Does content really matter at all?

[superclown2]

I have a five year old domain I didn't really know what to do with. Three years ago I decided to target a useful search term but being busy I only wanted a temporary placeholder so I put up a humorous essay that only briefly touched on the subject with junk graphics and then forgot about it. The page did well after a few months and sat at around no.5 for the term for a couple of years. Why? Search me.

About three months ago I re-did it completely with eye catching graphics and copy that finely focussed on the search term without over-optimisation. The result was a huge increase in conversions. However the site still sits at no 5 for the search term. I have done nothing for the last three years to promote the site.

So; is content irrelevant or am I missing something?

[netmeg]

Content is only part of it. User experience is up there too. In fact these days I spend more time on user experience than on content. Yea I SAID it.

[RedBar]

About three months ago I re-did it completely

I have experienced similar this past year or so with several sites which I had completely overhauled into html5 responsive. Seemingly all my hard work was pointless until Panda 4.0 and then they all got a big boost and all are ranking where I would have expected them to.

Since Panda 4.0 I have updated two other sites and these are now sitting there waiting, I assume, for Panda 5.0 before "whatever" happens!

In the next couple of months I have a brand new site under a new domain being launched therefore it will be interesting to see just how Google reacts to that, do we have a new form of sandbox?

[superclown2]

Content is only part of it. User experience is up there too. In fact these days I spend more time on user experience than on content. Yea I SAID it.

Usually I would agree absolutely. But this site, prior to the update, was junk. User experience would have been negative to say the least. One of my theories is that the title (which I haven't changed) had a lot to do with the popularity of it and that after clicking on the SERPs link many visitors went straight to the affiliate link, which was quite prominent. If this is correct then for both visitors and Google the content was barely relevant.

Alternatively; perhaps the fact that the site loaded quickly with just text and simple graphics, and the theme was so different to any of the competing sites may have made the difference. Google likes unique content and it was certainly that!

It is interesting to note that most of my mobile-optimised pages have hardly any content at all (they do of course contain links to pages with more information but hardly anyone clicks on them) but they still convert at least as well as the full sized, all-singing all-dancing multimedia pages designed for viewing on a computer. So does anyone actually look at this stuff? My sites are commercial ones so I often wonder if visitors are only interested in getting a quote and the rest is just so much fluff.

[superclown2]

I have experienced similar this past year or so with several sites which I had completely overhauled into html5 responsive. Seemingly all my hard work was pointless until Panda 4.0 and then they all got a big boost and all are ranking where I would have expected them to.

I had a similar experience with several sites which, again, only benefitted from a lot of work at the time of the Panda update. I had others though which responded much earlier to improvements. I've often wondered if G categorise websites or search terms somehow and treat them in different ways in order to keep us confused.

[EditorialGuy]

I've often wondered if G categorise websites or search terms somehow and treat them in different ways in order to keep us confused.

Or maybe just to satisfy user expectations.

[brotherhood of LAN]

Has there been any other movement in the results for the query?

[superclown2]

Has there been any other movement in the results for the query?

Yep, the normal flux.

[bumpski]

Google seems to have a lack of fresh content lock down filter. The statistical characteristics of a site seem to be frozen, regardless of changes, unless significant new content is added.

An example, a specific keyword has been removed from numerous pages on a site for several months, Google's cache has long reflected the revised content, but even though the keyword is missing from the pages, Google's index still acts as if the keyword is on numerous pages. I do not know the time constant of this statistics lock down filter. I do know that changes to a title of a page are still almost immediately updated in the index, This particular site has gone through a plethora of technical changes for performance, and support of mobile browsers, but new content (pages) have truly been lacking for a significant period.

I do believe if you have intentionally localized sites, Panda treats you much more generously. If your site is smallish and not locality targeted, it is held to a much higher ranking standard (throttled). I also believe Google has incorrectly localized many sites, even significantly large sites, that unfortunately have provided Google with unintended locality information, call it casual conversation on some pages.

Anyway, some conjecture, some factual observations.

[iammeiamfree]

I have recently moved servers and the hosts changed the ip address before all the files had migrated. There was some loss of traffic due to inability to record it but rankings look around the same. I have just come across one page ranking in number 2 spot for its main keywords with title from internal link and description reading:

"Index of /. Name Last modified Size Description. Proudly Served by so and so web server at domain.com on Port 80."

Not a problem since the real content is back up but still a funny one.