If you could only have one Great Links or Great Content?

[Jeremy]

Before I had a root canal this week, I was lucky enough to have some deep thoughts while under the influence of Vicodin. One of the thoughts I came up with was this:

If I could start a new site with a great domain BUT I could only have one of the following, which would it be?

1. Loads of Uniques content but very few backlinks.
2. Tons of quality and authority backlinks but a static 20 page site.

Personally I have not come to a conclusion myself. Just curious to see what the rest of you would rank as more important.

[Aidan]

Hmm, but with great content comes great links.

Are implying that you will not receive any links to your site if you choose option 1?

[kaus]

i may not be the most exerienced but you can have the best of both worlds. There are a couple members here who have very small sites consisting of 20 pages at most who have done quite well and just update when necessary while others keep adding content all the time and do just as well. So I really cant say which I would prefer because I would do both

[Kyle]

Seeing this as a hypothetical question I'd say: #2 would be worth far more to me if I had to choose one to buy. It's easier to add great content after then to add high quality authority links, by far.

[Jeremy]

Yes it's totally hypothetical......

[Notspot]

No 2 - then I'd start a site like No.1 and 301 all over the place

Quite a few of us have No. 2's but are just starting out so have to spend time developing other sites as well as spending too much time researching. Not alot of time left for all the content we have in our heads to get onto the website. We'll achieve No.1 status eventually but with the backlinks of a No.2. (does that make sense?)

COME ON ENGLAND!

[Randy]

The content, definitely.

First of all, a 20 page site, just by virtue of being only 20 pages, can only rank for a limited number of phrases, which limits the amount of search engine traffic you can potentially receive.

Second, lots of good quality content will result in the volume and quality of links you're looking for anyway.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Randy

The content, definitely.

First of all, a 20 page site, just by virtue of being only 20 pages, can only rank for a limited number of phrases, which limits the amount of search engine traffic you can potentially receive.

Second, lots of good quality content will result in the volume and quality of links you're looking for anyway.

How often does lots of good quality content result in " 2. Tons of quality and authority backlinks" ? And how long would that normally take as opposed to taking a site with 20 pages but tons of authority links, then throwing up some content?

[GregK]

Content.
It always has been & always will be a requirement for top results.
One of very few constants in this game.
Links are fickle, to say the least.

[Kyle]

Furthermore, in terms of pure value #2. is the winner by far.

Let's say #2 has a "ton" of authority links when in reality 50 may be a ton. You are going to look at mid $x,xxx and higher for a solid link on any of these sites (for those that even sell them). Now you are looking at a value of roughly 50 x $5,000 = $250,000 (a month). We can only assume these links are free and permanent as it is purely hypothetical.

Now assuming there isn't a dream team of content writers including Anthony Robbins and Steve Pavlina that wrote the site in option #1, you are going to need to see a value of $250,000 a month from the already great content on that site to make it the better choice (which is pretty much impossible). And it has to be powerful enough for link bait. That's why I still say #2 is far the better option, get the site with links already pointing to it and then expand the site.