Site Pro News is a great resource, and one that I look at daily. Late last week, I came across a great story on linking and SEO, two things that confuse a lot of folks. So in an attempt to provide value to readers of this blog, as a digital concierge, of sorts, I wanted to add a link to this site. The story is called Links 101 – Puritans, The Puerile & The Pragmatic by Ben Kemp, who also maintains his own blog called The SEO Guy, and as far as I can tell, this is the most brief and definitive discussion on the place of links and SEO I’ve come across. I’ve wanted to take the time to discuss these same things, but when I read Ben’s article, I decided why should I reinvent the wheel, I’ll just repost this article. I highly recommend that anybody interested in linking and SEO, or for those just confused by the whole things, read this story.

Alright, so the series seems to be taking off, see my last post here, because this morning, even with all the coffee in the world, I couldn’t shake the idea of talking about keywords.

Back in the pre-Google era SEO was wholly dependent on keywords, specifically, meta tags. Meta tags ruled; you could put them anywhere, but the head tag was where the most scrupulous Web master put them, as they would only be seen by bots, not humans; however, the system game approach was to put them EVERYWHERE… particularly, you would see them in the body of the Web page, dozens and dozens, sometimes hundreds of keywords that attracted the bots of the day to what may have amounted to one paragraph of content, that frequently wasn’t relevant, or had a page full of ads, or a link to an affiliate program or something… The search engine would get you to a page like this, but you would never come back, because it was a bust, a waste of time.

Enter the Google era… keywords still ruled, meta tags didn’t hurt, but wait there’s more! This is where the SEO content writer piece comes in that I talked about in the previous installment. As I said before, in the old days you just wrote and if the writing was good, and the site had a good search ranking over all (probably due to the intersection of keyword placement and keyword-infused content), it would probably get picked up, but Google changed the game; not only did you have to write good content, and have a pretty good ranking, but now a contributor to your ranking was indicated by folks who linked or referenced you, kind of an early form of the wisdom of the crowds, before the term had been established.

Keywords are still very important, but they play a slightly different role, or rather the writer has a slightly different role when it comes to the placement of the keywords in the narrative; I’ve found that there are two basic rules of thumb:

• Write good content
• Infuse good content with keywords

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, there’s no shortcut to getting a good search ranking, but these two rules greatly diminish the time it takes to get picked up. For instance, let’s look at this post. This post has numerous references to the terms: keywords, SEO and Google. These get the post half-way home as far as ranking is concerned, if someone happens to be looking for info on these items, but if people start to link to this page or reference it, Google will say, ‘hey, wait a minute, we need to give this page a higher ranking’… I can’t emphasize the two basic rules of content and keywords enough…