Is on page optimisation useless?

[malcolmcroucher]

There is a theory going on that on page optimisation is useless and that links are all that is required ?

I am wondering what the general feeling is about this ?

Regards

Malcolm

[Receptional Andy]

That's an easy one, Malcolm: such a theory is nonsense ;)

I can write a 500-word article and start attracting referrals before the average link monkey has started his breakfast ;)

I think a few factors contribute to this myth:

- The basics of on-page SEO are easily understood and widely implemented. More sites seem to struggle with basic link building techniques
- If you have a well-formed article, but poor performance, then yes, you probably need more links

The truth is you need to get both aspects right to reach "optimal" performance levels.

Let's put the theory another way. How should a site like the BBC get more search engine referrals easily? IMO the answer is content - new content, fixing older content and fixing any site-wide issues. They have the "link problem" sorted.

Search engines index words - there are always going to be more words within content than words within links. Neither links without content or content without links will take you where you want to go.

[edited by: Receptional_Andy at 10:11 am (utc) on Nov. 3, 2008]

[AnkitMaheshwari]

This is something which is completely in our control. Moreover, the better the page titles and content/information the better it is for the users (especially the returning users).

[Shaddows]

Also, if your try too hard at on page optimisation, you usually hit a penalty. Someone a while back suggested that each indicator is on a bell-curve. If you go past the peak, you slide down the SERPS.

The same cannot be said about links- each link either gives you some boost, or no boost, but not negative 'boost'.

Personally, I find that writing good content gets you better ranked, more stably, for longer. Pay attentioon to W3C guidelies for mark-up, and you will:

1) Not trip OOP
2) Get natural, relevent, editorial IBLs without (much) further effort
3) Do well on the clever new patents Google files on semantics / co-occurance / synonyms etc.

YMMV

[tangor]

Just write content. Link it properly. There comes a time the games playing bites you in the @ss.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

Search engines index words - there are always going to be more words within content than words within links. Neither links without content or content without links will take you where you want to go.

I am playing the Devil's Advocate here and actually that statement may not be strictly true and here's an example. I am in the UK and if I Google <a generic product type> <a major manufacturer>'s website is on the first page of 363 million results, in position five. Strangely the word does not appear anywhere on the home page apart from the title so it certainly looks like it didn't get there for it's content.

[edited by: BeeDeeDubbleU at 12:22 pm (utc) on Nov. 3, 2008]

[edited by: Receptional_Andy at 1:39 pm (utc) on Nov. 3, 2008]
[edit reason] No specifics, please [/edit]

[Receptional Andy]

I don't actually see that as a counter-example. Ranking for a single word is almost always dependent on lots of links. Ranking for thousands of word combinations is dependent on content.

Look at it another way. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that a word in a link to another URL is treated as if it's present on the destination URL itself - so you can rank for words you don't mention anywhere on-page. Even with the strongest link profile, there's going to be a limited range of words involved - a limited focus that could be massively expanded with suitable content.