating the link mass depending on the type of your site and, unfortunately, these approaches vary greatly, both in time and in effort. m I suggest you use both methods, observing a reasonable balance.
If your goal is to create an adult content site or a casino, you still need high-quality content to attract and retain users, but this is clearly not the type of content , which itself will collect links to itself. Thus, to create sites of these types, it is necessary to completely separate the tasks of creating design / design and search promotion.
On the other hand, sites on the subject of mesothelioma (cancer) or crediting salary does not impose any special requirements for content, thus, all that is needed for them is mediocre content on a given topic, sufficient internal (on-page) optimization of the text on the page and a design sufficient for users to perceive the content. Since most users of such sites are unlikely to come back, others chips are simply not needed.
Optimizers should look for ways to get links despite the theme of the site being optimized - this can be done using existing business links, link catalogs or paid links. At the very bottom, on the sites of "slippery" topics, the ability to manipulate the amount of reference mass is the most correct way, even if this is achieved using paid links or other similar methods.