Copy that: Interview with Danny Sullivan, Editor, Search Engine Watch.
Does visible, HTML text really contribute to higher search engine rankings? We put our theory to the test in this interview with Danny Sullivan, Editor of Search Engine Watch and Search Engine Strategies conference guru.
Q: Quite a bit of attention has been paid to Meta tags and submission tricks for high rankings. What part does relevant content play in the search engine marketing equation? How important is keyword-rich content in an SEO campaign?
Danny Sullivan: To me, quality content is the bedrock to success. If you have a firm foundation, good material that also makes use of the key terms you want to be found for, everything else only adds to helping it succeed. Without that foundation, you could still get some success, but like a house with a bad foundation, you might find that success falling down around you in the long-term. Do it right, the first time.
Q: You still see companies spending thousands on Flash or graphics-based sites. Would a non-HTML index page (like Flash) ever receive higher rankings in the spidering search engines than a content-rich HTML page (barring any spam or unethical techniques)?
Danny Sullivan: Perhaps if there are enough people linking to the page that link analysis determines it is very relevant for a particular phrase. However, the more assured approach is to have a content- rich site. There is a lot that can be done to make HTML attractive, and that might be more usable for humans, as well as pleasing spiders.
Q: What is the danger of focusing all your writing efforts on the search engine spiders and ignoring your prospects? How should SEO writing be balanced between search engines and prospects?
Danny Sullivan: Getting people to your site is only half the battle. You want them to convert. It's like having a big promotion to get people to come to your store; but then when they walk through the front door they see a big brick wall in their faces. Where are the products? What do you want them to do? The "arrival" page someone sees when they come from a search engine into your site should clearly show how your site will satisfy the original query and easily guide users to the destination you have in mind.
Q: Is search engine writing only appropriate for sites or pages that sell? Or, can other types of information (like press releases or articles) benefit from a keyphrase strategy?
Danny Sullivan: Any content can benefit from being well optimized. It only takes a few seconds to do some basic things that can help, so it shouldn't be an issue of, "This content isn't worth it."
Q: Algorithms change and search engines come and go. How does strong site content contribute to a long-term ranking strategy?
Danny Sullivan: I think it is essential. Good content pleases people; people then link to it, and links are enduring. They'll keep you flying in the long run, while tricks to please a specific algorithm change, leaving you hanging the next time the algorithm is altered.
Q: In your opinion, what percentage of companies are truly leveraging their site content for higher rankings (having a strong keyphrase strategy and keyphrase-rich writing, etc.)?
Danny Sullivan: Really no idea. There are various surveys that usually tend to find companies are ignoring this, but the surveys often come from SEO firms trying to build up awareness and prospects. Having said that, I don't doubt lots of companies are failing to do what they should, if only because I'm continually surprised during things like the Site Clinic sessions at our Search Engine Strategies conference to see even the basic tips not being followed for very large, important sites.
Q: Do you see the search engines changing their preferred indexing format from HTML to another format (like Flash)? Why or why not?
Danny Sullivan: I don't see them changing. Everyone is set up to handle HTML by default, and it is textual information that provides easy-to-digest content. Not everyone can handle Flash, so search engines have no incentive to start sending those with ill-equipped browsers to Flash-required sites. In addition, the Flash I've typically seen doesn't communicate a lot of content. It tends to be visual and, well, flashy. How is a search engine supposed to understand a Flash-splash page that perhaps only shows pictures of different products? What does that really mean?
(Note: Fast/AlltheWeb was the first search engine to index Flash. However, Flash sites seem not to position as well as their HTML counterparts. Will this change? Stay tuned!)