Google doesn't like content anymore - am I wrong?

[specter]

I have some good pages on my site: they are unique, rich in quality contents, but they are far from getting a good ranking on G.
On the contrary, I see in top position for my "niche", pages with no text, or even removed...

That is the new Google policy?
Do contents have definitely loosen their importance?


Thanks

[Planet13]

Google Panda places heavy emphasis on brand factor. The page of the branded site could have zero content but they would still rank well because of better brand score.

While I agree that google has been giving brands a lot of love lately, I just saw a a particular exception.

I bought a digital camera from a well known manufacturer (you could argue that they are THE most well-known manufacturer), and I needed to download the manual, since this manufacturer doesn't supply a printed manual with this particular camera.

Since I knew the manual was available in pdf format on the manufacturer's site, I did a search for:

[Camera Brand] [Camera Model] manual pdf

Surprisingly, the camera manufacturer's result was number 13 - as in Page 2 of the SERPs. Instead, the first 12 results were littered with lots of independent MFA sites that have keyword-rich domains and hotlink to the manuals on the manufacturer's sites.

You would think these sites would have either been relegated by the main algo, or Panda slapped into obscurity by now. But they are still holding down the fort. I actually felt a little sentimental seeing all the dregs up at the surface.

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

Obviously the quality of content should be the #1 ranking factor but it isn't.

Actually I don't think this is true. Shouldn't the number one result be the most appropriate for the search query?

[specter]

Define "appropriate"...

I see that the only difference between the number 1 site and the mine one for my niche, is the number of inbound links...still that?

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

Define "appropriate"...

adj.
Suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place; fitting.

;)

[specter]

...and what about +1 feature?

[tedster]

I see that the only difference between the number 1 site and the mine one for my niche, is the number of inbound links...still that?

If other factors are roughly equal(like authority, trust, popularity, quality and relevance) then backlinks are definitely the big dog, yes. But it's not the "number" of backlinks. The number of linking DOMAINS is important, as well as the strength of the pages that are serving the backlink. So a higher raw number alone doesn't do it.

...and what about +1 feature?

A little too new to say anything definitive about that - at least as far as I can see.

[specter]

Do directory listings still worth anything?...

[chrisv1963]

and what about +1 feature?

I don't think that +1 has a lot of value. Visitors don't seem to be interested in this.

I put a page online a couple of weeks ago and it has already more than 50 Facebook Likes, and ... 0 +1's

[Pjman]

Unless you're in a techie niche, + is worthless.

In my niches, no one has G accounts at all. I have 2 mega sites (8 million + page views a month). I added a like button, within a month I had a few hundred likes per page.

I added +, in 3 months 2 +s over the whole site. What a was of bandwidth. Removing + buttons as we speak.

[Zivush]

Yes. +1 has little to no value but I don't know what the future will bring, so I don't delete it yet.